Readers, sorry, this is a long post, but it’s one of the weirder, more disturbing neighborhood disputes I’ve ever come across. The illustration at left says a lot.
On a rainy night two weeks ago, more than 200 residents of Saranap, an older unincorporated neighborhood between Walnut Creek and Lafayette, gathered together. It was the first general meeting of a new campaign called Save Our Saranap.
These were a fraction of the nearly 750 residents who have signed onto this campaign, many anguished and frustrated by a series of disturbing events that have taken place in their neighborhood over the past year.
These events all swirl around on a development, a massive, 66,000-square-foot white domed sanctuary, or “school of worship,” that a Saranap-based religious organization wants to build in their neighborhood.
The organization is called Sufism Reoriented, and the aerial view is above. Sufism Reoriented is based in Saranap and has some 350 members, about half of whom live in there. Save Our Saranap members say they have co-existed with Sufism members peacefully for decades.
Why wouldn’t there be a long history of harmony with Sufism members? After all, Sufism Reoriented says its teachings are “designed for individuals who strive to devote their lives to the love of God through service” and whose members “work in harmony with all religions.” Despite its name, the organization is not affiliated with Islam, but follows the teachings of the late Meher Baba, a spiritual leader from India who chartered the organization in 1952.
Sufism Reoriented also runs the well-regarded White Pony preschool and Meher K-5 Schools in the neighborhood. Some Save Our Saranap members send their children to the Meher school. I, myself, have friends and acquaintances who send or have sent their children to these schools; all report positive educational and social experiences for their kids.
By the way, I don’t live in Saranap, but have friends who do and who have signed onto the Save Our Saranap campaign.
So, what happened to make everything go so wrong?
Late last spring, these friends started telling me head-shaking stories about how their Sufism neighbors were bombarding them with press releases, expensive newsletters, and aggressive door-to-door visits to disseminate information about the project. My friends say the information and the manner in which it was delivered was misleading, evasive, downright deceptive, and condescending. They say Sufism members subtly or overtly played the religious-intolerance card—as in, if you don’t agree with how wonderful this project is, and how wonderful we are, then you are a religious bigot and anti-Sufism.
I myself was contacted by someone advocating the project. He didn’t identify himself as a Sufism member, even though I knew he was. To sell me on the project, he made false claims, such as that there was no opposition even though I knew there was. The communication reminded me of something voiced by a functionary from an Orwellian horror story, a “Freedom-is-Slavery,” denial-of-reality style of propaganda. I immediately understood why my Saranap friends shuddered at the memory of their encounters with Sufism members over this project.
On the face of it, the project sounds oh-so wonderful. The sanctuary would rise on a 3.25-acre site along Boulevard Way. The sanctuary would house classrooms, chorus rehearsal studios, and offices, and those 13 domed structures would be “inspired by Mt. Diablo and surrounding hills.” Sufism Reoriented also claims that the building would be environmentally friendly and would “have little visual impact” on the surrounding neighborhood because two-thirds of it—46,000 square feet—would be built underground.
Best yet, according to Sufism leaders, the project’s designer would be top drawer. The architect would be the world-renowned, Manhattan-based architectural firm Philip Johnson/Alan Ritchie, which built the 101 California Street building in San Francisco, the Crystal Cathedral in Southern California, and Manhattan’s Trump International Hotel and Tower and the “Lipstick” building (from where Bernard Madoff operated his Ponzi scheme) in Manhattan. Meanwhile, the landscaping would be handled by SWA Landscape Design firm, whose clients include the California Academy of Sciences.
So proud is Sufism Reoriented of this proposed project that its leaders say they wouldn’t be surprised if it landed in the pages of Architectural Digest.
My friends and Save Our Saranap leaders contend they never had any objections to Sufism building a new sanctuary in the neighborhood. But, as details emerged, they became concerned about the size and design. They couldn’t see how this big white building—18,000 square feet larger than the new Walnut Creek library and 20 percent larger than the White House—would fit into their neighborhood. It also didn’t make sense that it was being built just to accommodate the activities of Sufism’s 350 members.
“We are not anti-Sufi,” SOS leaders say on their website. “We have neighbors who are Sufis. We have friends who are Sufis. Our concern is that the proposed Sufism Reoriented sanctuary is too large for the site, and needs to be redesigned to be appropriate for our residential neighborhood.”
The situation between Sufism members and non-Sufism members degenerated into outrage and recriminations last summer. There were the two flattering—and in IMHO, insufficiently reported—articles in the Contra Costa Times about Sufism Reoriented and the sanctuary project. One notable thing the Times reporters failed to do was contact the Saranap Community Association, the body that, back then, represented the neighborhood to county planners on development issues. The association was on record as opposing the project because of its size and design.
Also, in documents distributed to neighbors and the press at this time, Sufism was cagey about their project’s size. Even, in its original, supposedly handy-dandy Frequently Asked Question document, it failed to cite square footage in this basic question: “How big will this building be?”
Then came the Saranap Community Association’s annual general meeting on July 10, 2008. My friends and SOS leaders describe the meeting as disintegrating into a “hostile take-over” of the board by Sufism members.
“It was like when the Panzers rolled in as part of their Blitzkrieg,” one Saranap friend told me. He and others say Sufism Reoriented packed the meeting with people sympathetic to its project, and elected two new Sufism members to the seven-member board.
Sufism leaders deny that the takeover was hostile, but one leader, Pascal Kaplan, in a statement that Sufism posted on its website, acknowledges that the meeting got so tense that “three of the three of the incumbent board members and all four of the alternates resigned in a block, leaving a strong majority on the board who are members of Sufism Reoriented.”
Now, with five of the six Community Association board members being Sufism members (as of last count), an alternate neighborhood group has sprung up, called the Saranap Homeowners Organization. Because of this project, this neighborhood now has two associations claiming to represent its interests.
The sanctuary proposal remains in the hands of county planners, who will determine whether an environmental impact report will be required. Meanwhile, the SOS campaign is growing, with its numbers now dwarfing the Sufism membership more than 2 to 1. SOS leaders say Sufism members continue to play the religious-intolerance card and to make misleading claims. One example I found on Sufism’s website: that only “small core of individuals” oppose their project. Check out the online list of residents who have signed on to the SOS campaign and see if those represented constitutes a “small core.”
Here are other key SOS concerns about the project:
— With regard to the eco-friendly, the project will be “very brown” before it becomes green, SOS says. With 46,000-square-feet of the sanctuary underground, the excavation will need more than 3,400 dump truck loads over five months. Rather than “sit lightly on the earth,” as Sufism claims, the project would crash onto the earth, “like a meteor, complete with crater,” SOS says.
–Although Sufism Reoriented describes the sanctuary as “nestling in a glade of trees,” to build it, the plan calls for the destruction of all vegetation and buildings on the site and the removal of all 42 existing trees, including six heritage oaks.
–While the plan describes a park-like setting and two acres devoted to open space, “the development is so massive” that “portions of the garden are grass pavers within the parking lot.”
–This is not a public neighborhood park, as Sufism implies, but private property. Unlike other religious groups, Sufism doesn’t have a tradition of regularly welcoming outsiders into its events or its facilities.
–Those 13 “sloping, saucer domes that mirror the shapes of the surrounding California hills”: SOS says “that’s like saying an oil refinery mirrors the shape of a redwood forest. Stark white, saucer-shaped domes have nothing in common with the hills of California.”
Overall, the 66,000-square-foot size leads SOS members, and me, to question what true long-term goal Sufism Reoriented has in mind. In its online literature, Sufism likes to project an image of modesty and to claim that it doesn’t prosthelytize.
But its own statements also show that it wants to build an architecturally ambitious, internationally admired project. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether this sanctuary is actually designed to host a much larger number of people on a regular basis. Sufism adamantly denies it has grander designs, but the organization’s prior tactics have left my Saranap friends unable to trust what Sufism representatives say.
Also, consider that throughout history, religions—Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims—have built architecturally grand monuments to make grand statements about their world view, to attract new followers, and to spread the word about what they stand for. Sure, these organizations do good works. But history has also shown that religions want to expand the power and wealth of their organizations, and, sometimes, of their leaders.
“I’m beginning to believe that they have their whole identity and future staked on this building,” one Saranap friend told me. “It seems to be the essential centerpiece of all their dreams and illusions of grandeur, and I think they will stop at very little to achieve its establishment.”
SOS just wants Sufism Reoriented to do a better job listening to their concerns “and reduce the size and bulk of the project, provide adequate parking, retain trees, and reconsider the design so it blends in with the Saranap community.”
To sum up, SOS is asking Sufism Reoriented “to be the good neighbors that they have been for many years.”
Crazy in Suburbia 
Re: 2:16 AM – Of course blogs are supposed to be opinions, but most of them are not written by someone who claims, in many of her posts, to use a journalistic lense – and then, when that’s brought into question, basically resorts to saying basically, “shut up or yell at me, I can write what I want”It just undermines all her work to have established herself as a “credible voice” when she relied on the SOS website as a main source for “the real data”.and that’t the point I was making… if she’s going to be opinionated and not do any journalistic fact-checking, well FINE, but then I think she owes it to readers to stop claiming that she uses a journalistic approach.
LikeLike
So, to sum up the BIG story:KPIX sends at least two people in a news van, and more in a helicopter to unincorporated WC, to interview Sufis, and show about 25 “protesters”–counting children & bicycles–wave about four signs…didn't even have them talking on air (probably too shrill). This from the “we've got more than 725 people against this!”Yea…not so much I'm thinking…you must be using new math. Tempest meets teapot in a “nutshell.”I bet the editor thought “it's a slow news day. Let's go with it since we invested 8 person hours and the helicopter!”Yawn-in-Suburbia
LikeLike
All right – I go to the cbs5.com site and there’s a followup story to the TV story. They quote a county staffperson who says that the county has 200 letters from each side!soooooooooo:1) if there really are 725 vehemently opposed SOS people, how come only 200 letters from that side have been received at the county?2) if the Sufis really are doing a conjob, as Soccer Mom stated, would they not have made sure there were at least 350 letters sent over to the county, at least one from each of them plus even more from whomever they have supposed hoodwinked in the neighborhood?So thanks Soccer Mom for bringing a real news agency into it!and thanks Channel 5, for providing news info because now I feel I understand who is being more truthful in this situation.In reading both websites and most of the blog comment, it seems clear to me that the SOS’ers are the group that’s not on the up and up. Too bad, because the obvious exaggerating only makes them look pathetic and I wonder what the county people think of their exaggerated claims.Like someone said, cut the church some slack on the PR stuff – they’re only human. Keeping it real: Most church-type people don’t think like media types and they don’t vet their newsletters for how they might sound to everyone who would read them. I think they did a good job on making pretty newsletters. Sure they sound a bit rosy, but what do you expect, they’re rosy posey type-church people.
LikeLike
anon 11:31-Just what we’ve all come to expect from SOS: “We aren’t against Sufis, or anyone’s religion,” and then refer to them disparagingly as a cult. Weak, false, and transparent. Pants on fire! Not a great civics lesson for those hapless children. It is too bad they DON’T go to the Meher Schools, where young people are taught to love and respect one another–and their unique qualities–and a love for the diversity of mankind, its achievements, and a deep love of this country and its hard won freedoms.This church wants to build a beautiful sanctuary-to worship God-in an area they’ve already been in, and improving for 35 years. They want to do it in a peaceful glade of trees…with a lovely garden open to the neighborhood.What does the Saranap need to be saved from? I think we have all got a hunch by now, but it’s not Sufism Reoriented. That group of Saranap residents is constructive and contributing, and doing it in the proper way…one quiet step at a time. Make no mistake, there IS a civics lesson here, but the children are looking in the wrong direction.Ashamed of “Neighbors”
LikeLike
Wow … I am so saddened by all of this. I actually attended the Meher Schools as a child and I can’t even begin to tell you how wonderful it was. My parents were not Sufis, but lucky for me I ended up there. In all my educational experience since (which includes public and private schools, college, and continuing education) I have never had an experience remotely as lovely as that of my time at the school run by the Sufis. It was so special that I struggle to find words to describe it. It was an atmosphere full of nurturing, respect for all people and things, art, drama, music, dance, beauty and love. Love – that’s the special ingredient. As I understand it now, pretty much the central theme of their teaching and lives is simply to be as loving as they can in all aspects of life. And as a child, believe me, it’s pretty nice! Switching to a fancy private school after leaving the Meher Schools, it was shocking to find that not all adults were as nurturing and kind as the teachers I had grown accustomed to. And, as for indoctrination, there simply isn’t any. The only aspect of their “Sufiness” that comes through is shown in their kindness and the general manner in which they conduct themselves, not in their curriculum (which is excellent, by the way). Maybe you are unaware, but the Sufis have no desire to convert anyone. As I have learned, one of their main tenets is not to proselytize (which I certainly find refreshing). They are not seeking new members, so there is no need to indoctrinate children. They run a school which they make affordable through untold amounts of unpaid volunteer work – volunteers that clean, garden, paint, repair, build, do office work, and who knows what all else – these volunteers are mostly all Sufis. Why do they do this? To indoctrinate children and parents? No – they do it as a service to their community. And, wow, am I glad they do, because now that I’m a parent myself I moved from another part of the state and bought a house in Saranap so that I could send my child to their school. Some of the same teachers who were my teachers are still at the school and will be teachers for my child. Now, as a parent, I couldn’t be happier with the education and quality of my child’s life at she school. And I can’t tell you how grateful I am to the Sufis for providing the same wonderful childhood they did for me, for my child.I urge anyone who is feeling threatened or afraid of this “cult” to simply visit the school, or talk with a Sufi and ask them the questions you want to know. I think you’ll find they are actually quite kind and open. In fact, I’d say the main thing that distinguishes them from those that oppose them or their plans for a new building is that you never hear them speaking in an unkind or attacking way. Take a look at their presentation about their project on their website (http://sufismreoriented.org/new_sanctuary) and you might feel surprised to see how lovely the plans for the building are – not at all the hideous “space-ship” that it is touted to be. That is one aerial image. Are you going to be viewing the building from a hot air balloon every day? No? Then perhaps you should take a look at how it will look from ground view before getting so upset.Please consider getting to know the school, the organization, their history in this neighborhood, their plans for their sanctuary, or even just a few actual Sufi people themselves before getting so worked up. I promise you, from my perspective as a home owner, a former student of their school, and a parent, that we are very lucky to have them here, and that our neighborhood is enhanced by their presence.
LikeLike
“Just what we’ve all come to expect from SOS: “We aren’t against Sufis, or anyone’s religion,” and then refer to them disparagingly as a cult.”This is anon 11:31 here. I never said I wasn’t against Sufis. I am against that cult. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck! If it has a “church” like a spaceship, a cult of personality, it’s a cult. And thankfully, I am not a Saranap resident.
LikeLike
finally, an honest quack~
LikeLike
Cult-dude 11:31:From Aristotle, the logical syllogism: 1) You are against “that cult” 2) you are talking about the Sufis when you mean that cultTherefore, you are against these Sufis
LikeLike
Read 9:47 again. I had to read it twice.He says he IS against the Sufis and compares them to the old Lafayette Morehouse commune. But at least this person isn’t trying to appear unbiased. You must give them that.It’s like their trying to paint the Sufis with the old racist negative tar brush, the same way they did referring to Philip Johnson and the “lipstick” building…and then referring to that admitted mega-criminal Madhoff in the same sentence. As if they were linked together. It is called Magical Thinking.This is when you realize they’ve got nothing but marginalized desperation. I’m sure we will see more of the same.Check out “Lafayette Morehouse” on Wikipedia, and see if it resonates with your experience of these Sufi citizens. Doesn’t match mine. Mine is like that expressed by Anon 9:43.
LikeLike
Wow – like the gal who went to school at Meher Schools, I am just completely astonished at what people have been saying about the lovely Sufis. I have a close friend who is a Sufi and I live in the Saranap.From what I know, the only personality they are really into is the “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” guru who is actually no longer living.But I am pushed to post here because I want to talk about the pictures of the teacher(s) and the so-called cult idea that someone has proposed. There seems to be some confusion about why Sufis have pictures up and I think I can help.The Sufis’ main thing is “remembrance of the God as the Beloved”. My friend told me that she has pictures up so that she is reminded of people who she feels are the best examples she knows of selfless, loving service – and that this helps her in her own life as she makes decisions and deals with life’s difficulties. It’s that simple and I’ve seen nothing that contradicts what she told me.Believe me, my Sufi friend is a lovely gentle person most of the time, but she is very much an individual too or I would not be able to stand being her friend. Simply said, she’s no cult member and I know she’d quit if it ever turned into something like that.I’ve actually met the Murshida, Dr. Conner, and she is just a truly charming person. I expect a minister to have certain admirable qualities, and Murshida Conner has the kind of calm energy I would want in a minister. Also, in the few times I’ve been around her, there’s not been any fawning or drooling or batting eyes or whatever people might use as criterion for determining by the behavior of their followers that a situation is cultish, so I think the “Sufis are a cult” projection can be dropped anytime now.As the gal said, get to know some Sufis – they don’t bite – you might be surprised to find out how well educated, kind, and balanced they are. About Honesty: One thing I do know is that they do not lie – it’s against one of their core principles – so all this talk of them lying intentionally seems ridiculous. Maybe there was the random, not well thought out discussion OR Maybe they did not know how to talk about something like this to their neighbors since they’ve nbever had to do that before, but intentionally lying about facts, I simply find that hard to believe. I’ve known these people for 25 years – they are good human beings.
LikeLike
Anon 9:30 wrote:*** Just what we’ve all come to expect from SOS: “We aren’t against Sufis, or anyone’s religion,” and then refer to them disparagingly as a cult. Weak, false, and transparent. Pants on fire! ***I was curious about this SOS group calling the Sufis a cult, so I went to the SOS website and looked for “cult” and it isn’t there. Well, it is, once, as part of the word “difficult”.So I tried to figure out what Anon 9:30 was referring to, and came to the conclusion that it’s his/her “Pants on fire!” by painting anyone who is not in favor of this project is claiming that Sufis are a cult. Dude, on their website the SOS writes that they are opposed to the “size and bulk” of this project, not that the Sufis should be prevented from building something on this site that fits it better.I’m surprised that someone professing to the ideals of this Sufi religion and philosophy would distort what SOS actually says on their website by saying they are responsible for what other people post on this blog.
LikeLike
Thanks 10:32 about Cult-Dude – you are right – he did say he is against them – he just used a double negative or something to say it – threw me off.The Magical Thinking is what will very probably marginalize the SOS as the county makes the decision. The county deals with these sorts of neighborhood disputes all the time – why SOS does not seem to get that is beyond me. The illogical part of what they are up to is that the county has heard every argument about “heritage trees”, “too big”, “too much traffic”, “too high”, “too few parking spaces” – they’ve heard ALL OF IT before.So there is NOTHING NEW here that the SOS people can position as being “so unique to the governance of the Saranap” that the county people will stand up and “put a stop to it!”, whatever “it” is. This is clearly an overblown NIMBY situation, as someone else said before.Fact is: the county people will have to follow the RLUPA law so as to avoid a lawsuit from the Sufis -which I think most any religious group would do if pressed and would win, based on my albeit limited understanding of that law.
LikeLike
There have been comments about the view of the proposed Sufi building being hidden by the landscaping. I was curious so I went to the Sufism Reoriented website and took a look at their drawings that show what they say their building will look like from the street. They also say that it’s about the same hgight as the condo building next door to where their building will be.The drawings are misleading. They show the building hidden by trees. I looked at the condo next door and it’s easy to see that it would take hundreds of huge trees to screen that building from the street.The Sufism Reoriented site also says that they are going to remove the existing trees on the site to allow construction, and will replace them with many new trees. I’ve planted trees at the various For those trees to reach the height and breadth needed to screen the building will take many, many years.
LikeLike
Doh! Hoisted on my own “canard.” [look it up…]You make a good point, just not a huge one. SOS is careful to avoid calling people a cult in print–on their site–it is just done verbally to neighbors, and on this blog, where they believe they can’t be linked to it. I think most people are wise to this thin veil.I do apologize for an unfair characterization of such fair folks.
LikeLike
I’m not a Sufi and live two blocks from the site of the new building. I have absolutely no problem with their proposal, and nothing but positive things to say about the Sufi community. As other posters have mentioned, they make great neighbors, and they have provided a valuable service for decades through their unique private school/preschool. The new building/landscaping can only enhance Boulevard Way – an area with lots of apartment buildings, minimal landscaping, industrial looking stores, etc. I will say that the privacy of the Sufi community has led some of my neighbors to feel that they are a ‘cult’. Those comments express a lot of fear and misunderstanding. Perhaps the Sufis are private out of consideration for others – perhaps other religious groups have something to learn from them.
LikeLike
Anon 9:43 here – the former student of the Meher Schools …I just wanted to add that it’s true what another poster said about honesty. The Sufis I know well wouldn’t even fib on their taxes or call in sick to work if they weren’t. There are very few “rules” for them, but I believe being 100% honest is one of them.
LikeLike
Anon 10:39Ok, first – agreeing to stipulate that you reviewed the SOS website and did not find the word cult on it, and second, agreeing that indvs here should not be confused with the SOS group, let’s then talk about what IS on the SOS site:It is inferred that Sufis are “little children” and repeatedly inferred to as “little devils”. People linking religious group with the word “devil” is just not funny and implies a lot of bigotry.In an allegory of the Wizard of Oz, the Sufis are referred to as deceitful “Wizards”, as in “Hiding behind their cloak of “community good-deeds”, the Wizards are pulling the levers of deceit again” AND further, the Sufis are referred to as “flying monkeys”. If you recall, the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz attack Dorothy’s group and take them by force to an evil witch. Since the allegory made on the site is so complete, I believe calling the Sufis “flying monkeys” is a not very veiled attempt to infer that SOS thinks Dr. Conner is an evil witch – and honestly, I simply can not believe a group of adults would think making such an reference is an ok thing to do when arguing over what should be built on a church site.SOS also stated that: “Sufism Reoriented is asking us to suspend reality and make-believe”“Sufism Reoriented leaders have bombarded neighbors with press releases, expensive newsletters, neighborhood meetings and one-on-one visits full of misinformation and misrepresentations.”“Yet since first announcing its building plans, the childlike deviousness of Sufism Reoriented leadership continues into the holiday season.”SOS also calls the SCA board a “new hand-picked SCA-Sufi Board” when in fact that simply was not what happened there.There are many of these nonsense comments made on the SOS site, but two are just so ridiculous it’s worth showing why I’ve spent time on figuring out exactly what is going on here. In my opinion, folks who do not think clearly should not be allowed to go unchecked if claiming to represent my interests at the county level:Here is the first reason: One complaint SOS makes is that the building will interfere with enjoying summer nights because the domes are “270′ above sea level” – well SO WHAT! If a person is looking at the stars while standing at ~240′ above sea level, then how asinine is it to make a claim that the whole sky will be blotted out by something being 270′ above sea level – i.e. is only ~33 high in the highest spot? IT’s VERY ASININE.The second reason they should NOT be allowed to represent my interests to the county:SOS makes a silly claim that there will be 3,400 dump trucks – that is just totally fabricated using the smallest sized dump truck available on the market. It might be more like 1/3 the number of that and guess what? Sufis say they know that period of time will be a nuisance – but that they will try to work with neighbors to make it a manageable time. So, people should be called on their bigotry. This is 2009 people.From: not a Sufi, but thinking more fondly of them day by day.
LikeLike
Anon 10:56 re the Tree GrowthThe Sufis, in the first SCA community meeting about the project(there will be at least 3 of those), FULLY AND OPENLY ADMITTED that it will take 3-4 years before the trees they plan to plant provide the level of coverage depicted in the drawings. They also said they are buying trees that are already somewhat grown, but not too grown, so that they get the right kind of growth rate to hit the 3-4 year mark.So, there’s no misleading going on about the trees – you perhaps just weren’t at that meeting to know the specifics?
LikeLike
Soccer Mom, I can not thank you enough for bringing this issue to the attention of the media. Many comments from readers seem to be missing the point: THIS IS A LAND USE ISSUE. The development is way to big for the proposed site. That is why the County would have to grant the developer, Sufism Reoiented, a height variance and a parking variance in order for it to be built as it has been proposed. Neighbors are not saying a sanctuary shouldn’t be built. They are saying build one that fits within the constraints of the site. Just because a structure is being constructed for religous purposes does NOT mean it has a free pass to massively overbuild on it’s site. A sanctuary built on this particular propety, without being granted a height variance and a parking variance, would likely be less than a 1/3 of the size Sufism Reoriented is demanding. Bottom line: the proposed development does not fit the site. Sufism Reoriented being great neighbors, or threatening to move out of the neighborhood, or the prinicpal of the Meher school declaring they will have to close the school, DOES NOT make their proposal fit the site.Sincerely, Concerned Saranap resident and previous supporter of the sanctuary until given the facts about the size.
LikeLike
A friend forwarded me a link to this blog this morning because we sent our son to White Pony and the Meher School. The Sufis, those nice, neat, clean, private people you are all referring to, are just like everyone else only better. We consider ourselves extremely fortunate to have found the Meher School. Our son was treated with love and respect. He experienced a million little and big joyful moments during his time there, as did we. We have kept our Meher School friends even though we are no longer there, a testament to the spirit of community at the school. (We are not Sufis.) Our later experiences in the Lafayette public school system were atrocious by comparison.This blog strikes me as an educated person’s bigotry disguised as a NIMBY protest. Soccer Mom and her supporters sound scared of something that won’t serve them personally (like a library or a soccer field), they are not involved in (Sufism), and can’t or won’t understand because it is different from them. A cult is in the eye of the beholder. I am surprised to see so much intolerance in these comments, even from people who don’t live in the area. These comments lead me to believe that a Sufi sanctuary of any size is desperately needed in our area. As evidenced by this blog and comments, there is definitely not enough love, tolerance, understanding and kindness to go around. Instead of blogging about people and things you know nothing about, go work in a soup kitchen today. Volunteer to visit a shut-in. Do something nice for a friend or family member. Or try to just live and let live.
LikeLike
Anon 11:51If SOS had just thought it a landuse issue, why all the other crap on their website for the last 4 months? Because of the months of bad-mouthing and name-calling by the SOS, it’s simply disingenuous for SOS and any one who supports them to just say that it has “always been about land use”. That’s simply not true and their website proves it. Most people I know feel SOS resorted to the “land use” argument only after becoming educated that it was the argument that held the best shot at stopping the project. From the beginning, the verbal discussions were always about not liking the design (it not being “like other churches”), can’t it be another color (“like other churches”), having to see it from their backyards (which will go away with the trees). This is just a NIMBY issue – trying to now camouflage opposition as a general problem of “land use” is an obvious sleight of hand to those who attended the first SCA community meeting on the Sufism project. Truth is: the Sufis have done a design that architecturally fits on that lot, they can show that traffic won’t be a problem, and the county has set a clear and inarguable precedence by approving SOS leader Curtis Trenor’s height exceeding house on the lot next door. The county will not be fooled, believe me. I used to work for the county and I have a sense of how the county sees community disputes. The “land use” argument will be seen for what it is: the last available excuse a group of bigoted neighbors has found to try to stop a building style they just do not like. Also, and you should know this, given your educated instruction about the situation, land use, even as described by SOS, simply won’t beat out the RLUPA law.Y’all should just give up. You already lost the second RLUPA was signed into law.
LikeLike
Anon 12:23 wrote:“Also, and you should know this, given your educated instruction about the situation, land use, even as described by SOS, simply won’t beat out the RLUPA law.Y’all should just give up. You already lost the second RLUPA was signed into law.”This and other references to RLUPA in responses in this Blog should read what RLUPA actually protects instead of using it as “A church cannot be prevented from building anything they want on a piece of land.” See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00002000–cc000-.html.
LikeLike
I am so sorry you are so misinformed. This IS a land use issue. Always has been always will be. And it’s one that over 700 residents of Saranap will NOT walk away from. You can talk RUPLA all you like. That doesn’t make the building fit within the site’s set guidelines. It is WAY TOO big and that’s a concrete fact and one which the County is questioning. Opposition to this oversized proposed development will not go away. It will only increase. I suggest SR come up with a proposal that fits the site.
LikeLike
FYI comments from architect and landscape companies. http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1787448/
LikeLike
Please excuse my previous mispelling of RLUPA. Also, FYI RLUPA allows for places of relgious worship to be built on R10single family housing lots. Everyone who has taken the time to get educated on this development knows that. However, RLUPA status does not provide, and I’ll repeat my term, ‘a free pass’ to build beyond the site’s limitations.
LikeLike
12:45 and 12:51Well, maybe I am not fully informed, but it’s clear that you are not fully informed either.The County already places great importance on RLUPA. Re: the El Sobrante Sikh temple that is seeking just about the same amount of additional space and having some neighborhood opposition – as follows from a published report of their process: begin quote:“The (CCC Planning) commission also requested a briefing on the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000; a reference to the Act is included in a supplemental report from the county staff.Congress, in passing the law, found that “the right to assemble for worship is at the very core of the free exercise of religion,” according to a synopsis on the Web site of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.“Religious assemblies cannot function without a physical space adequate to their needs and consistent with their theological requirements,” the synopsis reads. “The right to build, buy, or rent such a space is an indispensable adjunct of the core First Amendment right to assemble for religious purposes.”In general, the Act prohibits zoning and other land-use rules that place an unreasonable burden on religious institutions, especially “new, small and unfamiliar ones.”end quoteSo, I think SOS needs to become more familiar with RLUPA adn perhaps stop wasting everyone’s time on this thing. By the way, the fact that SOS wants to waste my taxes on having the county beat this thing to death is not very cool either – given what is known about RLUPA.Again, given that info above, most religious groups, I think, would have the full expectation of winning any kind of lawsuit, especially if they’d done as much work as the Sufis have already done to address issues and fit the building onto the site. A few months of dirt is not enough to shove off the RLUPA requirements. If they satisfy the traffic issue – again, not legit argument for stopping them. The height issue is totally mute as far as I can tell. It’s not as though cutting down 6 maybe heritage oaks is like cutting down 10′ wide redwoods – – So the 700 people you cite are just going to have to get used to the idea that the Federal government felt bigotry needed an extra kick in the butt, and put enough teeth into the thing so that small groups like Sufism Reoriented would not be bullied by distortion producing groups like SOS or people like you, if indeed you are not one and the same.
LikeLike
“Truth is: the Sufis have done a design that architecturally fits on that lot, they can show that traffic won’t be a problem, <>and the county has set a clear and inarguable precedence by approving SOS leader Curtis Trenor’s height exceeding house on the lot next door.<>“BINGO!
LikeLike
Anon 1:10 wrote:‘In general, the Act prohibits zoning and other land-use rules that place an unreasonable burden on religious institutions, especially “new, small and unfamiliar ones.”‘That’s true. What’s important here is what an “unreasonable burden” is and is not. Application of Contra Costa County zoning and variance requirements is not an “unusual burden” in the case of the Sufism Reoriented sanctuary project.Here’s another quote from the RLUPA statute:“(b) Discrimination and exclusion(1) Equal termsNo government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.”So Sufism Reoriented is bound by exactly the same terms as would an apartment, condominium, or single family home development that is also allowed by R10 zoning, which is how the land for this project is zoned.
LikeLike
Anon 1:05Let’s be clear:If Sufism Reoriented felt it had a “free pass” as you put it, they simply would not have spent so much time on those items that might have mitigated against moving forward on the project. They are just not that dumb – they are all educated and considerate people.I think you will find that there might be a couple of minor changes asked for by the county to the Sufis, in part so that they can say to the SOS, “see, we listened to you”…but MAKE NO MISTAKE – the county and the Board of Supervisors, including Gayle Uilkema – will do whatever it takes to avoid an RLUPA lawsuit.
LikeLike
1:23the operative words in your citation are “less than”, not “equal to” – if it had said “equal to”, then your conclusion would be correct.
LikeLike
The SOS say it is too big for the site, yet the surface building is only 20,000 square feet-and round, so it recedes in every viewing direction–even the roof. The unseen part is just that…unseen, and under a garden and lawn parking area.They say there isn’t enough parking, yet two years of implementing and proving a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) plan, deemed a model of such a plan by the county, proves that is simply ignorant of the facts.So, Sufis contend it isn’t too big, and it has enough parking, and the SOS describes it as a giant gorilla crammed in a monkey cage…[again with the monkeys!]. The county will ultimately decide whose facts are correct. No amount of saying it isn’t so, will make it otherwise.I don’t even think RLUPA will come into play, as they have all their facts in alignment with requirements for approval. As someone said, the Planning Commissioners and Board of Supervisors have heard all these arguments on every other fearful NIMBY protested project.These officials are smart people and careful public servants, and I believe they know the score. I say we let the “professionals” decide, and stop trying to holler over the fence about it.
LikeLike
Anon 11:42 wrote “They also said they are buying trees that are already somewhat grown, but not too grown, so that they get the right kind of growth rate to hit the 3-4 year mark.”Exactly what kind of trees will grow to shield a 33.5′ tall structure within a “3-4 year mark”? The architectural renderings (paintings) on the Sufism Reoriented website show the trees taller than the 33.5′ central dome. That’s going to take many more years than the “3-4” Anon 11:42 claims.
LikeLike
RLUPA smupla all you want. RLUPA is of no concern to the opposition. Funny how people in support keep bringing religion into the equation??? The facts are: Parking variance will be required. Making a pledge to walk holds no weight. The building is grossly underproviding parking. That will NOT fly. Nor will a height variance. To the person who mentioned the height of a neighboring home, the arguement has nothing to do with how high the stucture is from the ground up. It is the complete height of the structure. Which happens to be 54’h and in turn would enable the building to hold well over 1,000 people. The facts can not be disputed.
LikeLike
“The Sufis, those nice, neat, clean, private people you are all referring to, are just like everyone else only better.”Gee, should we all bow down to the supremacy of the Sufis now?“Our later experiences in the Lafayette public school system were atrocious by comparison.”Yeah, the Acalanes school district is terrible. Who in their right mind would want to send their kids there?! Have you seen the test scores? Horrible! And the gang problem there is out of control too, right?
LikeLike
1:46,Please retreat and take your ignorance with you. While this thread is not about school districts, don’t forget that Acalanes’ students brought guns and bombs to school.Also Lafayette School District is a separate entity from Acalanes Union High School District. Just in case you didn’t know….
LikeLike
Wow, I just read the SOS website and some of these blog postings.What a bunch of hate-filled bigots.
LikeLike
Anon 1:26 wrote “the operative words in your citation are “less than”, not “equal to” – if it had said “equal to”, then your conclusion would be correct.”The words in the statute are clear: “not less than equal to” does NOT mean “less than” it means that they have to be no more than equal to, i.e. they can’t be more restrictive than what whould be required by others.
LikeLike
re: trees – they only have to be as high as would preclude someone in a car or house’s angle of viewing from veiling the buildings, and that is very possible even at 8′ tall or 10′ tall. But you comments are exactly what people find appalling: inferring that the trees would have to be 33′ tall to effect the veiling – it’s distortion
LikeLike
Anon 1:45 Parking Variance: look, if most live close and walk, the parking variance is quite reasonable and denying it would liekly put undue burden on the Sufis per RLUPA. Height Variance – I am not sure the county will see it as a 54′ building for the purposes of a height variance – by a reasonable person, the building is 33′ high at a peak and 17′ high on average.The Sufis only have about 350 members and the fire dept can establish the number of people allowed, so that’s a kind of “whatever!” thing you’ve raised about the 1,000 people – more fear mongering, as far as I can tell.but – let’s talk about why you are focusing on the number 54′ – is it not true that next door neighbor and established Sufi name-caller Mr. Trenor’s 35′ height variance is a BIG problem for the SOS position in this matter?If this opposition is not about bigotry and not wanting something to be dome shaped and white, where exactly was the SOS when the Trenors applied for their permit? That house just went up in the past couple years! You all were around to complain about that – but did you?Well, perhaps it’s because Mr. Trenor’s roof is slanted and wooden in color when he submitted his permit such that no big stink was made. Certainly no one resigned from the SCA over it. Is his lot big enough to support a house that big? hmmm… did the Sufis oppose it even though now that house looms largely over the proposed sanctuary property? hmmm….So if this is about “appropriate land use in the Saranap” – as has been claimed loudly today – then one could easily argue that the Trenors should NOT AT ALL been allowed the height variance – because – guess what – his volume above the height variance is greater than that of the Sufis’ visible area requiring the variance (i.e. just the top of the main dome). But SOS figured this out, didn’t you all? You figured out that Trenor’s height variance is a HUGE problem for you in terms of precedent setting, so you’ve focused in on the 54′ total as an attempt to distort the issue.The county people just are not as stupid as you all think they could be – they know they set the precedent with the Trenor house and they know you are scheming for a way to get this thing turned down any way you can.so perhaps the SOS strategy is to focus on the 54′ issue and hope no one noticed that you are being biased against the Sufis but had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about the Trenor house variance, at least as far as anyone I know is aware of. Well, guess what, WE HAVE NOTICED ! ! ! ! !I only hope that the Sufis understand that many of their neighbors see exactly what they are up against: a bunch of hypocritical bigots who think it’s fine for themselves to have variances but somehow it’s just not okay for a well regarded church to be given variances… somehow, if given to the Sufis, SOS-types seem to think that a variance becomes “special treatment”. I think not.so, does it “just not fit in” if it’s white and not wooden like Mr. Trenor’s?so, does it “just not fit in” because it’s not slant roofed like Mr. Trenor’s?I rest my case.
LikeLike
This is ridiculous. I repeat for the last time: the opposition is strong and will continue to grow. And the opposition is valid. What’s right for the greater good of the neighborhood will prevail. Clearly Sufism Reoriented is not interested in working with the community on coming up with a reasonable developement that fits the site. Therrefore, I’m signing off and will see you at the hearings in a year or two or three!
LikeLike
hmmmm… signing off without responding to the 54′ issue… could that have touched a nerve perhaps? Will anyone at SOS defend Mr. Trenor’s height variance being allowed on such a small lot? I went past the Trenor home again today just to be sure I had my thinking cleear on it. The Trenors have a very little front yard and probably 10′ of back yard by all accounts. The house covers 3/4 of the property. Its variance extends the entire width of the house.Again – exactly WHERE were the SOS members then?But, let’s be honest here: if the silence persists, should it really be any kind of surprise given the kind of remarks on the SOS site?maybe not – I’m hoping one of them will let us know what the SOS explanation is about how they can oppose the Sufi site while having said nothing about the Trenor house.
LikeLike
I have lived in the Saranap area for 20 years and, dare I say, some of my best friends are Sufis? Well they are. I sent my daughter to the White Pony for pre-school (the pre-school arm of the Mehr school) and it was wonderful. Warm, nurturing, loving – just lovely.When this project was first proposed I was all for it. My initial thought was that if that land had but 1 sanctuary on it then it would not be adulterated by some craptastic, zero lot line development of 2 story houses. We win!That was before I learned of the size of this sanctuary. I’m mostly having an arithmetic problem. How can a parish of 350 worshipers possibly need 66,000 sq ft of space? That’s bigger than the WC library, a facility designed to accommodate a population of 65,000 people. How can a 66,000 sq ft. sanctuary only need 72 parking spaces? I have to admit that the Sufi community has done a fabulous job of paring down the number of cars that go to the standard Friday night “services” (for lack of a better word and I don’t know what word they use). There was a time when there were cars all over the place on Friday night and the community did such a great job of solving that problem that I thought they stopped having their Friday night meetings. Sufi’s in general live close to their place of worship. However – 66,000 sq. ft???? It seems only reasonable to assume that that amount of space is intended to serve a larger community and I am therefore suspicious.As for the trees and the dirt and the mess of construction – I’m genuinely concerned. It seems a daunting task to haul away that much dirt and I have to wonder what displacing that much earth will do to the surrounding area. I’d love to hear an engineer’s take on that issue. I’m also wondering if they’ve done an underground survey. The developers that built the high priced condos on California had to cope with an underground creek on that property and it was not an easy problem to solve.This is not a simple project and will have a huge impact on the area. As I understand it the Boulevard Way will need to be re-shaped around that corner. An historic house is going to be leveled. Tress are going to be removed. Dust and dirt will abound for months. I’d like to see people keep an open mind, not resort to name calling and be perfectly honest at all times. The residents of this area deserve that – Sufi and non-Sufi alike.
LikeLike
4:45 excellent post and can respect your concerns, and no matter what there will be disruption and dirt – but I want to ask you one compound question:Have you ever felt the Sufis had lied to you in all the time you have known them?If not, then why would you think they would lie to you about not increasing the numbers, or in them saying they need that much room to house all of their activities?I hope that you could ask some of your Sufi friends to see if they can get you some time with someone from Sufism Reoriented who could answer some of those questions for you in a less hostile setting than the meetings have been. Though I doubt they are going to budge much on the design as applied for, I think you would find more expansive answers about why they feel they need that much space.
LikeLike
Wow. Lots of anonymous comments here, and most of them sound like SoccerMom fueling the fire as an anon.
LikeLike
sadly, Soccer Mom deserves the last comment, regardless of whether or not it is tuly her doing it. Actually, I was thinking Curtis Trenor himself was a good candidate for being SOS poster of the day… that person sure bailed once the Trenor issue surfaced cleanly.
LikeLike
Anon 9:43 here again – the former student of the Meher Schools …If you look on their website you can get answers to a lot of these questions. As to why they need all that space they say (http://sufismreoriented.org/new_sanctuary/faqs/size.htm) …The size of the sanctuary itself was determined by a formal “program of requirements” that analyzed the separate activities of our organization and assigned each activity an appropriate space.In the process of designing the new sanctuary, we were careful to consider its size in relation to the neighborhood. This consideration contributed to our decision to put our much-needed office space, choral rehearsal studios, and work rooms underground.A building of the size we propose, two-thirds of which is underground, is needed to house all of our activities in one location. Many activities are now dispersed throughout the neighborhood, at The Meher Schools, and in members’ homes. Our numerous activities require: 1. Administrative offices 2. Publishing and book distribution offices, including book storage 3. Film library and processing area to mail films of classes to interested groups 4. Video-audio and musical studios, to film and produce filmed versions of regular classes and special programs 5. Reading and reference library for class materials, spiritual literature, and reference volumes 6. Film/audiotape, historical documents, art storage, and other archives 7. Technical room to support worship and classes in the Prayer Hall 8. Spiritual bookstore open to the public consisting of a selection of world spiritual literature and related films and audiotapes 9. Classrooms for children (Sunday school), youth, newer members, along with Introductory Classes 10. Kitchen for special events or benefit dinners, for example, the Meher Schools’ graduation dinner 11. Informal multi-purpose area for dinners, bazaars, spiritual readings, and plays 12. Chorus rehearsal studio 13. Chorus sectional and voice/music studios 14. Toilet facilities 15. Vestibule and coat room.They do a LOT more than just have church services on Sunday mornings, it appears.
LikeLike
6:50 Thanks for that list – helps me make the point I am about to make. [I’m the person who wrote the first lengthy response (attended 5-6 events over past few years).] ok, so this is the deal – #11 on that list regarding the plays is why I think they legitimately planned for that much space. If you don’t believe me, you can go to the bookstore located at the Meher School and buy or maybe even rent the following DVD: “A Garland of Egos”I found it hilarious by the way, even if you don’t get all of their beliefs, it’s pretty “accessible” – they make plenty of fun at themselves too. But, my point is that what is totally clear is that the actors on the “stage” are totally cramped. They could not have staged it any other way than have the folks sit on a line of chairs. You can see how close the audience is too.Anyone who has been to theater will likely see how clever they are with the space they have, but it no less takes away the issue that they could use far more room to tell the story. So that’s why I think they want a relatively large informal multipurpose area in the downstairs – they probably can not really do many plays or concerts “in the round” upstairs, and my best guess is that no one’s going to be allowed to walk on that gold thing in the middle of the upstairs floor.
LikeLike
One of the things that really, really bothers me about the comments in this forum is the hyperbole. I never used the word ‘lie’. That’s a strong word. I said I was suspicious that they needed that much space for such a small group. “Lie” is your word, not mine.Now that yet another anonymous person has posted a list of what the space is needed for I have my answer. Thank you 6:50 – that was helpful.
LikeLike
7:22 21st C Mom:You are right, you did not use the word lie. I did, but it was not to infer that you had. I simply hoped, that had you felt the Sufis had not been straight with you, that you consider reaching out a bit to get some answers that make sense to you.I still hope for that.
LikeLike
someone asked where does the money come from?The Cheesecake Factory owner David Overton, a 30+ year member of sufism reoriented!
LikeLike