May 6 2011

Piedmont’s CIP Funds Will be Discussed May 10th

The Capital Improvement Projects Committee will be discussing staff proposals for 2011-12 capital improvement projects, the status of projects and a proposed work schedule on May 10. The meeting will be held in the City Conference Room at 120 Vista Avenue.  This meeting will not be video recorded nor televised. A staff report is now available at CIP-Agenda & Staff Report May 10, 2011> Click to read more…

Apr 29 2011

PCA Editorial: Creating a new Arts Center – the Devil is in the Details

A number of citizens appeared before the Piedmont City Council on April 18 to endorse the idea of having an arts center in Piedmont.  The Council was swept up in the new proposal and eager to turn over city property for $1 per year to a new group,  The Piedmont Center for the Arts, which is likely to acquire nonprofit status before the end of 2011.

On April 23 all homes in Piedmont received a letter from the group announcing itself and requesting that tax-deductible contributions be sent to its Center at 801 Magnolia Avenue.  A mailing processor was paid to manage the mailing on its permit and standard bulk rate mailing rates were paid.  Once certified as a nonprofit corporation, the arts group can acquire nonprofit mailing permit, saving money for equipment, art shows, children programs, possibly book reviews, community meetings, etc.

What will the program for the arts center be?  It would be nice to invite all Piedmont citizens to contribute ideas for arts activities and other uses for the publicly owned property. To inform citizens about the building, a public walk through might be included on some of the days City Staff provides access to the new group.  Plans for the “newer” portion of the building (the Sunday school rooms not part of the Arts lease) could be opened for community discussion as part of this process.

Is the enthusiasm for an arts center causing the City to skip over normal steps?  Since Zone B section 17.6.1 requires use of the building only by governmental or nonprofit entities  compatible with their surroundings, why not wait until a certified nonprofit organization has had the benefit of wide citizen input and put together a comprehensive proposal of use, fees, and time allocations to school and recreation programs known to benefit the community as a whole?  The arts center would be even more welcome after the community has been consulted and feels ownership of the idea.  Shall we slow down in order to have a better planned arts center and other uses for all portions of the City-owned property at 801 Magnolia Ave?

The terms of the lease require careful thought. Improvements will be accomplished through community donations and/or community fees, while the lease requires the City to pay the group for costs not amortized at termination.  Water, sewer, garbage, landscape and sidewalk maintenance will be provided by the City.

A long-term lease was required by the Swim Club in order to operate on a public/private basis, but it was a known program that had been developed and operated for almost 50 years.  In the case of the Arts Center, a long-term lease is proposed without knowing the particulars. What Arts Administration expertise and credentials does the group have to run it in a professional manner, a past prerequisite for City owned public benefit property?  While everyone anticipates the facility will enhance our community in many ways, it seems prudent to ensure the Council retains ultimate control over fees and use.

If the arts program is as successful as all hope and anticipate, it could generate significant revenues. These revenues would appropriately be shared with the community by keeping fees as low as possible for residents and providing free use to certain community groups, as the pool did.

In speaking before the Piedmont City Council on April 18, one Art Center Board member and founder confirmed:  “We want this to be used. Our pricing structure for using it is geared toward being always used.” Although this represents a strong commitment to maximizing use, the lease is missing any provisions to keep fees as low as possible, revenue-share with the City, or ensure ongoing reporting and oversight by the City Council of this newest public-private partnership in our town.

Undergrounding problems, the costs of the pool takeover, and the recent League of Women Task Force Report have made citizens more aware and attentive to the potential costs and risks presented from insufficient information and incomplete processes.  The City needs lease provisions which enable appropriate oversight of use, revenue-sharing, fees, and maintenance, while relying on this dedicated volunteer group of arts supporters to manage the facility at great cost savings to the community.

Detail:  Zone B (government zone) requirements per City Code: 17.6.1: Intent.  Zone B is established to regulate and control development of public facilities which are compatible with the character of existing and proposed surrounding uses. (Ord. No. 488 N.S., 10/87)  City Building, Veterans’ Building, or other public agency building, and accessory structures located on the same lot of parcel, for use by governmental entities or other nonprofit entities as allowed by the City.”  (Emphasis added.)

The Council is scheduled at the May 2 Council meeting to take final action on the ordinance approving a lease.


Apr 29 2011

What is the Piedmont Civic Association?

A Letter from PCA to the Piedmont City Council Special Audit Subcommittee and City Council explaining the organization’s history

Piedmont Civic Association
20 Scenic Avenue
Piedmont, Ca 94611

Dear Mayor Barbieri, Vice Mayor Chiang and Judge Kawaichi,

At your March 15, 2011 Special Audit Subcommittee meeting, a question arose regarding the signature on the letter submitted by the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA).  To familiarize you with our association, PCA is a long standing volunteer organization in Piedmont originating in 1986. > Click to read more…

Apr 8 2011

State Map Shows Landslide Potential in Blair Park

A 2003 map of the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones covering  East Oakland, which includes Piedmont, shows areas prone to liquefaction or landslides. As shown on the map below, parts of Blair Park  are specifically indicated  in blue as a potential landslide area.

> Click to read more…

Mar 28 2011

Issues Concerning Piedmont Library Services Contract

Oakland Public LibraryA San Francisco Chronicle article written by Carolyn Jones on Piedmont’s not making annual $350,000 payments to Oakland for access to library services contains several significant errors and omissions.  Specifically, the writer fails to note that the City of Oakland:

  • was not using the dollars from Piedmont residents to support Oakland libraries (instead, placing the monies in its general fund)
  • recently decided to close the Piedmont Avenue Branch Library near Piedmont
  • refused to utilize the dollars from Piedmont to pay the rent on the Piedmont Avenue Branch Library to keep it open
  • attempted to charge Piedmont residents for library cards when it offers free Library cards to any California resident
  • insisted that Piedmont pay 400% more per person than Emeryville > Click to read more…
Mar 17 2011

Opinion: Blair Park and Underground Projects Pose Similar Questions

A Letter Identifying Issues Common to Undergrounding and Blair Park Construction Administration

Dear Council Members,

City staff and the Council have failed to exercise proper due diligence in allowing a private group to control the planning process for the use of public land. The project proponents have sold the citizens of Piedmont a bill of goods, claiming their project is a “gift” and repeatedly claiming it will be built and maintained “at no cost to taxpayers,” yet public records clearly show the City has already spent hundreds of thousands toward the environmental review, > Click to read more…

Mar 5 2011

The History of Public 20A Fund Losses in Piedmont

Over $450,000 of City funds prioritized for undergrounding Moraga and Oakland Avenues have been loaned to, but not repaid by, private undergrounding district homeowners.  The history of how this occurred goes back many years.

The Public Utility Commission requires that PG&E set aside money it receives from utility users in a special 20A fund reserved for public undergrounding projects*.  This is in contrast to 20B and 20C districts which rely on private funding:

  • 20A Projects use 20A funds to pay for public undergrounding projects. In Piedmont, Moraga, Oakland and Grand Avenues, major corridors, were prioritized for the City’s 20A funds after a comprehensive study conducted by staff. (See Resolution 85-85, p. 1, p. 2, p. 3.)  Grand Avenue undergrounding was completed using 20A funds.
  • 20B Projects use money from property owners self-selecting themselves. City Council approval of the district allows a special assessment district to be formed and bonds issued; construction is performed under the management of the City.  Current 20B agreements between the City and homeowners open the City General Fund to invasion for costs not originally a part of the City’s agreements with property owners who desired the undergrounding project.  The City may bear the risk of cost overruns beyond contingency funds and Acts of God. (Chiang report, p. 6 and 13.)
  • 20C Projects use money solely from property owners self-selecting themselves who work directly with PG&E to manage the undergrounding project.  The property owners pay all expenses incurred and the City plays no management role in these projects.  There is no risk to the City.

Using 20A public funds for the benefit of private districts

Undergrounding proponents have urged the City to make 20A public funding available to 20B private district as seed money since 2003.  (See p. 5-7 and Source Materials below).  At a 2-3-03 City Council meeting the City Administrator advised there were too few 20A monies to fund the undergrounding of any properties except those owned by the City and School District.  (p. 4)  However, the Council supported their use, “agreeing that the likelihood the City will ever use Rule 20A funds to finance utility undergrounding along Oakland Avenue is remote.”  (5-5-03, p. 7.)

In October, 2003 the Council considered and authorized $25,000 to Central Piedmont when proponents ran short of funds.  > Click to read more…

Feb 23 2011

Opinion: The Alternative Blair Park Proposal

A letter from Margaret Ovenden, Tracey Woodruff, Andy Madeira, Ray Marshall, Mariam Marshall, Nancy Roscelli, Steve Baronian, Kimberly Moses, Reed Foster, Karen Franchino, Cathy Girr, Kara Christenson on the alternative Blair Park proposal:

To the Editor:

As parents of school-aged kids who play sports, we’re in favor of reasonable development of new recreational space.  Although we appreciate the efforts of PRFO to do this at Blair Park, an alternative proposal has emerged that we believe merits serious consideration. This proposal is to expand Coaches Field westward by extending the fill area into the canyon, possibly expanding eastward by cutting into the Corporation Yard, as well as putting in a very much smaller field at Blair.  This would create almost the same amount of new field space as the currently proposed Blair project, at a lesser expense, without having to loom out over Moraga Avenue and cut into a hillside with homes on top.

Everyone should view the story poles erected at Blair Park to experience how massive the currently proposed project is.  The poles show the level of canyon infill, the cut into the wooded hillside, and the large retaining wall next to Moraga Avenue.  In contrast, the Coaches alternative is much less intrusive and would be almost invisible to passersby.

The Coaches alternative would also probably cost less, because of its lesser scale.  Our City is already stretched to its limit by the general economic situation and the cost overruns from undergrounding.  And we now have financial responsibility for the swimming pool. Should we also expose ourselves to the public financial risk that the proposed project entails without fully exploring the alternatives?  In addition, the long-term operation and replacement costs for the proposed Blair project have not been provided to the community, and we believe approving the project without this information would be imprudent.

The proponents of the Blair project say we have to act now because the lease for Alameda soccer fields is running out.  But we do have time.  The City of Alameda is preparing an RFP for leases on these fields, so our teams still may be able to use them.  An EIR was developed for an even larger project at Coaches in the 1980’s, so we already have much information about what the impact of development in that area would be.  This needs to be updated, and a solid cost estimate for the Coaches expansion developed.

The City’s approval process appears to be moving very quickly.  We urge PRFO, the Commissions and the City Council to take the time to carefully consider the Coaches field alternative proposals.

— Margaret Ovenden, Tracey Woodruff, Andy Madeira, Ray Marshall, Mariam Marshall, Nancy Roscelli, Steve Baronian, Kimberly Moses, Reed Foster, Karen Franchino, Cathy Girr, Kara Christenson


(This letter expresses the personal opinions of its authors. All statements made are the opinion of the writers and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.)

Feb 9 2011

Opinion: Should KCOM Be Revived?

Commentary on the history and future of KCOM:

As heated public meetings concerning Blair Park/Moraga Canyon continue, and diverse cultural activities, such as the Lunar Year Celebration occur around town – not to mention the revving-up of various City committees, the vitality and commitment within our local television station, KCOM, in covering these events remains the same: plodding and non-committal.  In fact, while there is a dedicated core group of viewers who do watch KCOM’s coverage of select City and school events, many Piedmonters eschew the station’s limited programming – and some have no idea a local television station even exists.  And yet the stated purpose of KCOM, on its website, indicates a far broader goal of the station:

“KCOM-TV, Channel 27, is a government/education access station located in City Hall. Our purpose is to educate and inform the residents of Piedmont about their local government and its services and to > Click to read more…

Jan 18 2011

Council Member Wieler’s Taliban Article Stirs Up a Storm

Editor’s Note: Controversy has arisen regarding Councilman Wieler’s article, “Piedmont’s Taliban”, published on January 12 by the Piedmont Post.  Residents have objected to the intemperate labels applied by the Council Member (“nihilists”, “bomb throwing”) and the Piedmont Post (“Taliban”) to those who may express opposition to parcel tax measures.  The unfortunate comparisons were made as the Council Member attempted to outline his perspective on democracy in Piedmont, asserting that exercising one’s right to vote against a council member is appropriate, while exercising one’s right to vote against a parcel tax is inappropriate.  Excerpts from the article, responsive letters, as well as a written copy of the original public comment which prompted the “Piedmont’s Taliban” article (obtained exclusively by PCA), have been published together to provide full perspective.

Councilman Wieler’s article in the Piedmont Post could not be reprinted in full here, because Councilman Wieler stated that the article was copyrighted by the Post.  However, excerpts illustrating some of the controversial comparisons are provided here.

Excerpts from Councilman Jeff Wieler’s Article titled “Piedmont Taliban”:

“Piedmont has its own band of ragged nihilists hiding in the hills.  A leading opponent of the proposal to build sports fields on city land in Blair Park has started the bomb-throwing, beginning with the threat to oppose the next Piedmont School District Parcel Tax.”  . . .

“So why are these people trying to put a gun to the heads of the School Board and the City Council?” . . .

“In a democracy, we get our own way by persuading others, not by throwing bombs.  Timothy McVeigh was less persuasive when he blew up the federal building and a day care center in Oklahoma City.  People have strong opinions on abortion, but blowing up abortion clinics is not how we debate the abortion issue in a civilized society.  . . . Civilized countries have political processes.”

________________________________________________________________________

Ralph Catalano’s original public comments before the Piedmont Board of Education at its meeting on December 8, 2010.

Piedmont homeowners are among the most highly taxed in the State.  I was, therefore, reassured by Mr. Raushenbush’s concise estimate of the costs the District would incur over the next decade to preserve recreational facilities as well as by his plan to pay those costs.  It was a report and plan that a taxpayer could understand.  I was, however, subsequently disappointed to learn that the plan was put at risk by a proposal to involve the city.

The city has not, to my knowledge, released a “Raushenbush Report” accounting the costs we incur by virtue of aggressive expansion of city recreation facilities. (sic) We should all recall that in 1987 Piedmont voters overwhelmingly rejected a plan to finance the expansion of recreational facilities at Beach School, Dracena Park, Hampton Field, Havens School, Moraga Canyon, and Witter Field.  Despite this rejection, the City went on to upgrade or build recreational facilities at each of its sites.  We all know that the City funded construction largely from the parcel tax.  We do not, however, know how much we pay for maintaining those facilities or how much we put aside, if anything, for capital replacement.  The city’s budget makes it impossible for the average homeowner to discover these costs.

We will soon be asked to extend the city’s parcel tax.  Piedmont voters have a right to know how much of its yield would go to maintain existing and proposed recreational facilities.  I, and others, have asked the city for an accounting like Mr. Raushenbush’s to inform our votes but have gotten no response.

I believe that the City’s incompetent handling of the undergrounding fiasco and related litigation, as well as Council indifference if not hostility toward Moraga Canyon residents and Swim Club members have put the city’s parcel tax in jeopardy.  I plead with you to avoid putting the (School) District’s parcel tax in similar jeopardy.  Please implement the original Raushenbush recommendations. Please do not partner with this City Council.  At the very least, insist that the city produce its own “Raushenbush Report” before you consider such a partnership.

Ralph Catalano
Piedmont resident

________________________________________________________________________

Letters in Response to Councilman Wieler’s Article:

________________________________________________________________________

To the Editors:

The recent horrible event in Tucson reminds us of how fragile and precious life is, of how a single madman can cause so much suffering. Some have suggested Sarah Palin’s venomous rhetoric is in some way responsible for the acts of this deranged soul. Evidently such criticism struck a nerve with her as she went on the offensive by labeling her critics guilty of “blood libel.” Perhaps the best defense is a good offense.

Councilman Wieler’s Piedmont Post column likening Blair Park opponents to bomb throwing Taliban terrorists is strikingly similiar in tone to Sarah Palin’s offensive and unfortunate remarks. As the darling of the Tea Party Ms. Palin’s agenda is quite evident. As the darling of the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization Mr. Wieler’s agenda is equally clear. Mr. Wieler is correct, he defeated opponents apposed to Blair Park development. His candidacy was based on assuring the Blair Park proponents of his vote. Regardless of what has been said or expressed before Council he has not disappointed. I expect he will continue to repay in kind.

With the Blair Park proposal already costing taxpayers significant dollars and millions of public funds recently being wasted, City Hall will have to act more responsibly. In our democracy taxpayers have the right to stop the flow of money from their wallets into the public trough. Mr. Wieler evidently believes anyone exercising these rights and expressing their opinion is a terrorist. He will probably include the 1,364 Piedmonters who voted against Measure E when he reports the terrorist filled enclaves of Moraga Canyon to Homeland Security.

The burden now shifts to Mayor Barbieri who must ask Mr. Wieler to recuse himself from any matter concerning Blair Park. Although not legally binding, such a request will restore a fair process which currently does not exist.

Rick Schiller
Piedmont resident
________________________________________________________________________

To the Editor:

Particularly after the horrific events in Tucson, I thought Councilman Jeff Wieler’s column in the Piedmont Post this week, which compared Blair Park sports complex opponents to bomb-throwing Taliban members and said they were putting “a gun to the heads of the School Board and City Council” by threatening to advocate against renewal of the parcel taxes, went well beyond bad taste.

It’s bad enough that the Piedmont Post allows a City Council member to have a quarter page each week while refusing to publish many opposing views, but for its editor, Gray Cathrall, to condone this kind of violent rhetoric by an elected official is, to me, truly disgusting.

I’m encouraging people to write the local papers and City Council about this.

Thanks,
Tim Rood
Piedmont resident

________________________________________________________________________

A Letter from Morrisa Sherman published by the Piedmont Patch

________________________________________________________________________

A Letter from Jim Semitekol, Piedmont Resident published by the Piedmont Patch ________________________________________________________________________

The Response of Ralph Catalano to Council Member Wieler’s Article

Councilman Wieler recently claimed in his Piedmont Post column that my neighbors and I had put the extension of the city’s parcel tax in jeopardy by disagreeing with the City Council.  My response to Councilperson Wieler is as follows.

The City Council majority, not my neighbors or I, spent $2.2 million to underground utilities in Piedmont’s most exclusive neighborhood despite city policy that the benefiting homeowners must pay undergrounding costs.

The City Council majority, not my neighbors or I, refused an independent audit of staff and Council behavior leading to the $2.2 million subsidy.

The City Council majority, not my neighbors or I, would have authorized another risky undergrounding scheme had not private citizens successfully sued to stop the folly.

The City Council majority, not my neighbors or I, publicly vilified those citizens and spent $400,000 in a failed attempt to defeat them in court.

The City Council majority, not my neighbors or I, has nearly destroyed the Piedmont Swim Club through capricious and arbitrary changes of policy during negotiations with the Club.

The City Council majority, not my neighbors or I, spent $1.6 million to build a soccer field at Havens School while failing to enforce use restrictions at the Beach and Witter soccer fields.

The City Council majority, not my neighbors or I, has spent at least $160,000 to subsidize the planning of a private sports complex on public land in Moraga Canyon.

And now, Councilperson Wieler has used his privileged access to local media to call my neighbors and me “bomb throwers,” and “Taliban,” and to liken us to the murderous traitor Timothy McVeigh because we dissent from the above decisions.  He argues we deserve this intimidating vitriol because our dissent puts the passage of the City’s parcel tax in jeopardy.

I respectfully suggest that Piedmont voters will decide their position on the City’s parcel tax based on the behavior of the City Council.  If that ballot measure is in jeopardy, the Council, not my neighbors or I, have put it there.

Ralph Catalano
Piedmont Resident

(All letters express the personal opinions of the authors. All statements made are the opinion of the specific writer and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.)