A Piedmont Town Hall meeting will be held on Thursday, June 21st at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall to solicit ideas from the public regarding the selection of a new Police Chief.

The meeting will be hosted by Mayor John Chiang and Vice Mayor Margaret Fujioka, as well as a recruiter hired by the City, Regan Williams of the firm Bob Murray & Associates.   Residents are invited to share their input about what characteristics, experience, and professional background they would like to see in a new Police Chief.   Also comments regarding any issues present in the community or in the department are welcomed.

“As the hiring of a Police Chief is highly important to the City, I encourage residents to participate by attending this meeting and/or providing written comment,”  stated City Administrator Geoffrey Grote.

Written comments may be sent to City Council, c/o Piedmont City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or by email to: jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us.  Correspondence received by the City Clerk is considered part of the public record and thus available to the public. For further information contact, City Clerk John O. Tulloch at (510) 420-3040.

Piedmont to Create “Suspected” and “Illegal” List of Second Units-

In case you missed it, last year (2011) the Piedmont City Council adopted a new policy that assumes empty rooms in Piedmont homes represent a public resource, and that it is appropriate to use leverage on Piedmont residents to create more second units in Piedmont homes.

A list of homes with “Illegal” and “Suspected” second units will be created. Staff intends to “work with” Piedmont residents to convert rooms in their homes to legal second units.  If voluntary action is not taken, or proves to be impossible, it was unclear what City action would result.

The List is described in the Housing Element as being “confidential.”  > Click to read more…

California Primary Election – 

Piedmont voters who have not already cast  absentee ballots will head to the polls Tuesday, June 5, 2012 to vote in the California Primary Election to determine  who advances to the November General Election, elect a Superior Court Judge, and give thumbs up or down for two state propositions and one local measure.  Polls open at 7:00 am and close at 8:00 pm.

New for June 2012: California’s Top Two Primary System

For the first time, all candidates running for statewide offices are listed on one ballot, regardless of  party affiliation. Under the “Top Two Primary” system approved by California voters in June 2010, the two candidates for each office who receive the most votes will qualify to run in the General Election. A candidate’s party has no impact on who advances to the General Election. Instead, candidates proceed to November based solely on how many votes they receive in the Primary.

The new system applies to US Congressional, State Senate and State Assembly candidates on the ballot. It does not apply to Presidential candidates who are still selected in the Primary by party affiliation or to political party County Central Committees or County Councils.

Three candidates running for Alameda County Superior Court Judge are also on the ballot.

In addition, the ballot includes two statewide Propositions and one Alameda County Measure:

Proposition 28 — Reform Legislative Term Limits 
is designed to make legislators more accountable by reducing their time in office from 14 years to a strict 12 year limit. This is a state constitutional amendment that would allow legislators to serve a total of 12 years entirely in the State Assembly, the State Senate, or a combination of the two. It would affect legislators elected after its passage. Currently, State legislators can serve a maximum of 14 years: 6 years in the Assembly and 8 years in the Senate.

Proposition 29 — The Cigarette Tax for Cancer Research 
imposes an additional five cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($1.00 per pack), and an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products, to fund cancer research and other specified purposes. It requires tax revenues be deposited into a special fund to finance research and research facilities focused on detecting, preventing, treating, and curing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related diseases, and to finance prevention programs.

Measure B, Alameda County: would allocate funds for core academic programs for Peralta Community College District (2/3 Approval Required). The measure would levy $48 per parcel annually for 8 years with citizens’ oversight, no funds for administrators’ salaries, and all funds spent in the Peralta Community College district (College of Alameda, Laney College, Merritt College and Berkeley City College). The funds could not be taken by the state and would support affordable college education including core academic programs and educating students to transfer to university.

For more information, visit the League of Women Voters Smart Voter website: http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/06/05/ca/alm/

An open letter expressing concern over a law dictating that private property landscaping must comply with an external agency’s changeable requirements, plus new City staff monitoring requirements.

Piedmont Landscaping Requirements To Be Controlled By Another Agency – 

I find this proposed ordinance [704] a very unreasonable intrusion by government power on how individuals choose to proceed in doing their own landscaping.  While I am “for” the environment and personally practice many forms of conservation in my own landscaping, I believe that educating people and making conservation easy for them is far preferable to making laws enforced against them.

I truly question the legal source of power in our elected City Council to pass this bill.  This is not “health and safety” or any legitimate City government interest I can find.

In Section 17.18.3 (b), the City is required to apply (whenever they are making an individual homeowner do his landscaping in compliance with this law) whatever is then the most recent version of the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines, Scorecard and Checklist.    This means that our elected representatives are giving up their discretion to pass laws that govern all of us to an outside group (which is STOPWASTE.ORG).   This is absurd.  We elect these Council Members to make decisions about how to use our taxpayer money and how to best run our sweet little town.  We did not elect the people at STOPWASTE.ORG who may have some pretty radical ideas going forward about how we should be landscaping our yards. > Click to read more…

The report and recommendations from the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) look at the City’s primary financial risks and ways to reduce them.  The report will be presented to the City Council on Monday, June 4.    The nine recommendations, covering the Sewer Fund, Pay, Pensions and Benefits, Capital Transfers and Other Items, can be read below.

State mandated housing requirements for increased housing units and multiple density residential to be implemented –

Staff will be presenting a comprehensive set of proposed revisions to Piedmont’s Zoning Code, Chapter 17, at the June 11, 5:00 p.m. Piedmont Planning Commission meeting. 

A zoning change requiring any new development in Zones C and D (Multiple Density Residential and Commercial) to be a minimum density of 12 housing units per acre is included.

The zoning code specifies how all properties in Piedmont can be used.  The draft changes implement changes to the Housing Element adopted on June 6, 2011.

“The introduction will cover the purpose of the revisions: implementation of the General Plan Actions, Housing Element Programs, address comments received in the 2007 General Plan Survey, and codify City Council and Planning Commission directives. Additionally, staff are recommending certain refinements to the Code provisions aimed at improving clarity and consistency, and streamlining application procedures.”

Replacing a City Wall

The Planning Commission will also consider residential applications and an application by the City to demolish an existing concrete wall and side yard gate along the right (west) property line of City Hall and construct a new stucco-faced wall and wood gate.  The wall borders City Hall and the adjacent property to the west.  The City is adhering to City ordinances requiring the  application and review of changes and improvements on City property.

The full Commission agenda and staff reports can be accessed here.  To view video of Planning Commission meetings click here.

The following commentary was published by The Piedmonter and submitted to the Piedmont Civic Association:

The bad process that led to the Undergrounding debacle was made worse by the sham City “Audit” which included two members of the City Council who voted for the giveaway, then investigated themselves and accepted their own report.  The staff liaison was the City Administrator who bears the ultimate responsibility for the taxpayer loss.

City Hall had little desire for taxpayers to know why two million dollars were used for private benefit. During the Undergrounding an additional $275,000 of taxpayer money was taken for “storm drains” on Crest Road, drains that were never intended to be installed.  Rather than reclaim taxpayer funds or investigate, the City’s solution was to reclassify the theft as “street repaving.”  The City’s response to the Kurtin’s Undergrounding lawsuit was a frivolous defense that ate another $550,000.

The Undergrounding Debacle led both the LWV Task Force and 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee  to recommend standard practices for any major project in town, including monetary risk assessment, independent construction management and contingency fees.  None of these recommendations were present Dec. 5, 2011 when four Council members voted approval of the Blair Park Project.  What was present was (1) the City Engineer’s report which found the PRFO supplied numbers lacking sufficient detail for a meaningful examination (2) a proponent project manager (3) no recommendation for contingency fees (4) Planning Commission findings that the project was ugly and deficient in all respects, and (5) an unanalyzed traffic plan that included an experimental roundabout.  This was a flawed and biased process.  Apparently as a tactical maneuver, Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization (PRFO) has withdrawn the project because of the expected success of the Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC ) and pending Oakland litigation.  Residents asked that Council rescind the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in hopes of bringing our community back together.  Instead, the Council chose to honor the PRFO intent: “The EIR may be useful if there is any future project developed at Blair Park. ” (blairpark.org)

”The PRFO “Gift” just keeps on giving as taxpayer cost approaches $470,000.   The Feb. 7 dramatic defeat of Measure A should have been a wake-up call to City Hall that the electorate was disgusted by biased City processes and an unneeded tax measure.  But on May 7 the Council had only high praise for PRFO, further deepening the community divide.  The bad process is not a result of ignorance, our populace is too bright.  Piedmont government is by some for themselves and calculated deception is the result.  I am not a recipient of this generosity, yet I pay the same high parcel taxes.  Until we have real community discussion and input, and a City Administrator who serves all residents equally, my only recourse is to vote down City parcel taxes.  I will not waste my money and feed elite special interests.

Rick Schiller, Piedmont resident

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

In Closed Session on June 4, the City Council will continue to consider negotiations in the matter of Friends of Moraga Canyon v. City of Piedmont relating to potential litigation (Blair Park).  Also, labor negotiations continue with all bargaining units. > Click to read more…

Discussion of Sewers, Pensions, Healthcare, Projections, Risk –

The next meeting of the Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) will be held  Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center, 403 Highland Avenue.  Meeting since April, the BAFPC is preparing their recommendations to the City Council on issues pivotal to Piedmont’s financial future.  Those interested in observing or participating in the meeting must be present as no broadcast or recording will be made of the meeting. > Click to read more…

Acting sooner rather than later may be key, according to BAFPC –

Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) discussions suggest a serious concern that hefty contributions to CalPERS, whether paid by the City or its employees, could potentially be buying Piedmont employees little more than an empty CalPERS promise. > Click to read more…