October 15, 2014

Dear Mayor Fujioka, Vice Mayor Wieler, and City Council Members Rood, King, and McBain:

Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the City Council meeting this coming Monday evening, October 20, 2014, as I wanted to speak on the subject of smoking restrictions in Piedmont. Thus, I am writing to you as a third generation “Piedmonter”, being a resident for 50 years this October 2014 and a property owner myself for 34 years.

All three of our children grew up in Piedmont and enjoyed the amazing community and services offered by both the City and Schools, including attending recreation department programs, participating in sports, participating in after school educational programs, etc., with two of our children graduating from Piedmont High School. My wife Holly and I, and my father as well, have been tireless community volunteers and proudly helped both the Schools and City in so many ways. Thus, my family is very ingrained in Piedmont and seriously concerned about maintaining its wonderful quality of life.

With this, I am wholeheartedly in support of Piedmont adopting a No Smoking Ordinance as soon as possible. As such, I am in support of extending the secondhand smoke protections in Piedmont to include many of our outdoor public spaces and as well I strongly suggest that this ordinance address the proliferation of unregulated electronic cigarettes.

People who smoke need to be discouraged from smoking when they are around others, especially children, the elderly, and those with lung, heart, or other chronic conditions.  To ensure safe air passage for our children, their parents, our teachers and others to from school and around the schools, I strongly support the adoption of a smokefree buffer zone around the perimeter of all of our schools.

As stated above, it is just common sense to include the use of electronic smoking device emissions in the protections, since the toxins emitted like formaldehyde may not be safe to those nearby.  In fact, a recent study showed that non-users had measurable levels of nicotine in their bodies from being close by when these devices are used.  A note of importance, these devices can and have been easily altered to allow users to add other substances into the liquid solution for inhalation.

I also strongly support efforts to regulate the sale of these devices and prohibit the distribution of free sampling and the distribution of heavily discounted coupons for all tobacco products including these devices within the Piedmont city limits.  As an asthmatic myself and an American Lung Association volunteer for 30 plus years, I have long supported efforts to reduce tobacco use by adults and youth and I would hate to see electronic cigarettes with their “Captain Crunch” and Gummy Bear” flavors lure a new generation of youth into becoming addicted to nicotine.

Over 65 local California communities have already added e-cigarette regulations into their existing secondhand smoke protections including Hayward, Dublin, San Leandro, Berkeley, Union City, El Cerrito, Walnut Creek, and Richmond.

In conclusion, I not only urge Piedmont residents to support the City Council’s efforts to protect all residents in Piedmont from outdoor secondhand smoke, but to also urge the school community to explore how they can partner with the City in keeping tobacco and nicotine out of our shared air and out of our lungs.

Thank you very much and with warmest regards,

Michael A. Gardner

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

On October 6 the City Council will consider transferring funds into the Sewer Fund to move forward with completing the mainline sewer rehabilitation. This is a significant first in Piedmont, to have funds transferred into the Sewer Fund rather than taken out. The Sewer Fund has essentially operated as a City slush fund.

In 2011, City Hall asked for an additional $11 Million dollars from taxpayers which would have added an additional 50% tax burden on top of an already expensive sewer tax. That 2011 tax failed, and earlier this year staff estimated only $1 Million was needed to complete the previously stated $11M compliance and construction work.

Piedmont has always maintained compliance with all EPA and Water Resources Quality Board legal requirements. A fair question is why $11 Million was needed 3 years ago, and is now down to $1M? Fortuitously, a real estate transfer tax windfall of an additional $1M, and other cost cuts, means no additional taxpayer money is needed to complete the mainline sewer system. Most of the Council also recognized when rescinding Mr. Wieler’s transfer tax plan earlier this year that taxpayers want more accountability of where their tax dollars will go, and an efficient use of their funds.

During the very troubled Piedmont Hill Underground Utility District debacle, with taxpayers paying in excess of two million dollars for private benefit, the Crest Road utility trench collapsed on Oct. 13 2009. The trench would not have existed but for the private benefit undergrounding project. Staff recommended on Nov. 16 2009 that $296,000 be taken from the Sewer Fund for repairs; the sewer fund is a publicly funded source. Council agreed. Staff stated a month after the collapse that installation of trench dams was the necessary repair. On Oct. 14 2009, the City Engineer directed that the trench be filled with low-pressure concrete; by Nov. 16 this was largely completed. The installation of the trench dams, standard construction practice on a steep slope and missing in the original construction, would have required that hundreds of cubic yards of the freshly poured cement be excavated. No trench dams were ever installed and the $296,000 was paid by general tax revenue and not taken from the private undergrounding district’s contingency funds.

Perhaps just a coincidence, but at the time the 2011 sewer tax failed the Blair Park project was pulled. The actual expenses for that project were never fully disclosed and I question how the sewer fund would have been further used had the additional tax passed. I speculate that the overflowing sewer fund may have been a source of funding for the new 25 home sewer line and 24 inch EBMUD transmission line relocation.

The current temporary transfer into the Sewer Fund makes sense; it is essentially a near zero interest loan. Hopefully, when the sewer rehabilitation is completed, the same spirit as now prevails in City Hall will remain and the sewer tax enacted in 2000 will be eliminated. Other prudent accounting practices have recently been undertaken with a closer look at the $900,000 automatically appropriated annually from the Sewer Fund and moved into the General Fund.

Moving ahead now with Phase V of the sewer rehabilitation is smart. Finally under Mayor Fujioka’s forward looking leadership and coupled with the transparent professionalism of City Administrator Benoit, we are taking financially prudent proactive measures.

Rich Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

On Sept. 15, 2014 the Piedmont City Council voted to consider adopting secondhand smoke protections in outdoor public spaces and in common areas of multiunit housing. This was great news to me since I have had asthma for much of my adult life, caused by being exposed to heavy smoking during my childhood. I now take daily medication to control my asthma, but I remain highly allergic to tobacco smoke which literally takes my breath away. Rather than quietly accept my asthma diagnosis, I chose to put my efforts into volunteering for over 30 years for the American Lung Association and work towards supporting their fight for healthy air and lungs – from combatting air pollution and secondhand smoke to preventing children from ever starting to smoke.

By adopting these secondhand protections Piedmont will be joining the rest of the County as well as San Francisco and over 100 California cities which already have these protections.

The evidence is clear. Secondhand tobacco smoke kills 42,000 non-smoking Americans every year and sickens hundreds of thousands more, causing asthma attacks and worsening other conditions like diabetes, cancer, lung and cardiovascular diseases.

Most vulnerable are young children whose growing bodies absorb twice the toxins than adults do.

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are absent from school more frequently and are more likely to do poorly on tests than are children who are not exposed.

While smoking has been prohibited in most indoor workplaces since 1995, outdoor protections statewide have been limited to doorways of government buildings and around play structures in parks. It has been up to local cities to adopt additional protections like smoke-free parks, bus stops, dining, and doorways, to ensure that residents can safely enjoy public spaces.

Researchers have found that outdoor smoke, depending on proximity and weather conditions, can reach harmful levels to nearby non-smokers. All of the cities in Alameda County with the exception of Piedmont have adopted some outdoor smoke free air protections.

I was also pleased to see that our city leaders have agreed to consider including a smoke free buffer zone around our schools and electronic smoking device emissions in the smoke protections. While it is illegal to sell or furnish these devices to anyone under 18 in California, their use among children as young as 11 has tripled over the past three years, threatening to undermine 25 years of tobacco prevention education and policies which have cut the smoking rate in half in Alameda County.

Over 65 local California communities have added e-cigarette regulations into their existing secondhand smoke protections including Hayward, Dublin, San Leandro, Berkeley, Union City, El Cerrito, Walnut Creek, and Richmond.

I not only urge Piedmont residents to support the Council’s efforts to protect all residents from outdoor secondhand smoke, but to also urge the school community to explore how they can partner with the City in keeping tobacco and nicotine out of our shared air and out of our lungs.

Michael Gardner, Piedmont Resident and Member of the Piedmont Public Safety Committee

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

In his latest account of the WW Park Bond saga, Councilman Jeff Wieler made several misstatements about the process. “Dozens of people” did not participate at the meetings (I attended two), a statement that could be corroborated had minutes been taken or the meetings videotaped.   The total cost for Blair Park is estimated at $900,000, but it is a phased project by design with the Phase 1 cost of $300,00 well under available WW funds of $507,325.  Applying the same logic to Hampton Field ($1.3M total) would make it ineligible.

As liaison to the Capital Improve Projects (CIP) Review Committee, Councilman Wieler could do everyone a service and explain why Blair Park was not considered as a phased project.   A lengthy CEQA process would not be required of Phase I for Blair Park, which is simply a rehabilitation of the natural area  – no change to existing use. A negative declaration is more likely and the CEQA analysis for Blair Field would more than address any impacts for the current park proposal.  The city has in its possession an analysis by LSA that
shows that a crosswalk to Blair Park is feasible and in any event, a crosswalk is not called for in Blair Park Phase I.  A principle FOMC [Friends of Moraga Canyon] argument was to maintain Blair Park as open space with better access – the threat of a lawsuit is a red herring.

The drainage problem at Hampton Field is largely going unaddressed – no drainage improvements to the play field will be made.  The “improved drainage” is actually a 4-foot plantar wall intended to screen a cell tower proposed for the slope above the courts.

“Negativity“ gets raised in lieu of informed discussion. Rather than resort to the ghost of Richard Nixon and Proverbs, Councilman Wieler should listen to Piedmonters.

The number one capital improvement project supported by residents in the 2007 General Plan Survey was improvements to the pool, a project considered not eligible for WW by the CIP Committee (It is eligible – look at the WW project list on the EBRPD website).  Moraga Canyon residents have been asking for decades that Blair Park be improved.  Citizen committees convened to study play field needs in town have consistently determined that access to Blair Park for parking or city operations is needed to expand Coaches Field.

The Recreation and Planning Commissions recommended that alternatives to the failed Blair Field proposal be considered for Blair Park.  Most of all, sports clubs have asked for increased field access, a concern Mr. Wieler claims to share. Yet with all that, WW is being used for routine court maintenance and park beautification instead of as leverage for new open space and recreation in Piedmont.  But as the Bible says:  “They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand.”  (Isaiah 44).  Ears too, it seems.

Garrett Keating, Former Councilmember

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

Former Council Member Garrett Keating finds Committee rejection of proposals inappropriate . 

It was revealed by the chair of the CIP Committee [Capital Improvement Program Review Committee] at the September 15, 2014 Council meeting that the Blair Park proposal was not even evaluated for WW [East Bay Regional Park District Bond Funds worth $507,325] eligibility, because it was considered too controversial.

The charge from the City Council to the CIP Committee was to evaluate the eligibility of staff and public proposals for WW funding, and the Council repeatedly stated that no proposals were to be prejudged. On several occasions, this intention was explicitly stated to Moraga Canyon residents requesting improvements to Blair Park. It is unfortunate that the Committee chose to categorically dismiss the Blair Park proposal, which on paper would seem to be the most appropriate use of WW funds.

Public comments solicited for last night’s meeting were strongly in favor of improvements to Hampton Field, but the only improvements being considered at this time are to the tennis and basketball courts and the play structure.   And under the current design, converting the outfield to artificial turf will not be possible because of insufficient pervious surface.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member and Current Member of the Piedmont Public Safety Committee

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  There are no recordings or minutes of the CIP meetings.

Did you know that artificial grass (turf) is considered HARDSCAPE in Piedmont and thus does not count as part of the 30% uncovered ground required for each lot?

Every lot is only allowed to have 70% hardscape: structures, brick, cement, and  artificial TURF are all considered hardscape. 30% of the lot must remain uncovered by hardscape.

Given the draught conditions, my husband and I have refused to water our front lawn.  Those of you who know our house, will attest to the brown and barren ground in the front of our house. We decided to install artificial turf. (Not an inexpensive choice but something we wanted as we like the ability to sit on the front lawn and we aren’t gardeners and thus a rock garden etc. was not something we would keep up.)

But then, we learned that we cannot use artificial turf, as we would not meet the 30/70 requirement.

By the way, artificial turf has very good drainage:  there are drainage holes every 4″ on the turf and the turf is laid over 4″ of crushed granite and sand.  Drainage is not an issue.

I attended the July 14 Planning Commission meeting and urged the Commissioners to enter the world of drought and rethink the law that classifies artificial grass as hardscape.  To my surprise (and pleasure) the Commissioners immediately agreed that the issue needs to be looked at and they have directed staff to write a report to the Commission and to place the issue on the agenda for discussion next month: August 11.

Please join me, as I urge the Planning Commission to change allowable options for us to address the water shortage and still maintain a verdant city.

Robin Flagg, Piedmont Resident

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

The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Unified School District Superintendent by a Piedmont resident involved in the Measure H discussion:

I reviewed the results of the analysis done by the structural engineer on Havens posted on page 19 of the web document at http://pusdbond.org/documents/Havens_Final_Report.pdf. I note the report of the engineer on the danger of collapse for two classrooms: “The most seriously deficient structural elements are the rod bracing located on both sides of the corridor of each classroom wing. These are greatly over stressed and would very likely fail in a major earthquake, leaving the classroom wings vulnerable to collapse.”

The calculations themselves are not included in the report, but the word of a professional structural engineer is good enough for me. In the end it is a matter of judgment made by people with experience as clearly stated in the professional literature. As an example, refer to the Purdue University article: ‘ASCE-31 and ASCE-41: What Good Are They?’ at http://tinyurl.com/nhtanmm – “The Universal building code uses an R factor as a demand reduction coefficient (divisor, ranging from 2.2 to 8.5) and the new ASCE-31 uses an m factor (ranging from 1.2 to 12) as as capacity increase coefficient (multiplier). These factors are rather arbitrary and the civil engineer selects them based on guidelines and experience.”

In the heat of the Measure H campaign, I somewhat overreacted in my response to your “opinion” published in the Piedmont Civic (http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2014/05/29/opinion-havens-faced-a-catastrophe/), and I can understand your reaction to the E Boyer satire, given your responsibility toward parents as a superintendent. So I offer you my apologies. But I do think that E Boyer has a point: Why sell a project on fear? Why use a alumnus withLou Gehrig’sdisease as the poster student for a campaign?

My disappointment with the Piedmont Parents leadership is their use of mainly negative arguments to justify projects rather than first focusing on the incremental educational value that a given project brings to our students. In the future, given the age of the High School, any building can be found not to be up to code and therefore be the basis for some group’s narrow agenda. The community should be sold on “hope” rather than “fear”, on clearly stated and measurable incremental educational value rather than playing with parents emotions.

Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident

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

Clear as Mud – 

Strange that we’re in a third year of drought with significant loss of snowpack in the Sierras – and few communities around the Bay Area have instituted mandatory water rationing.

In fact, Governor Brown’s request in January for a voluntary 20 percent cutback in water usage statewide was amended a month later by our East Bay Municipal Utility District, (EBMUD), to a voluntary cutback to 10%,  http://www.berkeleyside.com/2014/02/12/ebmud-asks-east-bay-customers-to-cut-water-use-by-10/  And, most recently, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, (SFPUC), the largest water district in the Bay Area, announced in an article by Paul Rogers in the Oakland Tribune that water-saving goals have been met and there will be no mandatory water rationing this summer:   http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_26019792/bay-areas-largest-water-district-say-no-mandatory

Is that so?  Apparently yes, according to Harlan Kelly, General Manager of the SFPUC, “There’s no doubt that we had a slow start, but I’m happy to report water use in the past several weeks has declined, and we are making up for lost time.”  He went on to say that essentially, the agency had met its goal of 10 percent voluntary conservation from January to May.  Done deal.

But Rogers points out in his article that a good portion of this water “savings” is based on the PUC’s higher estimation for water usage in this time period; thus, providing a 10 percent “reduction.”  In comparing actual water usage, however: this year’s usage compared to last year’s reflects less than 1 percent of water reduction.

Jay Land, Director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at UC Davis, suggests in the article that most water districts in the Bay Area still have “…fairly ample water supplies; it’s not dire for them yet.”  Let’s also remember: water districts are in the business of selling water.

  If we achieve our voluntary 10 percent water reduction figure set by EBMUD, the agency stands to lose 8 million dollars.

But to be fair, Bay Area communities have reduced water consumption over the years; EBMUD reports an 11 percent decrease in usage last year alone, and, overall, districts purchasing Hetch Hetchy water, which supplies 26 cities and private companies, have coordinated a steady reduction of consumption by 17 percent in the last 10 years. And this reduction has occurred as population in the region increased by 4 percent.  Good news; except, as other parts of the state have experienced severe water shortages and instituted mandatory cutbacks on water,http://mashable.com/2014/05/16/california-drought-residents/ – we in the Bay Area, and specifically in Piedmont, should consider this a wake-up call and take meaningful steps now in reducing water consumption by 10 percent in our city and homes.  EBMUD, in fact, offers different programs in conserving water, as reported by the PCA a few weeks ago:  http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2014/06/12/please-conserve-even-more-water/

But why, some of you still may wondering, should we consider mandatory water rationing when we have reduced consumption and our local water supply is okay?  Because the Sierra snowpack, providing a third of the state’s water – and all of ours, is compromised; down 32 percent from its average and at the lowest level since 1988.

In an excellent article, “From Mountaintop to Water Tap,” in Sunday’s Tribune on June 22, writer Lisa M. Krieger describes how Department of Water Resources engineer, Frank Gehrke, straps on cross country skis and trudges up the thin air on Mount Dana.  At 13,061 feet, it’s one of the highest peaks in the Tuolumne River watershed and it’s here where a tiny sensor records snowfall data. Gehrke checks the sensor and snowpack levels several times a year, but the most important recording is taken on April 1, before part of the pack melts and wends its way some 300 miles to the Bay Area.

This year, the sensor revealed 16.8 inches of snowpack, or just 40 percent of the historic annual average of 42 inches.  And it’s this snowpack, measured on Mt. Dana, that forms the basis for yearly water allocations and “drives the whole economy,” says Gehrke.  Moreover, measurements recording water flow taken miles downstream in Yosemite revealed a flow at just 81 cubic feet per second compared to usual spring flows ripping downstream at 300 to 1,000 cubic feet per second.  And if we still need convincing that our lawns should be reconsidered, Krieger reports that the ice pack on Lyell Glacier, the largest in Yosemite, has decreased by 60 percent since 1900. Discovered by John Muir in 1871, one wonders how long it will be around.

Taking into account these findings and prolonged drought conditions, it’s my intention to feature Piedmonters and city staff in a series of articles who are developing practical and ecologically responsible ways to respond to the very real demands of our changing environment, which include reduced water.

Your comments and input are crucial to the discussion.

Denise Bostrom, Piedmont Resident

– Resident Bernard Pech calls attention to a June 10, 2014 Tentative Opinion on dismissal, seniority-based layoffs and “permanent employment”.  –

With the help of ‘Students Matter’, nine California public school students filed a lawsuit against the state of California in May 2012. They argued that several state laws related to teacher staffing and employment blocked schools from prioritizing student interests — and thus violated their right to equal educational opportunity. The plaintiffs in Vergara focused on three primary areas of California law in their case: the “permanent employment” statute; various dismissal statutes; and the requirement of seniority-based layoffs or “last-in, first-out” (LIFO) for teacher layoffs.

Finally a path has been found to change the California Education Code: declare specific sections unconstitutional!

​

Refer to Tentative Decision “Vergara versus California”: http://studentsmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tenative-Decision.pdf(link is external)

Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident

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

New Information on Havens Provided.

As an employee of the Piedmont Unified School District familiar with the rebuilding of Havens Elementary School, it was with great interest that I read the comments of E Boyer, who wrote the following as part of an opinion piece in The Piedmont Post (“Just Kidding…But Seriously – The Jackass Category”) dated May 21, 2014:

“With Havens, we were all told, an epic collapse crushing all of the children inside was surely just ahead.”

Infact, the Division of the State Architect (DSA), the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), and the State Allocation Board (SAB) all concurred in 2013 that the most appropriate word to describe the collapse hazard posed by two kindergarten wings (that actually housed over fifty percent of the Havens student population) was, in fact, catastrophic. Not “epic.” Not “shenanigans.” Not “fear mongering.” Not “a slow and painful death ‘neath the rubble of the collapsed one-story, wood framed building as it came down in apocalyptic fury!” (to quote E Boyer’s blog). No, the word they all agreed upon to describe the collapse hazard at Havens was “catastrophic.” Furthermore, the SAB identified these very same wings as an example of the “Most Vulnerable Category 2 Building…determined by the department to pose an unacceptable risk of injury to its occupants in the event of a seismic event.”

The SAB was definitive in its corroboration of engineering reports calculating “the building’s structural system [as] greatly overstressed and likely to fail.” The risk of injury associated with the Havens wings, according to every agency involved with public school construction in the State of California, was deemed to be unacceptable. Not just an unacceptable risk of injury for children, but an unacceptable risk for everyone: children, teachers, staff, parents, volunteers, visitors, and satirists.

But wait, there’s more. The kindergarten wings at Havens were designed by a prominent architecture firm in the 1950’s, and were replicated many times over throughout California. In other words, these same hazardous buildings exist today in other school districts. Prior to 2012 (two years after Havens was rebuilt), the Division of the State Architect refused to publicly acknowledge the tension rod-bracing system found in these type of buildings is insufficient to withstand a significant earthquake. What changed DSA’s mind? Piedmonters.

Two years after Havens was rebuilt, Piedmonters testified in statewide hearings before Senator Ellen Corbett to address lax oversight of seismic inspections, safety certifications, and restrictive funding rules. Two years after Havens was rebuilt, Piedmonters worked with Senator Loni Hancock to assist other school districts in breaking through draconian restrictions defining seismic vulnerability, amending Proposition 1D as originally written into law in 2006.

My purpose in sharing this is twofold: first, that no matter how inconvenient the truth, the removal of students, teachers, and staff (and the subsequent demolition of the Havens wings) was essential to the safety of its occupants; second, to offer thanks to so many in this community for their willingness to think (and act) beyond the borders of Piedmont.

Through the efforts of Piedmont residents in their roles as school board members, architects, structural engineers, financial advisors, construction law attorneys, accountants, designers, builders, Citizens’ Oversight Committee members, and community activists, there have been profound changes at the State level in assessing and addressing seismic safety in public schools.

If working with conscientious Piedmont residents for the betterment of all children in California (you can add SB1404 and “Educate Our State” to the list of Piedmonter-led initiatives – just to name two) is what defines being a jackass, I am all for it. Call me a jackass. Seriously. I’m not just kidding.

Michael Brady, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services for the Piedmont Unified School District

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