New water use limits on lawns, hotels and restaurants became law March 27, 2015. – 

The California State Water Resources Control Board announced continuation of 2014 water use restrictions and added new regulations on March 17, which following 10 days review by the State Office of Administrative Law became effective March 27. One new restriction will prove problematic for Piedmonters who set their watering system to water two days per week, as watering is prohibited when there is a very brief shower of a small fraction of an inch of precipitation.  Watering can resume after 48 hours have elapsed from the time of the precipitation.

New restrictions affecting urban and suburban homeowners:

– Prohibit outdoor landscape watering within 48 hours of measurable precipitation.

– Require cities, counties, water districts and private companies to limit lawn watering to two days a week if they aren’t already limiting lawn and landscape watering to a certain number of days a week. The rule applies to the 411 water providers with more than 3,000 customers in California, which covers more than 95 percent of the state’s population.

Read the complete announcement.

The Water Resources Control Board focused on landscaping and outdoor cleaning in urban and suburban communities, estimating that outdoor irrigation makes up 44 percent of water use in metropolitan areas. However, if water providers are currently limiting the number of watering days in the week, up to even three, four, five or six days, those rules may remain in effect, without further restrictions. In other words, those water providers that have imposed the most generous water use limitations are rewarded with the greatest flexibility. The rule applies to all of the 411 water providers with more than 3,000 customers in California. (Water providers with fewer than 3,000 customers are not subject to the water conservation requirements.)

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) already limits lawn watering to two days a week by its customers in Alameda County, including Piedmont, and Contra Costa County with the strictest watering limits in the Bay Area. In contrast, the San Jose Water Company, which provides water to one million residents, limits outdoor watering to three 0r four days per week, (on odd or even dates, by street address). San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and people served by San Jose’s city water department do not have day-of-the-week restrictions.

Reaffirmed – 2014 State Water Resources Control Board restrictions on urban and suburban communities prohibition of:

• Run-off from landscape watering onto adjacent property, sidewalks or streets.
• Washing sidewalks and driveways with drinking water. (Recycled water is permitted.)
• Using a hose to wash a vehicle unless the hose has a shut-off nozzle.
• Using drinking water in an ornamental fountain unless the water is recirculated.

Power-washing of sidewalks, streets and buildings is still exempted.

Drought emergency reminds residents they are not the most intensive water users. –

While agriculture uses 75% of the state’s water, the California State Water Resources Control Board has focused water use restrictions on urban and suburban areas.  In a recent editorial the San Diego Union-Tribune criticized the State Water Resources Control Board’s meager and ineffective regulation of groundwater pumping and high water consuming agricultural crops.

“… groundwater is being pumped so rapidly for agriculture in the Central Valley that the land in some areas is literally sinking at the rate of a foot or more per year. Should we really be growing water-intensive crops like almonds and rice in drought-prone California? The Legislature last year finally enacted a package of bills intended to end the state’s pump-as-you-please groundwater policy. But it merely requires local water agencies to develop groundwater management plans.”

The Piedmont City Council February 17 agenda includes further closed session consideration of the City’s on-going lawsuit against engineers involved in Piedmont’s $2+ million private undergounding expense.

Piedmont has continued to improve contracting procedures.

With the encouragement of Mayor Margaret Fujioka, laws and polices governing purchasing and contracting have been updated to correct many years of inconsistent actions. 02/17/15 – Approval of the 2nd Reading of Ord. 716 N.S. Changing the Thresholds for Informal and Formal Bidding Requirements into Conformance with Current Best Practices

Also, on the agenda is a Recreation Department outreach program including a community survey and Town Hall style meetings to learn about recreation needs, programs and ideas.  Piedmont’s new Recreation Director Sara Lillevand and the Recreation Commission have proposed a community outreach plan.  The information gathered is intended to assist in future program designs for all users new and established. The community will be encouraged to weigh in on all recreation issues including the pool, grassy playfields, programs for seniors, etc. 02/17/15 – Receipt of a Report Regarding the Recreation Department’s Community Outreach Project

Drainage problems on Highland Avenue between Park Way Avenue and Moraga Avenue have persisted for years.  Sand bags have been frequently seen in the area as attempts were made to control storm water.  The trees in the area have caused the sidewalks and gutters to be damaged.  Some diseased trees will be removed.  The project to correct the problem will cost $278,650.  02/17/15 –  Consideration of the Award of the Highland Avenue Park Way Drainage Improvement Project to JJR Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $217,969.25 and Authorize an Overall Construction Budget of $278,650 and Authorization for the City Administrator to Sign the Contract

After considerable discussion at the February 2 Council meeting, the Council decided to go forward with $51,000 + performance audit of the services and billing by Richmond Sanitary Services, Piedmont’s solid waste collector.  Some residents were concerned by news of neighboring cities charging a lesser rate for services. Explanations for Piedmont’s fees included Piedmont’s hilly terrain, extra pick up services for bulk and e waste, lack of commercial properties, and additional charges for those using backyard services. 02/17/15 – Consider an Agreement with R3 Consulting Group Inc. in the Amount of $51,300 for the Billing and Performance Audit for Richmond Sanitary Services and Review of the Franchise Amendments Requested by Richmond Sanitary Services

Following final City approval years ago, residents watched the PG&E building deteriorate while awaiting the new townhouse project.

Soon there will be a group of townhouses below the Oakland Avenue bridge. In preparation for construction of the Piedmont Station townhouse complex, the 5,688-square-foot concrete former PG&E substation is being demolished.  The triangular .4 acre site abuts the Oakland Avenue bridge over Linda Avenue.

The seven townhouses designed by Jarvis Architects consist of four units fronting on Linda Avenue, one at the corner of Linda Avenue and the Oakland Avenue bridge, and two facing the bridge.  Three of the units have views of the bridge support structure and roadbed.  The four-story (including basement level two-car garage) attached dwellings have four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms.  One gated and roofed driveway from Linda Avenue will provide access to the seven garages plus one guest parking space for the project. By providing two covered parking spaces for each unit, LSA indicates the parking requirement in the City Code has been satisfied.  (See also “Traffic Analysis: Piedmont Station Townhomes” prepared for the City of Piedmont by DKS Associates of Oakland.)

Jarvis Architects designed the units with cross ventilation in deference to green building goals in California.  However, the Piedmont Planning Commission required the addition of air conditioning in all the units.

Read earlier PCA article about the project and the 2010 CEQA study.

Where is the public?

A rare opportunity for Piedmont to use $507,325 appears to be lacking general public input.

Will the City Council at their September 15 meeting open up the consideration process for comprehensive public input?

When Piedmont voters approved the East Bay Regional Park District WW Bond Funds tax measure, there was the promise that funds would be available through 2018 to improve Piedmont recreational facilities, a senior center, or parks.  Time has been slipping away as a result of delays.

With the exception of Livermore, which did not vote on the measure and will not benefit from the funding, Measure WW was approved by 72% of voters in Alameda and Contra Costa counties in November 2008.  To receive the funds requires no matching funds. Annually, every property owner in a participating jurisdiction, such as Piedmont, is required to pay $10 per $100,000 of assessed property value to provide the WW funds.

Piedmont delays in utilizing the funds originated primarily from staff and others intentions to use the money for night lighting at Coaches Field on Moraga Avenue; however, there was never a specific public hearing on the use of WW money for that purpose. There has never been a general public hearing or workshop on how Piedmonters want their $507,325 entitlement in WW money to be used. Some have likened the lack of early public participation in the decision to the controversial, failed Blair Park /Moraga Canyon sports complex proposal.

Unlike the outreach for Piedmont’s Draft Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan, there have been no community meetings or general public outreach to hear from Piedmonters on their preferences. No surveys, no Town Hall meetings, and no public hearings prior to the winnowing down to “five qualifying projects.”

Will Piedmonters be allowed to have a community voice in how to spend the fast approaching deadline for the $507,325 entitlement? 

The task of determining what should be done with the money has largely been delegated by the City Council to their appointed Capital Improvement Program Review Committee (CIP).  This select group of well intentioned members have been meeting to discuss which projects would qualify and have selected five non-prioritized projects.

The CIP meetings have been held in the City Council Conference Room, a small room near the Council Chambers, and at a meeting in the Main Park.  Those who wanted to know what was discussed at the meetings were unable to obtain meeting minutes or view the proceeding from their homes.

Interested residents concerned about Blair Park improvements, long term correction to the dangerously cracked tennis courts at Hampton, and expansion of Coaches Field have been challenged by the decision process.

Mark Feldkamp lends staff support to the CIP meetings.  Suggestions on how to spend CIP money have ranged from curtains in the Community Center to replacing Main Park’s stone walls, daylighting the stream down the center of Dracena Park and drainage issues.  Feldkamp recommended, much to the disappointment of some, that some projects were not advised.  He has encouraged the Park Commission to be present at the September 15 Council meeting to participate in the decision process. 

It is unprecedented for Piedmont to receive $507,325 to spend on unspecified recreation facilities, a senior center, or parks.

Some public frustration is evident from the emails found in the staff report and emails . There are competing interests for sports, beautification, recreation and park improvement. Blair Park’s Council approved plans are not on the list for funding.

The five projects chosen by the CIP committee are listed below.

Partial staff report for September 15 City Council meeting:
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS MEASURE WW NON-PRIORTIZED PROJECT LIST

Piedmont Community Hall Plaza and $600,000 to $700,000
Connector Pathway Renovation:
This project would replace the broken and stained aggregate concrete in the Community Hall front plaza area with the existing brick paving spokes left intact. The likely material to be installed in place of the concrete would be a cut stone surfacing mortared on a steel
reinforced concrete slab that would aesthetically tie in with the existing stone pavement improvements located throughout Piedmont Park. Staff would propose to install electricity under the slab and install decorative lighting to the specimen Yulan Magnolia
located in the center of the island. This area is used extensively for parties and large functions that generate much needed revenue for the city. The improvements would also include the installation of several removable decorative metal bollards limiting the vehicular damage caused by cars and trucks that now use the plaza as a turn-around and
drop off zone.
The project would also complete the final phase of the Exedra Master Plan as recommended in prior CIP proposals. This portion of the project combines several prior projects, including the installation of a new swings for older children, new lawn area and seating along the bicentennial wall, new walkways that would replace the existing asphalt roadway, lighting along the walkway leading to the Exedra Plaza, modifications to the overlook area including improvements to better accommodate movies in the park and improvements to the driveway that leads to the amphitheater.

Hampton Park Improvements (Harris Plan) $1,500,000 (construction costs only): [Phased approach not encouraged by staff.]
The Master Plan was approved by the Park & Recreation Commissions and City Council in 2007. City Council approved funding for the completion of the construction documents that are due by November 2014 and possible bid in January 2015. The Landscape Architect has recently submitted the 30% Design Development working drawings.
Public support from the Hampton Park improvements has been strong and staff is exploring possible private funding opportunities. This project could be broken into phases, depending on the budget constraints. Project phases could include the refurbishment of all of the hardscape areas including the tennis, basketball and handball
courts. This in conjunction with the improved drainage in these areas could serve as one phase. Another phase could include all improvements at the baseball field, including all new drainage system, turf, new warning track and site furnishings. The Landscape
Architect is prepared to package the construction drawings and bid documents that would be compatible with the proposed construction budget. A decision will be needed to address what items would be in each of the construction phases.

Dracena Park, New Entrance $300,000 to $350,000
at Park Way and Dracena Avenue:
Develop an in-house master plan for a new entry patio and walkways at the corner of Park Way and Dracena Ave. The construction of the new pedestrian bridge at Dracena Park has brought to the forefront the need for a new pedestrian entrance and gathering spot at this corner of Dracena Park. The existing connector walkways to the new bridge are in need of a complete over-haul. The existing landscaping should be enhanced and an efficient irrigation system installed.

Renovation and Rehabilitation of the Recreation Building $100,000 to $150,000:
The existing structure is very antiquated and a Master Plan is needed to make better use of the existing space. As part of an overall Master Plan, staff proposes to relocate the registration and main offices downstairs to the first floor. This arrangement would be more user-friendly allowing the public to have direct and unimpeded access to
Department staff. The construction would include not only renovated office spaces but also provides improvements to the existing HVAC systems, lighting and internet services. The Recreation Department provides a wide variety of city functions and the working environments should meet these needs, allowing staff to efficiently serve Piedmont residents.

New Play Structure at the Recreation Center $75,000 to $100,000:
The existing play structure is antiquated and is in need of replacement. A new play structure would provide ADA access for all users and would invite and encourage a safe play environment. The design would have areas for all age groups encouraging the children to use their imagination as well as providing physical challenges. This play structure is in a prime central play location that serves numerous groups on a daily basis.

Read the staff report and emails for the September 15 City Council meeting agenda.

The Council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont. The use of WW Bond Funds falls well into the agenda of the September 15 meeting. Home observers can tune into Channel 27 or go to the City website on line to view the proceedings.

– Event will temporarily close southbound Grand Avenue in Oakland and Piedmont. –

Transparency once more a question in Piedmont, as meetings are not broadcast and are held in small venues. – 

June 26, Thursday, 7:30 p.m. in the small Council Conference Room in City Hall, a Capital Improvement Projects Review Committee (CIP) meeting will discuss how to spend $507,325 WW Bond money. The meeting is running partially concurrent with a Planning Commission “Town Hall” meeting held in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Both meetings are important to future Piedmont decisions. There will be no broadcast of either meeting. Beginning at 5:30 p.m. the Public Safety Committee will be meeting in the Council Chamber with a long agenda.

The CIP Committee has learned how tight the schedule is to identify, qualify, and complete construction of a project or projects to use Piedmont’s entitlement of $575,000 WW East Bay Regional Park District Ballot measure funds. Piedmont is the only city in the District that has not received its money as no Piedmont project has been put forward. The City staff and CIP Review Committee and City Council are eager to meet the strict deadlines, allowing Piedmont to receive funding without forfeiture of the money.

Projects associated with school uses do not qualify, nor do median strips. “The District requires that the Grantee have authority to use the property for public recreation for at least 25 years of land tenure from the date of Application.”  Read the grant application required documents.

Prior CIP funds have been primarily used for sports facilities – Havens Playground, Coaches Field, Moraga/Blair Park sports complex proposal, and others.  Read the 2011 CIP report.

The City has announced another “regular meeting” of the:

CIP Review Committee

Thursday, June 26, 2014

7:30 p.m.

City Hall Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA

The agenda includes:

1. Selection of the Committee Chairperson

2. Discussion of Possible Projects Eligible for Measure WW Funding

Various projects have been mentioned in recent years as ways to spend $575,000 in WW Funds.  Some would not qualify; others might receive approval by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Board.

• Improvements to Blair Park per recently approved plans
• Improvements to Hampton Field to correct drainage
• Senior Center, possibly in the 801 Magnolia Ave. – Arts Center extra room
• Expansion of Coaches Field
• Bocci Ball court
• Croquet lawn
• Correction of tennis court problems at Hampton Field
• Correction of drainage issues at Dracena Park’s former quarry area

Those with other projects to suggest should attend the meeting. Read a list of ineligible project categories provided to the Committee at the June 19 meeting.

– The Waste Management Board will adopt its 2014-15 budgets and try again to pass a household hazardous waste fee. –

The Alameda County Waste Management Authority (WMA) Board and the Energy Council (EC) will meet on Wednesday, May 28, 3:00 p.m. in the StopWaste Offices at 1537 Webster Street in downtown Oakland. The public is invited to attend and comment on agenda items including the proposed Household Hazardous Waste Fee (HHWF).

As of April 23, 2014,  51,203 protests against the HHWF had been received at the Stopwaste.org offices. The WMA attorney advised that no ballot approval is required for this property related fee; the protest process is sufficient. At that April 23 meeting, the Board voted 11-4 (2 absent) for the fee, as proposed by staff, which meant the vote failed due to the requirement of 2/3 of members or 12 votes being required. The four “no” votes were cast by the Castro Valley Sanitary District, Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. Their opposition is believed to have been due to the massive protests against the new fee, and the  unequal treatment of different residential units (multi-family/single-family allocation of costs).

The three HHW fee options to be offered by staff at the May 28 meeting are:

• the original ordinance defeated at the April Board meeting;
• the original ordinance plus a directive to staff to attempt to negotiate an agreement with the two Rental Housing Associations to study their HHW disposal;
• the original ordinance plus an attempt to study rental housing HHW disposal, plus the HHW facilities would be opened on Sunday for one year.

Comments on the HHWF or other agenda items may be submitted to the Waste Management Board, 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA 94612.

Or to Piedmont’s representative, Councilmember Tim Rood, trood@ci.piedmont.ca.us.

Read more about the proposed $9.55 fee:

OPINION: Questions Raised Concerning New Waste Management Tax

Problems With Hazardous Waste Tax

– Should a nonprofit organization endorsing and participating in a ballot measure campaign be allowed to use taxpayer funded public facilities and resources to disseminate information at an “impartial” forum? –

New legislation approved October 12, 2013, prohibits campaigning nonprofit organizations from using public resources and facilities.   Sections 54964.5 and 54964.6 went into effect on January 1, 2014:

This bill would prohibit a nonprofit organization or an officer, employee, or agent of a nonprofit organization from using, or permitting another to use public resources received from a local agency for campaign activity, as defined, and not authorized by law. This bill would define, among other terms, “public resources” to mean any property or asset owned by a local agency and funds received by a nonprofit organization which have been generated from any activities related to conduit bond financing by those entities subject to specified conduit financing and transparency and accountability provisions, and “nonprofit organization” to mean an entity incorporated under the Nonprofit Corporation Law or a nonprofit organization that qualifies for exempt status under the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except as specified.

Election after election, Piedmont’s League of Women Voters (PLWV) has been allowed to use City or school facilities to conduct “forums” on ballot measures, which the League has already taken a publicized political position.  In recent years, the PLWV has not only been allowed to conduct these events in Piedmont City Hall, but also had them video-taped, recorded, and disseminated using public taxpayer funds via Piedmont’s cable station KCOM and website.

(7) “Public resources” means the following:

(A) Any property or asset owned by a local agency, including, but not limited to, cash, land, buildings, facilities, funds, equipment, supplies, telephones, computers, vehicles, travel, and local government compensated work time that is provided to a nonprofit organization, except funds received in exchange for consideration for goods or services.

The League considers itself to be nonpartisan because it is not affiliated with a particular political party or candidate. However, the League is partisan in its support of numerous City, County and State ballot measures.  As members know, their Piedmont League of Women Voters membership dues are not tax deductible because of the League’s political advocacy, actions and positions for and against ballot measures and legislation. Read current League of  Women Voters “Take Action” instructions.

On April 7, the Piedmont League of Women Voters Board of Directors held a private debate in the home of their president and new Piedmont resident Hope Salzer on the pros and cons of the Alan Harvey Theater School Bond, Measure H.

“Measure H is a Piedmont Unified School District bond measure. It seeks voter approval to authorize the District to issue and sell bonds of up to $13,500,000 to finance modernization of the Alan Harvey Theater at Piedmont High School. To pass, the measure must be approved by 55% of the voters.”

Unknown to the majority of approximately 150 Piedmont League members and the public, the Board undertook a controlled debate on Measure H.  Invited to a portion of the meeting was a Piedmont Post reporter, who was present during the debate. No other media representatives were included.

Presentations were made to “twelve” board members on the pros and cons of the measure.  The League Board was joined at the “debate” by League member and Board of Education Vice President Andrea Swenson, who is supportive of Measure H although not currently a League Board member.  Swenson responded to questions after the debate, but, according to reports, did not vote.

The League Board is entitled to make endorsements without general membership approval, notification, knowledge or participation. Only current Board members are allowed to vote on endorsements.  The Board members’ votes were made in private and have not been disclosed publicly, but according to the Post report, support for Measure H was not unanimous, however endorsement of Measure H by the League was won.

The League’s endorsement of Measure H is considered a campaign activity making the League a partisan nonprofit organization prohibited from using public facilities.

An exception in the legislation for the use of public resources is made for the presentation of impartial information.

“(c) This section does not prohibit the use of public resources for providing information to the public about the possible effects of any ballot measure on the activities, operations, or policies of the state or a local agency, provided that the informational activities meet both of the following conditions:

(1) The informational activities are not otherwise prohibited by the California Constitution or the laws of this state.

1. The information provided constitutes an accurate, fair, and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the ballot measure.”

Significantly, the Piedmont League’s public notice of their May 1 forum in City Hall acknowledges League support of Measure AA, a Healthcare Safety Net, while making no mention of the Piedmont League of Women Voter’s support and endorsement of Measure H.

In the past, the League has attempted to hide their campaign endorsements prior to and during forums.  Yet currently, the public has been notified in a local newspaper of the League’s ballot measure support position revealing  the League’s partiality. 

The League states it will hold a “completely neutral” forum “so that citizens can hear arguments for and against” their supported ballot measures.  The forum is to be recorded, broadcast, rerun, and held at taxpayers expense. 

The previous privately held debate on the local tax measure by the League Board of Directors is in contrast to Piedmont League public forums.  The private debate allowed presentations both pro and con followed by unscreened questions. Providing an opportunity for impartiality at the public forums, audience members who have a question must submit their questions in writing or by text message to a League committee to be screened privately prior to a question being asked of presenters.  Not all questions are publicly asked.

The League has taken a political position and is involved in current election campaigns raising the question of compliance with the new definitions and requirements in California law.  Voters and City officials know the League’s political positions on ballot Measure H and now Measure AA.

Does the May 1 forum meet legal requirements?

Can a nonprofit organization supporting ballot measure campaigns use public resources for a political forum?  

Would the City permit any nonprofit organization’s use of City taxpayer resources, if the organization was opposed to a City supported tax measure, even if the organization promised impartiality? 

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  The article above is not intended as opposition to Measure H.