– Meeting of the Piedmont CIP Committee to learn about WW funds and elect a chair person. –

The City lists the meeting as a “regular meeting” of the Capital Improvement Project Review Committee on June 19, 2014, in the Council Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. The agenda was posted approximately 48 hours prior to the meeting time. The agenda may be viewed here.

“The CIP Review Committee makes recommendations to the city council regarding the expenditure of the capital budget (construction, repair or rehabilitation of city facilities).” City website

The Committee is to be informed by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on how Piedmont’s entitlement of over $500,000 from the voter approved Measure WW bond funds. The funds had been publicly mentioned as a source of funding for lights at Coaches’ Field and more recently as a way to supplement the costs associated with improving the drainage at Hampton Field’s grassy area regularly damaged during heavy rain. Members of  the community have made other suggestions for the Measure WW funds including improvements to: the Piedmont Pool, the former Sunday School room of the Arts Center for seniors, Coaches’ Field to accommodate another play field, etc.

“Measure WW was approved by 72% of the voters in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in November 2008. The measure extended Measure AA, approved in 1988, to help the Park District meet the increasing demand to preserve open space for recreation and wildlife habitat. In addition, Measure WW made funding available directly to cities and special park districts for high priority community park projects. Locally, Piedmont voters overwhelmingly approved the measure. Piedmont’s allocation of funds totals $507,325. The spending deadline for all projects is December 31, 2018. This means that the project(s) must be completed, billed and paid by that date.”

City Administrator’s Report 

With the Blair Park and Moraga Avenue sports complex brewing for years and the hope by many promoters to use the WW funds to support the complex, no community meetings were held by the Council to discuss the use of WW funds. With  time beginning to run out on the use of the funds, the CIP committee members have been charged with familiarizing themselves with how the funds can be used and coming up with a priority list of projects. Jeff Rasmussen of the East Bay Regional Park District will present information on the Measure WW funds available to Piedmont at the CIP meeting.

The Committee will also elected a chair person.

“The members of the committee represent a cross-section of the community, and it includes members of the Park Commission, Recreation Commission, and the Piedmont Beautification Foundation.”

City Administrator’s Report 

The Committee is composed of three individuals who have been a part of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation and five individuals who have been or are on City Commissions.

PUBLIC MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL (4):  John Cooper, Ryan Gilbert, Bobbe Stehr and Jamie Totsubo

PIEDMONT GARDEN CLUB’S PIEDMONT BEAUTIFICATION FOUNDATION REPRESENTATIVE (1): Michelle Winchester

PARK COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE (1): Sue Herrick

RECREATION COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE (1): Nick Levinson

COUNCIL LIAISON, as observer: Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler, alternate Councilmember Teddy King

STAFF LIAISONS: Chester Nakahara (W) 420-3061 & Mark Feldkamp (W) 420-3064

No broadcast from the conference room is expected.  Space and seating is limited in the meeting room. Those interested should attend the meeting. 

Updated 6/19/2014

At the Council’s annual sit-down with City staff, Saturday, May 10,  9 a.m., the Council will review the City Administrator’s proposed 2014-15 Budget.  It has been the practice for the Council to hold the Budget Session in the Emergency Operation Center in the Police Department on Highland Avenue. The location provides a “round table” casual atmosphere leading to budget adoption. Nevertheless, these proceedings will not be recorded or broadcast for offsite viewing.

Those interested in hearing and learning first hand discussions and presentations on where City money might be spent, should attend the meeting.  There will be opportunities for the public to speak and ask questions.  In the past, coffee and donuts have been made available to attendees.

This year some of the items likely to be considered by the Council are:

• Hampton Field and tennis court reconstruction
• Roadway pavement, sidewalk and gutter improvements
• Employee benefits and salaries
• Staffing levels
• Piedmont pool maintenance and improvements
• Pedestrian and Bike Plan implementation
• Facility repair and maintenance
• Additional license plate readers
• Use of sewer fund monies and alternatives
• Reserve Funds
• Capital improvements
• Retirement costs
• Blair Park regular maintenance and improvements

Prior to adoption of the FY 2014-15 Budget, there will be two City Council public hearings.

Piedmont is entitled to receive approximately $500,000 in East Bay Regional Park District bond funds.  The funds originate from the approval in 2008 of Bond Measure WW.

To date, the Council has made no decision on how to spend the $500,000 available to Piedmont; however, the Council moved toward using the funds to renovate Hampton Field.

In 2011 the City Council expressed an interest in using the WW bond money to add lights to Coaches Field.  With the Coaches Field /Blair Park sports project no longer under Council consideration, the bond funds are being considered for another project.

Some previously mentioned uses for all or part of the $500,000 bond funds are: improvements to the Piedmont pool, a senior center in the Arts Center, Hampton Field renovation, implementation of the Blair Park improvement plan, access to Blair Park, and expansion of Coaches Field.

Hampton Field renovation design moves forward.

The Hampton Field Master Plan was approved by the Council in 2008. Drainage has been a problem at Hampton Field since the original construction in the late 1980’s, causing sand drifts onto the tennis courts and large open cracks in the court surface that present hazardous conditions for players. The grass playfield, used primarily for softball and youth soccer, becomes wet and soggy during rainy weather, requiring the field to be frequently closed to play.  Sod replacement has been an ongoing maintenance expense of approximately $25,000 per year. During heavy rains, sand and gravel are dumped onto a nearby street creating maintenance problems and a safety hazard.

At the March 3, 2014 City Council meeting, the Council voted to spend $135,238 toward construction drawings for implementation of the Master Plan for Hampton Field.  The project had been set aside during the economic downturn and emphasis on the Moraga Avenue/Blair Park sports complex.

Primary to the Hampton Field discussion was the staffs’ position that the project had already been approved and was not a new project. The current budget includes funding for the construction drawings. Public Works Director Chester Nakahara informed the Council that current estimates to complete the project  are approximately $2 million.

Hampton Field tennis courts showing cracks in 2011.

Council member Tim Rood inquired about compliance with the Council’s recently approved Risk Management Policy requiring assessment of proposed projects costing over $300,000.  Staff and some Council members indicated the Policy was not applicable because the project had already been approved. Nakahara indicated the Policy would be applied prior to final approval by the Council.

Rood questioned if the construction design contract had been reviewed by the City Attorney.  Mayor Margaret Fujioka explained that all contracts are and have been reviewed by a City Attorney for indemnification over the last 6 years.

Rood also wanted to know if the construction documents would allow phased implementation based on available funds.  Nakahara stated they would, but discouraged the approach stating the entire project needed to be implemented and a piecemeal approach would cost more and delay needed improvements.

Rood asked about the geo-technical soil testing. Harris indicated the projected depth of construction work to be 3 to 4 feet. Hampton Field was part of the Piedmont Hills Underground Utility District where rock discovered after construction work began cost Piedmonters rather than the District beneficiaries over $2 million.

Vice Mayor Jeff Weiler noted there is $2 million in the City’s General Fund Reserves available to fund the project. Council member Bob McBain emphasized the need to correct the drainage problems in the outfield and the drifting of gravel and sand onto the street.  Council member Teddy King favored the project based on her Recreation Commission experience.

The approved Hampton Field Master Plan calls for the softball field to be constructed with an artificial turf infield and a natural turf outfield. When Rood asked where this hybrid plan might be viewed at an existing park, William Harris of Harris Design stated the previous Recreation Director favored this design, but he did not know where this concept could be viewed. He indicated that changing the plan from a hybrid design to all artificial or all natural turf was a legal question.

Student observer Nick Docter asked if there was a possibility of expanding the grass play area at Hampton to meet identified needs. The staff response was that expansion was not a part of this project.

According to Mayor Fujioka, public hearings will be held on the one time expenditure of the WW bond funds; the cost of the Hampton project is needed at the time of the hearings.  The funds must be expended by 2018.

No mention was made of using the $500,000 for any alternative projects and no plans appear to be available for other projects, except the approved renovation plans for Blair Park.

The vote approving the contract for Hampton Field construction documents was 4 to 1 with Rood voting no.

Childcare Facility Or Adults’ Room of Their Own?

The use of the Piedmont Arts Center east wing use will be considered at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, May 6, 2013, by the City Council.  The Piedmont Recreation Department has proposed use of the former Sunday School section of 801 Magnolia Avenue as a childcare facility.  Objections to that use induced the City Council to allow time for proposals other than the City’s childcare proposal.  Objections to the childcare facility appeared to center around incompatibility of use and need for an adult facility. > Click to read more…

Bicycle Master Plan, Complete Streets Policy and Pedestrian Master Plan Outlined for Piedmont –

The following letter was sent to PCA:

Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council,

We, the undersigned, are writing to express our interest in participating in the development of Piedmont’s Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) and related efforts and to share some of our initial thoughts and expectations about the process. Several of us are members of Piedmont Connect’s Alternative Transportation working group. Most of us bicycle in or through Piedmont regularly. We are very pleased that Piedmont is undertaking these efforts, and we welcome the opportunity to comment.

Communications: Please add all of the undersigned to the email notification list for the Bicycle Master Plan. Duncan Watry and Tim Rood are both happy to respond to inquiries on behalf of the group, which stays in contact via email.

Scope of Work: We understand from staff reports that the funding for the BMP is in the approved FY 2012-13 budget and that a proposal has been obtained from Barry Miller, whose fine work on Piedmont’s General Plan we very much appreciate. We would appreciate the opportunity for public review and comment on the proposed scope of work for the bike plan and related efforts, before a contract is executed.

New Measure B Funding Criteria: As you are aware, in 2011 the Alameda County Transportation Commission and MTC adopted new requirements that apply to the approximately $350,000 annually in Measure B funds that Piedmont receives from Alameda County, as well as Measure F funding, Vehicle License Fee offset funds, and the proposed Measure B increase on the November 2012 ballot. Recipient cities are now required to have adopted a Complete Streets policy by January 31, 2013 and to have adopted a pedestrian (or combined bike/pedestrian) master plan by Dec. 31, 2015. These efforts (discussed later in this letter) are closely related to the bicycle master plan process and should be coordinated.

We understand that a joint City Council/Planning Commission session, scheduled for September 18, will address the issue of expanding the consultant’s scope of work to include development of a Complete Streets policy and pedestrian/Safe Routes to Schools plan in addition to the bike plan. We look forward to participating in the public discussion of coordinating these important and necessary efforts.

Public Process: From discussions with you, we understand that the Council may choose not to appoint a formal Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) due to expense considerations, and that public input for the bicycle plan may occur primarily through Planning Commission hearings. With or without a BAC, we believe that bringing about community acceptance of the bicycle plan will require a robust and inclusive public input process, including one or more dedicated public meetings (ideally televised on KCOM) and perhaps an online survey as well. The process should include multiple avenues for input from bicyclists of all ages and capabilities, as well as from residents, particularly those who live along the proposed routes. If the consultant proposal does not include this level of community participation, we urge that it be amended.

Bicycle Plan Statutory Requirements: We understand that California law requires bicycle plans prepared by local jurisdictions to include eleven distinct components in order to qualify for funding from the State Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) under the California Bicycle Transportation Act. We expect Piedmont’s BMP to include these components. See Appendix A for a list of these components and our comments and recommendations.

Policy Context: We note that preparing a bicycle master plan is called for as a near-term priority in Piedmont’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP). We expect the BMP scope of work to reflect the policies of these documents as well as other applicable laws.
General Plan: : We expect the Bicycle Plan to implement the relevant policies of Piedmont’s adopted General Plan, which states that “[b]icycle travel provides a way to reduce vehicle emissions, promote public health, meet recreational needs, manage congestion, and reduce parking demand.” See Appendix B for other relevant General Plan policies.

Climate Action Plan: We expect the Bicycle Plan to implement the relevant policies of Piedmont’s adopted Climate Action Plan (see Appendix C), including a target of a combined bicycle and pedestrian mode share of 5% of commute trips by 2020 (Climate Action Plan Implementation Measure TL-1.1).

Specific Bicycle Issues to Be Addressed: We anticipate that the BMP process will provide an opportunity for public discussion of the following:

Bicycle Network: We believe it is important to plan for the phased and prioritized implementation of a citywide network of bicycle facilities that connects with Oakland’s bikeway network. We also believe it is very important for residents along the proposed bike routes to be included in the public discussion.

The bike routes depicted in General Plan Figure 4.5 are described as “a starting point for discussion.” We have discussed several ideas for fine-tuning and augmenting the proposed bike routes depicted in the General Plan. We believe it is important for the network to include bike routes that serve all of Piedmont’s public schools and major parks, and that connect to Oakland routes linking Piedmont to major destinations, such as shopping districts and BART stations. We believe bike routes serving Wildwood School, Dracena Park and Hampton Field should be added to the proposed network. Bike route connections to the Lakeshore and Montclair shopping districts may also be appropriate.

Specific Routes: Grand Avenue, Park Boulevard and portions of Moraga Avenue are all currently unimproved and dangerous bicycle routes, which our group has discussed extensively. We believe there are design solutions that could improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety while making bicycling and walking more pleasant and reducing speeding. These solutions should be investigated for at least preliminary feasibility as part of the BMP process and its implementation. We have spoken with Jason Patton, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager at the City of Oakland, who assured us that he and his staff are looking forward to collaborating with Piedmont staff and citizens on bicycle planning issues across municipal boundaries.

Bike Parking: We believe that one way to encourage biking for regular transportation in Piedmont would be to provide more visible and useful bike parking locations, particularly in and around the Civic Center and at the schools.

Evolving Design Guidance for Bikeways: Best practices and standards for bicycle facilities are fast evolving, and multiple sets of standards are currently in circulation. Several urban designers and planners in our group are familiar with the evolving state of best practices and are eager to share ideas and design concepts, as well as nearby examples of the successful introduction of innovative facility designs.

Measureable Goals: The CAP sets a target of a combined bicycle and pedestrian mode share of 5% of commute trips by 2020. We believe the BMP should include a measurable goal for bicycle mode share and a process for monitoring progress toward this goal.
Prioritization: We believe the BMP should identify short, medium and long-term priorities.

Pavement Condition: One of the most important outcomes of the BMP and Complete Streets Policy should be to make designated bicycle routes a high priority for repaving to improve bicycle safety. For example, we note that the current pavement condition on Magnolia Avenue, a proposed bicycle route and important route to schools, is far worse than that of other streets, such as Highland Avenue, which are proposed for repaving this year while Magnolia is not.

Complete Streets Policy We understand that you anticipate that ACTC will distribute a model Complete Streets policy or ordinance to jurisdictions later this year. As we recently saw with the community and Council reaction to the proposed Bay-Friendly Landscape Ordinance, model ordinances may not always reflect Piedmont’s unique conditions. We believe the BMP process presents an ideal opportunity to develop and refine Complete Streets policies that are appropriate for Piedmont and to lay important groundwork in rolling these concepts out to the community.

We expect Piedmont’s Complete Streets policy or ordinance to comply with the requirements of the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Appendix D) and hope that it will include the ten elements of a comprehensive complete streets policy recommended by the National Complete Streets Coalition (see Appendix E).

Pedestrian Master Plan Similar to the bicycle plan, a pedestrian master plan for Piedmont will help to focus pedestrian improvements along highly used routes and set out a community-supported, prioritized vision for future pedestrian improvements. We encourage the consideration of a combined pedestrian/bicycle master plan to ensure that the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists are coordinated.

Safe Routes to Schools With so many Piedmont students already walking to school, and the potential to make bicycling to school a safer and more comfortable option in keeping with Piedmont’s policy goals, we believe it is important to coordinate pedestrian and bicycle improvements, including traffic calming measures, around our schools with the larger bicycle and pedestrian master planning processes. We understand that a comprehensive approach to planning for Safe Routes to School could make Piedmont eligible for additional funding for pedestrian and bicycle improvements and traffic calming measures, as well as raising awareness of traffic issues, physical fitness, and safety in our school community.

The Safe Routes to Schools Alameda County Partnership is funded in part by Measure B and includes the Alameda County Public Health Department, Cycles of Change, and many other local agencies and organizations, led by TransForm, a non-profit organization. The partnership is currently reaching tens of thousands of students at more than 60 Alameda County public elementary schools. We understand that the Piedmont Unified School District, through its 2009 Green Initiatives Action Plan, has already committed to working with the City of Piedmont to cooperate on the development of Safe Routes to School in Piedmont We encourage the City of Piedmont to actively collaborate with PUSD and to work with non-profit and agency partners to pursue funding opportunities and further this process.

Thank you for your attention, and we look forward to working with you on the Bicycle Master Plan and related efforts.

Sincerely,

Jasmin Ansar
Lynne Bosche
Dave Campbell (Program Manager, East Bay Bicycle Coalition)
Adam Carr
Scott Donahue
Eric W. Downing
Kurt Fleischer
Tom Gandesbery
Len Gilbert
Ryan Gilbert
Katherine Heater
Eric Hsia
Ve and Arthur Hsieh
Kristin Hull
Tammi, Andrew, Clare and Grant Keating
Garrett Keating (Piedmont City Council member)
Christopher Kidd (Board member, California Bicycle Coalition)
Thomas Kronemeyer
Kimberly Moses
Margaret Ovenden
Debbie Pfeiffer
Tim Rood
Hussein Saffouri (President, Berkeley Bicycle Club)
Hope and Larry Salzer
Rick Schiller
Peter M. Sherris
Michael Singer
Terry and Rob Smith
Susan Southworth
Roger Sparks
Sinan Subuncuoglu
Alice Sung
Maryann Tucker
Jukka Valkonen (Chair, Piedmont Park Commission)
Tom Walters
Winifred Walters
Mark Ward
Duncan Watry
Anne Weinberger
Karen Westmont
Keira Williams
Tracey Woodruff
Affiliations are shown for identification purposes only.

Appendix A. Comments on Bicycle Plan Statutory Requirements:

a. Estimated Number of Existing and Proposed Bicycle Commuters Recommendation: We note that existing figures should be available from 2010 Census data. Comparisons to other nearby cities would be helpful to provide context.

b. Land Use and Population Density (map and description) Recommendation: These could be incorporated from Piedmont’s General Plan by reference

c. Existing and Proposed Bikeways (map and description). Comment: We note that the route network depicted in General Plan Figure 4.5 is described a “starting point for discussion” and look forward to participating in that discussion along with other Piedmonters and interested parties.

d. Existing and Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities (map and description). Recommendation: The BMP should include standards for the development of bicycle parking and outline potential locations for these facilities.

e. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Transport and Parking Facilities for Transportation Connections (map and description). Recommendation: This should include standards for bicycle parking near Piedmont’s bus stops and casual carpool pick-ups.

f. Existing and Proposed Shower Facilities (map and description)

Recommendation: While this provision may not be applicable to Piedmont given the lack of large employers, it could be applicable to City employees. We note that City-owned showers are available in the Piedmont Community Pool locker rooms.

g. Bicycle Safety and Education Programs (description) Comment: We note that such programs are currently offered by the Boy Scouts and East Bay Bicycle Coalition.

h. Citizen and Community Participation Comment: As noted above, we expect and encourage the City to provide multiple avenues for public participation in this effort.

i. Consistency with Long-Range Transportation, Air Quality and Energy Plans

j. Project Descriptions and Priority Listings

k. Past Expenditures and Future Financial Needs Description

Appendix B. Relevant Piedmont General Plan Policies
The following General Plan policies relate to bicycle planning:

Policy 10.4: Bike Routes Accommodate bicycles where feasible on Piedmont streets. Recognize that most streets are not wide enough to accommodate dedicated bike lanes, but that the designation of some streets as “bike routes” (as depicted on the City of Oakland’s Bicycle Plan) could improve connectivity to Oakland and link Piedmont to nearby destinations, including shopping districts, Downtown Oakland, and BART.

Policy 10.5: Bicycle Infrastructure Expand the “infrastructure” necessary to accommodate bicycle travel, including bike racks in parks, at schools, and at public buildings, and adequate space for bicycle storage in residential garages.

Action 10.D: Safe Routes to School Work collaboratively with the Piedmont Unified School District to determine the feasibility of a Safe Routes to School program. Pursue grant funding to initiate such a program and offset local costs.

Action 10.E: Bicycle Plan Contingent on the availability of funding and staff, develop a bike plan which incorporates the route alignments shown in Figure 4.5; outlines safety, maintenance, and education programs; and identifies capital improvements to encourage bicycling in Piedmont. Pursue grant funding and consider use of Measure B funds to prepare and implement such a plan.

Appendix C. Piedmont Climate Action Plan Policies
Relevant CAP policies include the following:
– TL 1.1 Expand bicycling & pedestrian infrastructure
– TL 1.2 Install bike racks
– TL 3.4 Work with schools to improve/expand walking, Safe Routes to School and trip reduction programs
– TL 3.5 Public education re reducing motor vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions

Measure TL 1.1 calls for the preparation and adoption of a Bicycle Master Plan that coordinates with City of Oakland bicycle planning initiatives and sets a target of a combined bicycle and pedestrian mode share of 5% of commute trips by 2020. The measure reads as follows:
“Improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure will help reduce GHG emissions, enhance mobility for all ages and abilities, and increase the health and fitness of Piedmont residents. To achieve these multiple benefits, the City will work to improve the community’s pedestrian and bicycle network. Improvements will be made to increase pedestrian, and cyclist safety.

“Proposed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements will be based on street types and existing characteristics. Pedestrian infrastructure improvements will consist of additional cross‐walks, sidewalk cuts, and traffic calming elements. Bicycle infrastructure improvements will include development of new cycletracks, Class II bike lanes, and addition of signs to improve cyclist safety. Streets with higher traffic volumes will include cycletracks or Class II bike lanes. Lower volume residential streets will be subject to minor improvements, such as signs and traffic calming features.”
The CAP also recommendations for installing bike racks at bus stops and carpool pick-up sites.

Appendix D. Complete Streets Act of 2008
The California Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill 1358) was signed into law in September 2008. It requires that local jurisdictions modify their general plans as follows:
“(A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantial revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, “users of streets, roads, and highways” means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.”
Appendix E. Elements of a Comprehensive Complete Streets Policy
The National Complete Streets Coalition has identified ten elements of a comprehensive complete streets policy, which we support:
– Includes a vision for how and why the community wants to complete its streets
– Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles.
– Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way.
– Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions.
– Encourages street connectivity and aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network for all modes.
– Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads.
– Directs the use of the latest and best design criteria and guidelines while recognizing the need for flexibility in balancing user needs.
– Directs that complete streets solutions will complement the context of the community.
– Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes.
– Includes specific next steps for implementation of the policy.

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

Council Member Keating Highlights Change to New Athletic Fund Plan.  This matter will be discussed tonight, Monday July 16.  –

The Athletic Facilities Replacement Fund on Monday’s agenda has changed significantly from that initially proposed in October, 2011. The principal change is that the $25 fee will apply only to participants in sports activities administered through the Piedmont Recreation Department. Members of the private sports organizations will not be charged the fee when using city facilities – Linda Beach Field, Coaches Field, Hampton Field and the Swimming Pool. Based on this revision, annual revenues of the fund are projected to decline from $145,000 per year to $68,000 per year.

Garrett Keating, Piedmont City Council Member

PCA LINKS:  PCA Article and City Staff Report

The 4 members of the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Review Committee appointed by the City Council, 3 liaisons from other committees or organizations, and several members of the public toured the 801 Magnolia building on Monday, May 16th.  Following the tour, Committee Members discussed the desire for public input on potential public uses for the remaining unleased portion of the building.  (The sanctuary and rooms to the north of the sanctuary have been leased for the next ten years to the Piedmont Center for the Arts.) > Click to read more…

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.)

Piedmonters emailed letters to the City Council in advance of the Monday, November 15, 2010 public hearing to consider the “Response to Comments” on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Moraga Avenue proposals. Therese Franklin and Robert Blagden objected to

> Click to read more…

Joint Recreation Commission and Park Commission Agenda
Wednesday, October 19, 2022     7:30 p.m.

Consideration of a Recommendation to City Council on the Use of Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant Funding for Upgrades to the Piedmont Middle School Sport Courts, including Pickleball Court Improvements and Replacement of a Pedestrian Foot Bridge in Piedmont Park near Bushy Dell Creek – 

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend that the City Council revise the Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant Funding to include two projects: upgrades to the Piedmont Middle School (PMS) Sports Courts including Pickleball Court Improvements and replacement of a pedestrian foot bridge in Piedmont Park near Bushy Dell Creek

BACKGROUND:

On October 20, 2021, the Recreation and Park Commissions held a special virtual meeting to review the Prop. 68 Per Capita project proposal to create a new outdoor space in Piedmont Park. There was a robust discussion among Commissioners and the Joint Commissions voted 10-2 in favor of recommending the project to City Council.

Following the Commissions’ recommendation, the City Council on December 6, 2021 approved designation of the City’s share of Proposition 68 Per Capita grant funding for an outdoor Recreation Department preschool and public space near the Community Hall. Staff proceeded to finalize project costs for the grant application and worked with Coastland Engineers to develop plans and a cost estimate for the approved project. After careful evaluation of several options which included cost savings alternatives, the engineer’s estimate exceeded the grant amount by approximately $200k. With a project that substantially exceeded the grant funds, staff considered alternate projects that would be appropriate for this grant.

DISCUSSION:

The grant funds must be used as capital outlay for recreational purposes and grant recipients are encouraged to utilize the award to rehabilitate existing infrastructure and address deficiencies in neighborhoods lacking access to the outdoors. As part of the grant resolution for the acceptance of the State funds, the City is encouraged to take actions that promote diversity and inclusions in their parks.

Piedmont’s total combined grant allocation is $184,932. Because Piedmont does not qualify as a disadvantage community, the grant requires the City to contribute matching funds of $46, 233 which is 25% of the grant award resulting in a total project budget of $231, 165.

In reconsidering project designation for the grant, the Recreation and Public Works Departments reviewed projects that were shovel ready and would improve existing recreational and park facilities as well as serve multiple recreational users and park visitors.

Two projects are proposed for the grant funds:

Project 1: Additional upgrades to the Piedmont Middle School (PMS) Sport Courts including new plexipave acrylic athletic court surfacing over the existing asphalt surface, striping for pickleball, volleyball, street hockey, and badminton, new basketball back boards and padding, portable volleyball net system and a water bottle filling station.

Beginning in 2018, the Recreation Commission’s Subcommittee on Tennis Court Use and Pickleball reviewed the management of the City’s tennis facilities and programming as well as the growing interest in pickleball in Piedmont.

The subcommittee recognized the need for careful and specific planning to introduce a new recreational activity into a community with severe recreational space constraints. They performed diligent work over the course of seven months and arrived at a number of recommendations that were presented to and adopted by the Recreation Commission on January 16,2019 and City Council on March 4, 2019. Their primary recommendation for pickleball was to explore a partnership with PUSD to renovate the Physical Education (PE) hardcourt surfaces at PMS to create a first class pickleball facility with a tennis quality surface lined and painted, for use by school and public. The courts would allow for multiple uses including badminton and basketball, in addition to pickleball that could be open to the community during non-school hours.

The Capital Improvement Projects Committee (CIP) also recommended the PMS Sport Courts as one of their top three priority projects for consideration in their 2019 report delivered to Council at the May 11, 2019 City Budget Workshop. On June 3, 2019, the City Council approved a reimbursement and a use agreement with PUSD regarding Piedmont Middle School Sport Court renovations and Council approved an appropriation in the 2018-2019 fiscal year of $50,000 from the unallocated balance of the General Fund towards the removal of existing asphalt, grading and installation of new asphalt as well as installation of new net posts and nets on the three existing PMS Sport Court surfaces. Funding at the time was not adequate to include the desired “tennis quality surface” that was requested and recommended for courts of this type.

The project also included restriping the existing PE lines and the addition of striping for six regulation sized pickleball courts to be used with portable nets. Since the PMS Sport Courts were renovated and hours established for pickleball play at Hampton, Beach and PMS, the popularity and growth of pickleball in Piedmont (and nationally) has skyrocketed. Across the three sites where pickleball is played in Piedmont, approximately 1200 players use Piedmont courts each month (some playing for the first time and others playing multiple times per week).

While the interest in pickleball has expanded to all age groups, it is by far the largest older adult/senior activity offered in Piedmont. The PMS Sport Courts have provided for a highly used space for pickleball in Piedmont hosting about 700 players each month. The 6 courts also allow the pickleball group to offer tournament play twice per month, frequent clinics and a monthly community potluck. On Saturdays and Sundays, you will typically see 24 people playing and 24-32 players waiting to play.

Due to demand, PRD has recently added evening play at the PMS courts which has been well received with 3-4 courts always full. The PMS Sport Courts will continue to accommodate school Physical Education classes and activities and allow the Recreation Department to offer after school drop-in and structured programs for a variety of sports.

The loss of the Rec Basketball Courts due to the Community Pool project and requests to provide informal volleyball play near the schools will both be accommodated at the PMS Sport Courts. The improved striping and tennis court surface will provide users with a consistent surface, grip and traction while playing. The improvements funded by the grant would be managed entirely by PUSD, with the City reimbursing PUSD up to $100,000 for expenses related to resurfacing, striping, basketball backboards with padding, portable volleyball net system and a water bottle filling station. PUSD will absorb the cost of construction management and long-term maintenance.

Project 2: Replacement of a pedestrian foot bridge in Piedmont Park near Bushy Dell Creek Within Piedmont Park, a small creek tributary crosses one of the main paths near where Bushy Dell Creek enters the culvert adjacent to PUSD softball field.

A wood pedestrian bridge, estimated to be over 20 years old spans the tributary. This bridge was first identified as being deficient in 2015 and a funding source has yet to be identified. The wood decking was temporarily patched with plywood as the decking was in need of repair and in 2019, Public Works contacted several contractors and explored options for replacing the bridge. Due to the location and access, it was determined that the bridge could not be prefabricated and craned into place, but the replacement would involve a custom design to fit the site conditions.

Early discussions on bridge replacement were halted during the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2022, Public Works staff has worked with Pacific General Engineering to prepare preliminary designs and a cost estimate to replace the bridge, install new abutments and include handrails that comply with current building code. The proposed bridge will utilize steel beams and wood components for the decking and the handrail. Final design and an engineer’s estimate will be prepared by the city engineer. The new bridge installation will require adjustments to the existing path and limited landscape repair adjacent to the new structure. The grant will be used to cover the fabrication and installation of the bridge and the repair and upgrades to the landscape and path adjacent to the bridge. Grant, funding for the bridge and associated landscape improvements will be approximately $150k and will expend the remainder of the grant.

READ THE FULL REPORT AND AGENDA DETAILS FOR PARTICIPATION LINKED BELOW:

10-19-22 Joint Recreation and Park Commission Meeting