PERS Contract, Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Tax Renewal, Ballot Arguments, KCOM Funding

The City Council on Monday, July 2, 2012, will continue to consider in closed session pending litigation in the matter of Friends of Moraga Canyon v. City of Piedmont and potential litigation on Blair Park.

At the 7:30 p.m. meeting the Council will begin the official process to place the renewal of the City parcel tax on the November 6, 2012 ballot.  The required proposed ordinance is essentially the same as the current tax and  provides for 4 years of taxation between 2013 and 2017 with Council approval an annual increase up to 4% based on inflation criteria.  If approved by 2/3rds of those voting on the measure, funds would go toward City services.  This year the current parcel tax generated approximately $1,550,000.   It expires on June 30, 2013.

The Council will also consider procedures for an argument supporting the parcel tax measure and any rebuttal to an argument filed against the parcel tax renewal.   The failed February 2012 Sewer Surcharge Tax argument drew questions regarding participation by a majority of the Council outside of the public process.

KCOM funding will be changed in the future according to State legislation.  The Council will consider an ordinance on video franchising.

A revised CalPERS (California Public Employee Retirement System) contract for miscellaneous employees will be considered.  The revision reduces retirement compensation for new employees from 3% at age 60 based on their highest year of compensation to 2% at age 60 based on the average of their three highest years of compensation.  This change has been approved by the bargaining unit and the City Council.

The City will rehabilitate the High School and Middle School sanitary sewer mains.  To accomplish this, the staff proposes an agreement with J. Howard Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $65,960.  The construction budget for the project is set at $103,470.

Other agenda items include: Community Development Block Grant for disabled access to Beach recreational facilities, Alameda Clean Water Program participation with a 15 year term, and a contract with Coastland Engineers to become Piedmont’s City Engineer, per the City Charter.

View the full agenda and staff reports here.

New Vision for Piedmont’s Blair Park-

Recently, there have been many suggestions for Blair Park in the local media. Some credible and some ridiculous. If one thing is for sure, it is time for a “New Vision” to emerge for Piedmont’s Blair Park. This should be a plan that is modest in scope, has a cost that is appropriate in the context of Piedmont City budget priorities, and involves extensive public participation through a transparent process.

Any new plan should consider the current status of Blair Park.  The considerations for a development plan can be summarized as follows:

Arterial Robustness and Safety

Moraga Avenue is a critical traffic artery, but has vulnerabilities, particularly under stressed circumstances. Any development should at least maintain the arterial aspect of the avenue, and more desirably, enhance it.

Moraga Avenue in its present condition has safety issues related to uphill bicycle traffic and the use of the few parking spaces that exist. An improvement in both these safety areas is desirable, and the need for such improvements, by themselves, provides motivation for limited development solutions.

Moraga Avenue is also dangerous for any pedestrian attempting a crossing. Development plans should not have any effect that specifically encourages pedestrians to cross the street.

Aesthetic

Blair Park is inherently beautiful, but has been neglected and is being used as a dumping site. Intelligent and forward-looking attention to maintenance basics is already needed. Blair Park is also considered a gateway to Piedmont. Attention to aesthetics and related issues such as tree health go hand-in-hand with consideration of development options. Any development plans should have a natural open space character and contribute to a parkway style aesthetic.

Public Accessibility and Use

As it is now, Blair Park is nominally accessible and is used to a very limited extent. It would generally be in the interest of the community to improve safe accessibility. With appropriate and carefully planned development, Blair Park can easily absorb a modest increase in use.

Environmental and Topographical

Blair Park enjoys and provides a rich environment for native vegetation – plant community and the appropriate wildlife habitat that should be preserved and restored to a rich level of ecological diversity. The ecologically rich, elongated, and meandering site is suitable for incorporating many diverse elements as the community members may decide under the guidelines of “Bay Friendly Landscaping Principles” that embody community values for health and safety, wildlife, and the environment.

Development by the Community

The developmental direction of Blair Park needs to be community-based. Any development needs to be attentive to real world budgetary constraints, and can be staged over a period of time. There is an opportunity for private-public partnerships, but development is fundamentally a Piedmont City project, and should be run in a transparent manner, with abundant opportunity for the community to contribute to the planning.

As resources become scarce in the urban environment, the inhabitants of the land need to learn and practice new ways of stewarding the land. Blair Park gives us in Piedmont an opportunity to venture on a path where, unified, we can create a project that exemplifies this new way of thinking about our environment, and fosters a real sense of community.

Piedmont has an opportunity to develop Blair Park in a way that accords with an emerging vision of public space, with community feedback. We therefore invite community engagement regarding the tenets of a mission underlying a development plan for Blair Park, defining the structural foundational elements for such a plan, and broadly seek community ideas and participation on development of features and amenities within the Park.

Let us hear from the Community at large, the Garden Clubs, Piedmont Connect, and the wider School Community, and regional stakeholders. Please give your opinion, your ideas and your suggestions. You can write to Piedmont Civic Association at editors@piedmontcivic.org or e-mail your comments to blairpark2012@gmail.com

Sinan Sabuncuoglu

Piedmont Resident

Editors Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Piedmont resident Michael Henn comments on generous retirement  for Piedmont and Pleasant Hill Police Chiefs- 

I have simply cut and pasted a letter from the CC Times [Contra Costa Times] today [June 21, 2012] about Pleasant Hill’s Police Chief retiring and that city’s need to select a new one. I doubt that I could have said it any better than this letter’s author whom I do not know. To reflect Piedmont’s situation, wherever it says Pete Dunbar, put in John Hunt, and you can substitute Idaho for Colorado and you would have it fit rather well. I note that the Piedmont Post failed to give Mr. Hunt’s age, only that he had worked as a police officer for 25 years. So if, say, he started at 25, after college, he would be 50.

Editors Note: Mr. Henn refers to a June 21 letter by Bill Fraser of Lafayette to the Contra Costa Times (excerpts below) in which he notes a comment by Pleasant Hill Police Chief Pete Dunbar regarding Dunbar’s forthcoming retirement.

“Not to pick on Dunbar, who was cited as having done ‘an outstanding job,’ but for a 51-year-old man to state that ‘it doesn’t make sense to keep working’ with base compensation of $193,000 tells us everything that is wrong with the current system.

“Pleasant Hill needs a new police chief, who will also look to retire a few years down the road when eligibility for a full pension arrives.

“It would be interesting to know how many police chiefs are being paid in retirement by various towns around our broader community. Our system in the public sector is not sustainable.  Recent votes in Wisconsin, San Jose and San Diego show that the public is starting to understand.”

(Editors’ Note: The letter above is excerpted to respect the Contra Costa Times’ copyright.  Read the complete letter.)

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

In his last two “Piedmontage” columns in the Piedmont Post, Councilmember Jeff Wieler argues that the City has solved the problem of employee benefit costs and that City finances are in good shape.  He criticizes those who see the issue otherwise as “glass half-empty” types.  Sadly, Jeff is ignoring some critical facts:

•       The new City budget is up by $389,000, and 94% of that growth is due to increases in the cost of employee benefits.  Overall, benefit costs are up by 6%, but 12% for the police.  Benefits are at an all-time 26% of the total City budget.  Every $100 of salary is accompanied by almost $60 of benefits.

•       The recent report by the City’s Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee estimates that the unfunded liability for employee future benefits is about $40 million, which is twice the City’s annual budget.  This comes to about $400,000 for every current City employee, an amount that would shatter Jeff’s metaphorical glass.  Or about $10,000 for every household in town.

Jeff asserts that the City did not go to the current high benefits until 2008.  In reality, the City committed to them in 2003 and proposed to double the parcel tax in 2004 to cover the costs.  That doubling [of the parcel tax] was turned down by voters, but the benefit commitments went ahead anyway.

Jeff also asserts that critics of excessive benefits want City employees to work for nothing, which is absolute nonsense.  But given that Piedmont’s benefits are among the richest in the state, it is not unreasonable to expect employees to cover future cost increases.

Jeff’s point is that the City has done all it can to control benefits and we need to renew the parcel tax to keep the City budget healthy.  Then, predictably, he asserts that failure of the parcel tax vote will cost the City its 3-minute ambulance response time.  I’m not arguing against the parcel tax, but it has nothing to do with the 3-minute response – that is entirely a function of City geography, boundaries and the location of the fire station.

But one could conclude that if the City truly controlled its benefit costs, it might be able to reduce the parcel tax.  That’s a glass half-full I could drink to.

Michael Rancer
Chair
2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee

 

Editors Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Language, impact, government involvement and principle –

For over an hour and a half on June 18, the City Council considered a controversial landscape ordinance proposed for Piedmont.  A number of residents spoke in favor of the principle of adopting new rules aimed at improving the environment by curtailing water use and transporting less green waste, while other residents found the ordinance unnecessary, inconsistent with existing Piedmont Municipal Code language, and intrusive on private property rights.

Katy Foulkes, former Piedmont mayor and council member, currently Piedmont’s elected  representative to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Board, asked the Council to adopt the ordinance to reduce the amount of water used in gardens.   She acknowledged that she had not read the ordinance and could not comment on the language.  She stated, “It is going to impact so few people; it is important to approve it.”

Others urged approval on environmental principles and implementation of the previously approved Piedmont Climate Action Plan (CAP), although the CAP emphasizes education and incentives, rather than mandates (except in a few limited circumstances related to new construction).  Anne Weinberger, a landscaper, and Margaret Ovenden, a member of Piedmont CONNECT, recognized that the ordinance would apply to a very small percentage of Piedmonters, but contended it was an important ordinance as a matter of principle.

Speaking against the ordinance was Valerie Matzger, former mayor and council member, current President of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation, and a 20-year local landscape designer.  Matzger noted her longtime commitment to the environment and recommended the use of organic pesticides and fertilizers as one way to protect the environment.  She noted the ordinance was inappropriate, overly bureaucratic, and unnecessary for Piedmont, stating the Council should “Nip this in the bud.”

Piedmont resident Joseph Gold was also strongly opposed to the ordinance based on adding another level of bureaucracy and preferred the Council focus on priorities – police, fire, schools, etc.  He stated, “Keep government out of our gardens.”

The Planning staff composed of Kate Black, Kevin Jackson and Jennifer Feeley had revised the proposal to accommodate issues previously identified by the public and Council.  However, questions and concerns persisted.

Council Member Garrett Keating, Piedmont’s Council representative on the StopWaste JPA, was firmly in favor of approving the ordinance and, to reach consensus, was willing to change or remove language in the ordinance that Council members found unacceptable.  Mayor John Chiang worked to seek a solution to newly presented issues at the meeting.

Council Member Jeff Wieler was the most outspoken critic of the ordinance, finding it so poorly written he was embarrassed for government.  He found fault with the ordinance’s lack of clarity as to rebuilding a home and various wording, as well as the required Checklist.  He questioned the origination of the $22,000 grant funding, which Keating clarified came from the San Francisco. This led Wieler to question why it was not coming directly to Piedmont as our money. Considering the projected few properties impacted by the ordinance, Wieler felt the ordinance was a waste of time.

Council Member Bob McBain stated since it applies to so few, the ordinance has no validity.  He said he had received phone calls and emails from many, many people who were opposed to the ordinance.  McBain felt landscaping education and information was preferable for Piedmont’s good, intelligent citizens who can make decisions on what makes sense to them.  He preferred cooperative efforts, rather than legislating another mandate, and noted that Piedmont does not have the resources for enforcement.

Vice Mayor Margaret Fujioka raised additional concerns regarding poorly drafted language.  She was particularly concerned about overly broad discretion by the Council and lack of specifics upon which the Council could grant a waiver to the ordinance. She advocated education over legislation.

Mayor John Chiang came off “of the fence” after hearing the other members of the Council and City Administrator Geoff Grote  who acknowledged that the majority of the Council was not comfortable with the ordinance as the appropriate approach for the City.  Using a “carrot rather than a stick” could be more effective and avoid many of the regulatory concerns.

After discussion, Council Member Keating’s motion to approve the ordinance died for a lack of a second.

“Landscaping must conform to guidelines …..”

Revisions to a proposed Piedmont landscaping ordinance drafted by StopWaste.org will be considered by the City Council at its June 18 meeting. Slight revisions to Section 17.18 have been proposed by the City planning staff in an effort to address some of the private property concerns raised by the public and Council Members at a June 4 Council meeting regarding hedges, lawns, plant specifications, local control, and cost.  Perhaps in error, Chapter 17.18.3. (a.ii) still defines all use of the term, “Bay-Friendly Landscaping Guidelines means the most recent version of guidelines developed by Stopwaste.org”

Chapter 17.11 has not been revised and still refers to the “most recent version” of Stopwaste.org rules.  Chapter 17.11 covers “City owned and/or operated” properties, which include the Art Center, Central Park, Moraga Canyon/Blair Park, etc.

The proposed ordinance will require a landscape plan to obtain a permit for any type of new building in Piedmont.  At the discretion of the Public Works Director or Planning Commission, a landscape plan may also be required for other types of permits and variances affecting existing landscaping.

“Automatic” Future Restrictions by StopWaste

Residents expressed concerns about future StopWaste restrictions automatically becoming Piedmont law without hearings within the Piedmont community. The Council directed a revision of this language. The Staff Report notes revisions have removed this language for residential and commercial properties, but not City property:

“If Stopwaste.org makes changes to the criteria under the Scorecard, it would not affect any residential or commercial properties in Piedmont, but would affect very large public projects on public land under the existing Civic Bay-Friendly Landscape Ordinance that affects public properties in Zone B.” (At p. 26.)

The Checklist continues to refer to obsolete language in the original model ordinance.   The ordinance also continues to use terms not entirely consistent with terms used in other parts of the Piedmont Municipal Code.  

Hedge and Lawn Restrictions

Hedge and lawn restrictions were raised as a concern by residents.  (See comments.)  All restrictions on hedges and lawns remain in the ordinance.  Specific plant selections must adhere to the guidelines.  However, the type of projects which must comply with the restrictions on hedges and lawns has been limited.  Revisions limit compliance with the StopWaste Checklist (version 2.1 dated December 2011) to:

(1) Rehabilitated Landscapes and new construction associated with Rehabilitated Landscapes for public agency projects and private commercial developments that require design review and/or a building permit;

(2) Rehabilitated Landscapes and new construction associated with Rehabilitated Landscapes which are developer-installed in multifamily developments that require design review and/or a building permit; and

(3) Construction of a new single-family residence on a vacant property which is homeowner-provided and/or homeowner-hired that includes a total project Landscape Area equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet, and that requires design review and/or a building permit.

“Multi-family” will include private homes with legal second units, and also homes with illegal and unintended second units if conversion to a legal unit during the process of obtaining a permit is proactively undertaken by the homeowner or staff pursuant to newly adopted 2011 Housing Element provisions.

Residents are required to obtain a building permit when landscaping plans include installation of a 30 inch retaining wall, demolition of an existing potting shed, erecting fences or trellises, installing lighting, and features common in landscaping.  (See detailed list below.)

In general, ordinance would not apply to existing private homes without second units.

If passed, the law would apply to new single-family residential projects on vacant lots that plan to install 5,000 square feet or more of irrigated plant areas. However, the ordinance would apply to re-landscaping for existing multi-family residential buildings, if the project requires design review or a building permit and if the re-landscaped area is at least 2,500 square feet or more of a 5,000 square foot irrigated planted area. The same requirements would apply to re-landscaping a City-owned area in a park or next to a City facility. 

The Fiscal Impact – Compliance Costs and $22,000 Grant

A “Bay Friendly Landscaping Compliance Officer” must certify compliance. This position is currently defined as the Public Works Director or his designee, but a certification system by independent professionals is envisioned by StopWaste in the future.  StopWaste.org estimates the total added cost of compliance with an independent professional will be $2,500 to $4,000 per project.  Staff costs associated with certification have not been estimated by StopWaste or Piedmont staff.

Piedmont City staff indicates StopWaste.org has reviewed the revisions and assured Piedmont it will receive a $22,000 grant from StopWaste if the ordinance is passed as revised.   Staff noted, “While it is typically not possible to make changes to model ordinances, StopWaste.org agreed to allow Piedmont to make changes to address the unclear language.”

How many private residents are currently affected?

At the last hearing, the Council asked staff to determine how many private properties the proposed ordinance might impact. Staff determined there are 57 privately owned vacant lots subject to the ordinance. Staff believed 34 of these lots would be unlikely to install 2500 square feet of landscaping due to their size. The other 23 lots are larger and would be subject to the ordinance if a single family residence were built on them. Staff noted 6 are landlocked, many are steep and difficult to develop, and others are currently used as pools or garages for an adjacent lot.

According to staff, there are an estimated 117 homes with “unintended” second units and an unspecified number of homes with suspected illegal second units.  If “proactively required” to convert to legal units due to recent 2011  requirements added to the 2011 Housing Element, these private homes would come under the “multi-family” provisions of the Bay Friendly proposed ordinance (in addition to homes with legal units).

Other cities and other regulations

Staff no longer recommends approval of the ordinance, but instead presents the ordinance for the Council’s consideration.

Staff currently maintains and distributes StopWaste.org Bay Friendly Landscape information including Guidelines, a Checklist and a list of Bay Friendly plant materials to all members of the public. Staff indicates they can continue to do so whether or not the ordinance is approved.

The Bay Friendly restrictions are in addition to existing regional and state restrictions on landscaping.  At least four other agencies currently regulate landscaping:  CA-WELO, the Cal Green, the C&D Ordnance, and East Bay Municipal Utility District Requirements for New Water Service. Staff has prepared a spreadsheet comparing the proposed requirements (Exhibit G) of Stopwaste.org Bay Friendly Basics with the existing sets of regulations imposed by four other agencies.  (See below.)

When a Building Permit May be Required

The following types of landscape-related work will generally require permits, though Design Review is often not necessary.  Check the codes listed.

Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization Debt to City is “Under Discussion” – 

A June 18^th staff report to the City Council by City Administrator Geoffrey Grote outlines the City’s total outside vendor expenditures for the now defunct Blair Park sports field project and Coaches Field.

The expenditures, compiled by Finance Director Mark Bichsel, total $793, 956 for Blair Park and $103,234 for a plan to install lights and artificial turf on Coaches Field.  The $897,191 grand total is for outside consultants and services and does not include the substantial costs of time estimated at almost $250,000 spent by City recreation, planning, and administrative staff over the past four-plus years on both of the failed projects.

Grote’s report states that Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) owed the City a total of $303,588 for expenses dating from March 21, 2011 (the date the Council voted that all expenses for the Blair Park sports field proposal be paid by PRFO)  through April 2012.  To date PRFO has paid the City $118,000 of this amount and still owes $220,267.  Grote states that, based on the Council’s March 21, 2011 decision, City expenses incurred for Blair Park before that date, with the exception of “previously received gifts” will not be billed to PRFO.

To date, the City has received $379,200 in “donations” for Blair Park.  If PRFO pays its outstanding balance of $220,267, that will leave the City with costs of $194,489 in outside consultant and other expenses for the Blair Park project. This amount, plus $246,187 in estimated City staff time, adds up to a total of $440,676 in City expenditures.

Although PRFO made a binding “Reimbursement and Indemnification Agreement” with the City to pay all legal expenses related to Blair Park, the City has not billed PRFO for any expenditures between January and April 2012, because, according to Grote, “These expenses are the subject of ongoing discussions.”  At the same time he notes that the City is holding onto a $125,000 deposit from PRFO as a guarantee of the indemnity agreement.

Grote concludes, “It is unlikely that we will know the totality of financial circumstances of this project until all legal matters are concluded, primarily the issue of attorney’s fees in the matter of Friends of Moraga Canyon v. Piedmont.”

The full staff report can be viewed at http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/citycouncil/
Listed under Staff Reports: b. From the Private Contributions fund to the CIP Blair Park Account (127-0432-006-001) in the amount of $118,000

In response to citizens’ concerns, City staff has revised its previous recommendation of amendments to Chapter 17 of the City’s Municipal Code.  “While it is typically not possible to make changes to model ordinances, Stopwaste.org agreed to allow Piedmont to make changes to address the unclear language.”  The revised ordinance proposal begins on Page 13 of:

Revised Version of StopWaste Proposed Ordinance

The Staff report notes that “the City council asked staff to make changes to the model ordinance proposal by Stopwaste.org…”  The new proposal will be discussed on June 18 as Item 4 on the agenda.  (Open session begins at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.)

The meeting will begin earlier, at 6:30 p.m. with a closed session to discuss three matters:  litigation re Blair Park, labor negotiations for all units, and the appointment of an interim Chief of Police.  The 2012-13 budget will also be on the agenda for Council approval.

 Editors’ Note:  The following are comments from the community on the proposed StopWaste ordinance.  Note that revisions to the proposal were posted on June 14.  View the revisions here.

Nancy Lehrkind

I think this [PCA Inconsistency and Confusion Article] is a good and fair analysis which points out a large area (and potentially larger) of applicability of this Proposed Ordinance to residential re-landscaping projects in Piedmont. I would also take issue with many of the “Findings” which are stated as reasons why this Proposed Ordinance is needed. In particular, Finding Number 3 does not apply to Piedmont (It “finds” that we in Piedmont are responsible for 5.4% of the Alameda County landfill containing gardening debris.). We have actually taken extraordinary steps to ensure that we, as a community, are practicing green recycling of our gardening debris. In addition, I personally am very shocked that our town Council can be openly bribed to pass legislation. I have received offers of up to $11,000 to pay the City to NOT pass this law. Is this really the way we operate here? Really? I think those of us who care about any aspect of this proposed legislation or its process should show up Monday night to register his/her protest.

Garrett Keating

The applicability of the Proposed Ordinance to re-landscaping projects is very likely less than that of new developments. To apply, re- landscaping needs to be 2500 sq ft of an existing 5000 sq ft of irrigated landscape of a commercial, multi-family or public property in conjunction with a building application. The number of commercial and multi-family properties that even have 5000 sq ft to re-landscape is probably zero. Public projects of this size and nature seem rare in Piedmont. Take the recent Tea House as an example – that was a building project yet does not meet the sq area requirements. Likewise, the Ronada-Ramona triangle or Linda Tot lot would not be affected by the ordinance. Civic projects that exceed $100000 are already subject to the city’s Civic Bay Friendly Ordinance so it seems the public provisions of this ordinance will apply in very few circumstances.  > Click to read more…

Piedmont on the brink of ceding local control for $22,000

On Monday, June 7, the Piedmont Council rethought its plans to give up local control of landscaping rules to a regional agency, StopWaste.org.  A number of citizens objected to a proposal to conform Piedmont law to a set of rules devised by StopWaste, plus any future rules it decides upon.  The future revisions to Piedmont law could occur without notice to Piedmont residents.

Mayor John Chiang expressed concern about forgoing one-time money of $22,000 offered by StopWaste.  But, the City of Newark, has already declined the offer of money, based on its determination that a one-year grant will not cover the extra staff time and costs on an ongoing basis. The City of Pleasanton has also declined the StopWaste offer.

A principle . . . not just one issue > Click to read more…