–  Landscape plan to improve neglected park –  

Councilman Robert McBain made comments at the August 19th City Council meeting that were quoted in the POST (8/21/13) that I believe need to be addressed.  Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) settled its lawsuit against the City of Piedmont by accepting $30,000 for the reimbursement of legal fees.  FOMC asked that $15,000 of the $30,000 settlement be deposited in a separate account with the City of Piedmont expressly for the purpose of retaining a landscape designer to create a plan to improve Blair Park.

$30,000 was transferred from the City’s Legal Indemnity Fund to pay this obligation.  Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization (PRFO) established this fund as a vehicle to fulfill its written promise to cover any and all legal liabilities incurred by the City in connection with the Blair Park project. (To date, PRFO still owes the City approximately $220,000.)

FOMC raised and paid over $70,000 to cover its legal and other expenses.  The settlement directed $15,000 to FOMC’s attorneys to pay off the remaining balance still owed.  This left $15,000 in settlement funds that could have been used to repay some of its major supporters.  Instead, FOMC decided to have these funds placed in a City account expressly for the purpose of hiring a landscape designer to create a plan for the maintenance and improvement of Blair Park. Unlike all other well-cared for Piedmont parks, Blair Park has been ignored and neglected, especially during the four years of the sports field controversy, and a plan to enhance the park’s natural setting and amenities is sorely needed.

Al Peters, Former Piedmont Mayor

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

June 24th

President Raushenbush and Members of the Board:

It’s with considerable anxiety that I see that you will be asked to adopt Resolution No. 22-2012-13 calling upon the State Legislature to once again challenge Proposition 13 !

As I see it, this action, if adopted by the legislature, will be just one more of the never ending attacks on property owners of California; intended to eventually cause the demise of Prop. 13.  The politicians of California won’t ever be satisfied until they have overturned this protection for all property owners, commercial or residential.

Reject the proposed resolution.

George Childs, Piedmont Resident

On June 3 the City Council will consider a contract with 3M Company to purchase 39 Automated License Plate Reader cameras for installation at 15 sites in Piedmont. Citizens have expressed varying opinions about the proposal:

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Councillors:

 

Thank you for so promptly attending to the fundamental issue of placing License Plate Readers at various entrances to Piedmont, which we are very much in support of.

As residents who live very close to the Oakland/Piedmont border, as well as to Scenic avenue (which has seen much crime activity lately) we urge that you consider placing a License Plate reader at the entrance to Piedmont from Blair/Harbord Avenue.

This will act as a major deterrent to criminal elements entering our city through this vital choke point.

Additionally we request that you place a prominent street sign at that point indicating that

” You are now entering Piedmont” so that intruders may be deterred from entering at all.

 

Best Regards

Stavros and Amanda Gougoumis

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear City Council Members:

 

I am sorry to be writing you so late, but I have been travelling a lot and just haven’t had time to sit down and give you my thoughts on this important fiscal and crime issue.

 

I am very concerned that the positive response to License plate readers is a knee jerk response to our crime increases without sufficient study or documentation to determine if they in fact have any positive effect upon crime prevention or arrests. Early on, Chief Goede testified in front of you indicating that in Claremont, CA. they installed readers throughout the city. She gave statistics of 26 and 22 million “hits” over two years (2012 and 2011) with 166 arrests over that period. That is statistically irrelevant. It is 0.000003 arrests per hit. Statistically, there could have been that many arrests with or without the readers in place.  Crime is certainly a concern in town, but we don’t know if we had an unusual number of incidents in a short period or if it is really getting worse.

 

Please don’t make a significant financial mistake and proceed with the readers without more information. Unfortunately, Piedmont has had a record of “ready, fire, aim” which resulted in financial disasters over recent years including undergrounding expenditures and unreimbursed Blair Park costs. Both of those could have been averted with proper oversight, documentation and research.

 

Let’s not let this happen again. I urge you to study this situation more and get better  facts  and  research  before  spending  such  a  significant  amount  of  money.  Just because the City coffers are flush right now is no reason to spend money foolishly. There may be better and more efficient ways to control our crime issues.

 

Very Truly yours, Joseph Hurwich, CPA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Writing in The Piedmont Highlander, Piedmont High School student Kate Bott described the License Plate Readers proposed project as moving Piedmont closer to “the Big Brother scenario George Orwell describes in 1984…” 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

I’m emailing to voice my support for installing License Plate Reader Cameras at each entrance and exit point of the city. Please make this part of the record.

Regards,

Mary Peek

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear City Council,

          Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are not a crime preventative tool. As Chief Goede stated referring to ALPRs: “Its not a crime prevention tool, its more of an investigative tool on the back end.” At the Public Safety Committee meeting Chief Goede stated there have been no studies showing a correlation between the implementation of ALPRs and a reduction in crime.

         While convicting and sentencing criminals is desirable, criminals are unaware of which cities have a high conviction rate. So the high cost of the ALPRs is simply not justified even as a peripheral conviction tool. The primary function of the ALPRs is evidently to find stolen cars, but no assumption can be made that every criminal entering Piedmont is in a stolen car. And we have yet to be provided with the effectiveness of the single existing mobile ALPR that has been in service. Additionally, a person intent on committing a crime is likely unaware they are about to do it in Piedmont so even if criminals were aware of a high Piedmont conviction rate, they are likely unaware they are in Piedmont.

          “Force multiplier” is the use of digital information to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Police. A direct means of implementing Police force multiplication is the use of predictive policing programs such as PredPol. Although in the testing phase, PredPol’s initial results have been positive in assigning probabilities of crime in space and time, implementing situational crime prevention and aiding in the most effective use of Police resources. Before our City spends $678,613 plus about $115,000 annually for a civilian ALPR monitor plus the unknown annual maintenance costs plus the thousands annual in connectivity costs plus the installation costs not covered in the 3M contract, the effectiveness of a predictive policing program should be considered.

Police patrolling is the backbone of good police work that stops crime. Criminals seeing officers patrolling is the most effective deterrent available. Can the efficiency of officer placement be enhanced by the use of predictive software? Regardless, Piedmont Police statistics consistently show a high incidence of burglaries and similar crimes committed during weekday daylight hours. Putting another officer on during these hours and in high crime areas would require about 1.66 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Officers; the cost is about $300,000 but would not require the annual $115,000 non-sworn ALPR hire. Adding an additional officer when needed is less expensive than the ALPRs and directly more effective as a crime deterrent. We still do not have a good handle on the ongoing recurring maintenance costs of the ALPRs.

A guaranteed read rate is not specified in the 3M contract. Other companies that provide the ALPRs have such a specification. I ask Council to query the 3M representatives what the guaranteed read rate is of the cameras they are supplying.

We are all alarmed by the increase in crime and we all want to prevent crimes. We need directly preventative tools, not ALPRs.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please add my name to support for license plate cameras & more street lighting on border streets.

Patricia Markovich

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Too Much Money, Too Few Facts, Too Soon

Before spending more than $1 million, the City should research the effectiveness of license plate readers.

Is there any reliable evidence that license plate readers reduce crime?  If so, what is it?

What are other less expensive alternatives?  How about a cost/benefit analysis of the proposal and other altematives?

How would this unanticipated expenditure affect already-budgeted items?

The March 18 staff report implies that buying readers has been decided and it is just a matter of how fast it can be implemented:  “The ‘tum key’ approach should be given serious consideration from the standpoint of time and efficiency necessary to complete the project.”  (Page 2 of the staff report.)  Staffs outreach to 3M for bids after the Council meeting is more evidence.

Instead of making a decision for the Council by presenting only one altemative, staff should have offered altematives to the Council for public consideration  The staff report does not precisely define the problem or explain how readers work to reduce crime, and it does not present any altematives.  There is no analysis.  The report gives the Council no real choice.  Nor does it support its recommendation  with any data whatsoever about the effectiveness of the single solution proposed.

It looks and feels as if the decision had been made before the Council even started its consideration in public.

The Public Safety Committee should ask staff for (1) deeper and broader analysis of multiple options to reduce crime and for (2) an analysis of the effect of pulling $!million out of the budget for this unforeseen expense–before the Committee reports back to the City Council.

Linda Roodhouse Loper

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

On January 21, 2013 two Piedmont families were victims of violent “take-over” home invasion robberies by gun point. BULLETS were fired at them! Home invasions, crime and its impact has escalated over the years in Piedmont and especially along our city border-line with Oakland. Over the years “Proactive Patrolling, Police Presence, Response and Chase” along Piedmont’s 24 entry points and high crime Baja neighborhood’s has diminished to unacceptable levels.

Piedmont police…..willingly………..”broke off chase”……… of the home invasion suspects. At the February 12, 2013 public meeting, Chief Rikki Goede admitted:

Piedmont’s Police Department policy is…..NOT TO CHASE CARS OR SUSPECTS.

The City of Piedmont website states: “Patrol is the Backbone of Policing”

There are over 7500 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Many of them proudly agree and say the exact same phrase that “patrolling” is the backbone of policing.

How much time can officers devote to patrolling?

Answer: Responding to assigned calls and conducting general surveillances by “patrolling” are the two most time consuming sorts of patrol activities. In most places assigned calls take considerably less than half of officers work time. Patrolling the beat usually takes a higher proportion of time. (Whitaker Study 1982)

On the average, about 5 hours of an officer’s 8-hour shift are spent at the officer’s discretion, while 3 hours are spent on assigned tasks. (US Dept. of Justice-National Institute of Justice)

How many miles should patrol officers drive-per shift?

Answer: There are 1000’s of rural & metro law enforcement agency’s in the United States.

The “miles driven” answer is derived & recognized in several ways. Most large (spread- out) police departments have no minimum or maximum driving expectations (miles) of their patrol car officers. Their patrol officers will be patrolling 100’s of miles. But, the smaller departments (under 20 officers) tend to have unwritten policies and practices related to minimizing or maximizing mileage patrol goals. There are frugal police department’s that mandate their patrol vehicle’s sit idle for 10 minutes of each hour to save on high fuel costs.

Less patrolling miles result in fewer arrests and less impact to the city’s overall budget. But, reading the law enforcement literature, surveys, and studies, the general accepted rule & practice is a metro patrol officer should be “patrolling” 8 miles for each hour worked. If a patrol officer in Piedmont works 10 hours then his/her odometer should register and record 80 more miles on that vehicle. A large segment of patrol officers across the country, routinely clock in, as many as 100-150+ “patrolling” miles per work shift.

(officer’s.com, realpolice.net, policechiefmagazine.org)

How many miles have Piedmont police cars been patrolling?

Answer: Piedmont replaced several of its patrol police cars in 2010. They had been used for 51 months and the average mileage on each car was 45,000 miles. So Piedmont patrol cars had been driven an average of 29 miles per (24 hour) day. In a 24 hour period this is 1.2 miles per hour of patrol function. Human walking speed is about 3+ miles per hour.

Conclusion:

Police officers and Command Staff are compensated quite well in Piedmont considering the small size of the City. The compensation packages include lucrative Pension and Benefits which are unsurpassed in California. Given the cost, the Department should adhere to the  “recognized” standard that “Patrol is the backbone of policing”. The law enforcement patrolling expectations in Piedmont should match the minimum practices in use across the country. Piedmont’s small footprint of 1.658 sq. miles and nonexistent traffic congestion creates a unique situation of straightforward and uncomplicated Police patrol capability.

City Administrator Grote & Chief Goede need to prepare a new “policy” paper and directive as to “Patrolling Practices, Expectations & Recording” of all Piedmont patrol officers.

This new “Patrolling” directive should include and outline these minimum requirements:

1. Patrol officers will log/record odometer readings at the start & end of each day work shift.

2. PPD (Chief Goede) will collect data and prepare/present monthly accounting log and report of the total miles driven by “all” patrol cars, areas driven, responding to calls, etc…….

3. All collected patrol data information will be posted on the City’s website.

License plate readers are a bureaucratic gimmick to give tax-payers a false sense of security. There is no substitution for proper (pro-active) police patrol on the street.

Piedmont should direct & invest its limited resources on proper police patrol procedures and hiring another patrol officer…..for the street.

Thank You,

Neil Teixeira

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear City Councilmembers:

In evaluating whether license plate readers are worth the capital and ongoing investment, and recognizing that such investment takes funds away from other worthy projects in the CIty, I request that you consider whether the license plate readers are effective in preventing or deterring crime, and then, secondarily, whether they help catch criminals after a crime has been committed. Question that need to be answered:

(1) I gather that the LPRs can quickly identify whether a recorded license plate is on a “hotsheet” of stolen vehicles. Aremost crimes committed by criminals driving stolen vehicles? (If no, then the utility o fthe LPRs is less for prevention; if yes, finding the stolen vehicle after a crime is less likely to find the criminal).

(2) If crimes are committed by people driving stolen vehicles, how quickly do our surrounding cities get the license numbers of stolen vehicles into the database checked by the LPRs? We read that Oakland’s limited police force is focused on violent crimes. If so, does it take hours or days for a stolen vehicle’s license plates to get in the database?

(3) If crimes are committed in Piedmont by people driving stolen vehicles, how long before they commit a crime does such a person steal a vehicle? Are they stolen the same day that the thief plansto to commit a burglary or robbery in Piedmont? If so, what is the chance that the vehicle’s license plate number will be in the stolen vehicle database?

(4) If a crime is committed in Piedmont, and no stolen cars show up through the LPRs, what use does the PoliceDeptintend to make of the LPR data? Is there a database of former felon’s license plate numbers to see if a former felon drove through town that day? Would the Police Dept have the man power to follow up such leads? What other use could be made of the data to catch the criminal?

(5) What other City projects need funding that will not receive it if the LPRs are funded?

(6) If the funds for the LPR were devoted to hiring another police officer, how many years salary and benefits would be covered by those funds?

I look forward to your deliberations.

Richard W. Raushenbush

On Monday, June 3 the City Council will consider the recent proposal for a  Dracena Park footbridge.

We are on notice of the proposed castle (er,bridge) to be constructed in Dracena Park by Eagle Scout candidate Cole Becker.We are totally in favor of the project.We just wish that Piedmont had more Boy Scouts like Cole. Wonderful project and will bring pride to the neighborhood.

 

Bob & Diane Coleman

~~~~~~~~~~~

I wanted you to know that I am very much in favor of the bridge project that has been proposed by Cole Becker.

It would be a great addition.

 

JohnBassett

~~~~~~~~~~~

I have some questions about the proposed Dracena Park foot bridge that I hope you will address at Wednesday’s hearing. I saw the drawings at the site but did not see any indication of how the bridge will be anchored to the slopes. If cement footings are needed, can you determine the size and design of these, and whether any trees will have to be cut down to build the bridge.  I think a full rendering of the bridge and required structures and potential tree loss is needed for the public to comment on the proposal and for you to make a recommendation.  I’d also like to know about the impact of any footings on drainage.  Significant runoff is experienced throughout the park so I think it is important that we be don’t add to the problem. Finally, will there be illumination of any parts of the bridge?

 

I appreciate Cole’s motivation to improve the park and he deserves credit for the effort he has already undertaken for this ambitious project. From an entirely different perspective, however, I’d like you to weigh the value of not adding a bridge and restoring this end of the park to pristine redwood habitat. When I was on Park Commission, a long-term goal was to remove the large eucalyptus at this end of the park and restore the native redwood forest. The bridge does not prevent that but a legitimate question is whether, if restored, should this area be a pristine redwood stand with minimal hardscape?  Before the bridge and the eucalyptus, there was just the redwoods and I think there is value in restoring that condition to this end of the park.  For example, on Arbor Day last week, it was announced that genetic clones of ancient coastal redwoods were being replanted in California (http://www.ancienttreearchive.org/).  I think an equally valuable restoration project for the park would be to remove the footings of the old bridge and replant these cloned trees. That would require fundraising and physical effort and could be undertaken as a scout project.

 

Garrett Keating

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I recently heard about the proposed project in Dracena Park, and would like to let you know that we strongly support it.  I admit, I do know Cole Becker, but I wouldn‘t write this unless I truly supported the concept.

 

Not only would the bridge look beautiful, it would be a huge help to older folks & young children.  On rainy or damp days, it is tricky walking down the steep path to get to the main dog walking area & a bridge would solve that problem.  My mother had a minor fall on that path & I‘ve seen young kids also take tumbles.

I do hope the many people who are in favor ofthis project let their voices be heard!

Thank you,

 

Ulla Smit

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My name is Roger Ashton and my family and I reside on Dracena Ave. directly across the street from Cole Becker’s proposed bridge project. I am strongly in favor of the City’s approval for this project. There was a bridge that once existed in this same location which gives the project historical value in addition to its function. The bridge will have architectural appeal and come at no cost to the City. Please support this project, Cole Becker and his Boy Scout Troop.

 

Thank you. Roger Ashton

 ~~~~~~~~~~~

I am a Piedmont resident living on Park Way and would like to show my support in favor of Cole Becker’s Eagle Scout bridge project.

My family and I believe that the bridge will be great neighborhood addition and truly beautify the park and the surrounding neighborhood. We’ve been hoping for years that the city or someone would restore the bridge and restore it in a way that fits into the existing environment and has a sense of belonging and we believe this bridge through it’s design and use of natural material has just that.

 

The bridge is a low cost green project that won’t cost the city a large amount of capital and will be fairly easy to maintain. The bridge connects Park Way to Dracena Ave and will be a great access between the two streets, especially for kids that go through the park to get to school and for people who walk the park. Piedmont Park currently has a couple bridges in it so rebuilding a bridge at Dracena Park will also help tie together both parks and make the parks more cohesive while adding to the park experience.

 

Thank You

        

Brian Mahany and family

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am a Piedmont resident living on Dracena Ave. across from the park.  When I first saw the bridge design hanging in the park, I thought it was beautiful, harmonious with the environment, and that it would add a unique element to the park.  After learning that the bridge had historical meaning, it made it seem like an even more perfect fit.

 

As a neighbor and frequent visitor to the park, I have an interest in making sure that nothing negatively impacts it.  I understand that there are some residents who do not want the bridge project to move forward – and I have to say I don’t understand at all why. Change is a part of what makes a great community. Supporting a project like this that adds beauty, convenience, and supports a young man in our community simply makes sense.

 

I hope that the Parks Commission approves this project.

 

Thanks,

 

Franci Kursh

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just saw the drawings and mock up for the new proposed bridge by Cole Becker in Dracena Park.   I really think it looks great and would be an excellent project for his Eagle Scout.  I live on the corner of Carmel and Blair and have been a resident for 15 years and use Dracena daily.  I plan on contributing to the cause.  Please support this great addition to Dracena Park.

 

Thank you,

 

Don Eidam

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

I assume that the City is aware of the signs posted in the park about a proposed Eagle Scout project consisting of a bridge spanning the lower walkway/dog run area. I’ve been meaning to send you a note every time I go there & keep forgetting, but today it caught my eye again.

 

This seems like a totally unnecessary, intrusive idea that would mar the natural beauty of the trees and plants in the area.  Is there an ongoing discussion about this, including community input and City feedback? 

 

Patti Singer

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

You well may know, the leaves that fall in the park can be very slippery especially if they are wet. I am writing to let you know I am in favor of Cole Becker building a bridge for his Eagle Scout project for many reasons.

 

First and foremost, I believe it will be much safer to walk across a bridge rather than go down the hill to get to the other side, especially if you don’t have time to walk around. This morning I had to grab my dog quickly so I proceeded down the dirt hill and fell and slid the entire way. I consider myself to be in good shape and do not have balance issues. A bridge would have served me well today.

 

Secondly, I am certain that anything the Becker’s design and build will be of superior quality. This is yet another gift that the Beckers are providing to the City. I think we should applaud Cole’s vision and foresight and support this bridge that will serve our residents well.

 

Finally, there was a bridge there before and to recreate it would be in keeping with a historical design. I would be happy to share my opinion at any public forum if need be.

 

Best regards,

 

Pam Fullerton

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

Council member Garrett Keating Disputes Piedmontage Article –

Last month’s Piedmontage (Piedmont Post column by Council member Jeff Weiler) compared the solid waste JPA (Joint Powers Authority)  that Piedmont is a
 member of to the social service JPA, JCAP (Associated Community Action Program)  that became insolvent some months 
ago.  That’s like comparing Councilmember Jeff Wieler to Andrew Weiner, the
congressman who disgraced himself on Facebook.  StopWaste is in no way like
 JCAP, especially so in that Piedmont sends council and staff to monthly 
meetings of StopWaste, an oversight function apparently not carried out with
JCAP.  And StopWaste administrative staff did not act unilaterally in
approving the benchmark fee for conducting annual waste audits. As the Piedmont representative to the Board, I and a solid majority approved this
 fee.  The benchmarking fee is a $2/year fee that will be used to analyze
 waste going to the landfill to determine what recyclable materials are being
 disposed of improperly.  After the first year, residents can opt out of the
 fee.  In Piedmont¹s case, recommendations of the Environmental Task Force
 and the Climate Action Plan call for increasing the city¹s landfill 
diversion rate (currently at 69%) and utilizing public outreach efforts to
 do so.  Hard to do that without information on Piedmont¹s waste stream and
though dirty work, someone has to do it.

A fee increase currently before the StopWaste board has to do with the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program.  Several HHW facilities operate around the county and accept paint, pesticide, batteries and other hazardous chemicals from the public at no charge.   The facilities are supported by a fee on landfill tonnage but as the economy has slowed, revenue to this 
program has declined, and StopWaste has brought several proposals to the
 Board, some calling for a fee increase, others reducing the extent of the
service.  The recommendation of StopWaste staff is to attach $5/year fee to 
the property tax bill of county residents to maintain the current service 
level. Piedmonters interested in this issue should follow City Council over
the next several meetings as this matter is discussed.

Garrett Keating, Piedmont City Council member

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

Mountain View Cemetery is currently draining their ponds in order to provide irrigation water on their grounds. This is an annual late-Spring /early Summer occurrence, always shocking to witness.

December 27, 2012

May 27, 2013

The  photographs show west-looking views of Reservoir #2. The first picture was taken on December 27, 2012, when the pond was full. The second picture was taken on May 27, 2013, as the volume of the pond has been depleted to less than 10% of its full volume.

When the last drop of available water has been sucked from the ponds, the Cemetery switches over to buying water from EBMUD. Thus, the equation is to trade a full pond for perhaps 3 or 4 weeks worth of irrigation water. The result is a loss of habitat for wildlife that resides or visits the ponds. The devastation of animal life in the ponds (amphibians, fish, turtles) goes beyond the injury associated just with the loss of water volume. The water life that survives the initial shock of water depletion, is further picked off by visiting herons, who can easily hunt the shallow water.  

The Cemetery might believe that it’s free to do whatever it wants with this water resource to which it happens to have access, and the Cemetery also understandably places a high priority on the business of being a cemetery. However, at a certain point, a broader public policy question is also apparent regarding massive consumption of water for the cosmetic purpose of having green lawns at the expense of the health of the watershed as a whole, and the impact of industrial style water management on wildlife habitat.

One wonders whether the Cemetery management gives any thought at all to being a good steward of the water-based habitat and the water traversing their grounds. One wonders how responsible and transparent the Cemetery’s handling of water is. Cemeteries are exempt from some of the California State Regulations regarding water resources, but not all. For example, Cemeteries are required to maintain a “Water Efficient Worksheet”, and are subject to Water Audits that attend to preventing water wastage, by way of leaking pipes, for example.

One may also wonder about the Cemetery’s general plans for the ponds and particularly, the eastern-most wetland area that abuts against Coaches Field, an area that has already been ravaged by Cemetery practices.

People interested in the status of the Cemetery Ponds should go by, and have a look.

David Cohen, PhD

Mountain View Cemetery site http://www.mountainview-cemetery.com/

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

Resident Urges City Council to Consider A Police Patrol in High Crime Areas –

The following is an open letter to the Piedmont City Council.

Dear City Council,

I. Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are not a preventative law enforcement tool.  Chief Goede referred to ALPRs in a KRON-TV interview: “Its not a crime prevention tool, its more of an investigative tool on the back end.” Additionally, Chief Goede was candid at the Piedmont Safety Committee meeting that there have been no studies showing a correlation between the implementation of ALPRs and a reduction in crime.

Preventative enforcement tools stop crime before it occurs.  I doubt criminal offenders track which cities have a high conviction rate. Criminals likely do not know they are in Piedmont; they are more aware of the apparently higher value “pickings.”

So implementing ALPRs, while a “feel-good” response to the abhorrent home invasions that occurred recently in town, is at best only a peripheral deterrent tool that may aid in a higher conviction rate at a significant financial cost.

II. Emphasis and resources should be allocated to what prevents crime before it occurs.  More police patrolling and current officers patrolling more vigorously are preventative measures. Council is to be commended for authorizing forward Police hiring and generally there is a perception that the Piedmont Police Department is patrolling more vigorously. Instead of using the funds for the ALPR, put another patrol officer on where crime is most concentrated.

Baja Piedmont has taken the lead in organizing neighborhood watch groups; hopefully the rest of Piedmont will follow in organizing neighborhood watches. Neighborhood Watch Groups can be uniquely effective given the relatively homogeneous nature of Piedmont’s populace; neighbors know neighbors.

III. Other troubling issues with the ALPR process.
A single company was contacted who then became the ad hoc consultant creating the specifications and then bid on their plan. This is not a robust Request for Proposals (RFP) process.  The company chosen does not have a guaranteed camera percentage read rate. Because the Digital Age has reduced privacy expectations, we must be ever more vigilant in protecting our Constitutional Rights. The City intends Policy to be that protection; many instances of failed Policy in Piedmont (the  Piedmont Hills Underground Utility District (PHUUD) debacle, the Crest Road gifting of the sewer fund, withheld reports on Blair Park and signed reimbursement agreements with Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) not being enforced) suggest that Policy may again fail residents with misuse of ALPR information.

IV. Spend taxpayer money on what is directly preventative, more Police patrols and active involvement with neighborhood watch groups.

Respectfully,
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

Theater Arts, Adult Facility,  Classes, Piedmont History, Speakers, Gathering Place = Ideas for community use of the building – 

The following comments were posted on the Piedmont Center for the Arts website and made available to the Piedmont Civic Association: 

Posted 4/10/13

Artistic Director
The Piedmont Players
_________________________________________

Posted 4/10/13

Dear PCA,

_____________________________________________

Posted 4/9/13

Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,

The Piedmont Center for the Arts has become a resounding success in the few years of its existence.  Through its doors pass many, many Piedmont residents, attracted to a venue that features chamber music groups, singers, and a wide variety of visual art; performance of a newly formed theater group, the Piedmont Players.

When I learned of the possibility of development of another space in an unused room, I realized immediately how valuable that space could be for blocking plays, for workshops in theater, film, photography, other visual arts, perhaps for a film festival showcasing Piedmont film makers.  All these uses are in keeping with the purpose of the center: promoting the arts in Piedmont, reaching beyond our schools.

A play needs dedicated space for it to come alive.  With a full array of events featured in the main performance hall and gallery, it’s difficult to find that space.  Converting the unused room to a space suitable for play practice, workshops, film, archival storage for the Historical Society, will open the way to a revival of one art that’s been missing lately in this town: community theater.

I urge you to support transforming that undeveloped room into a multi-use space for the arts.  Thank you for considering my request.

Sincerely,

Helen Gerken

__________________________________________________

Posted 3/28/13

Dear PCA,

I am writing as a Piedmont resident (Hillside Avenue), concerning the discussion about what to do with the East Wing of the PCA building.  First, I am so thrilled that the Piedmont Center for the Arts has come into being, and has brought such interesting and diverse activities to the formerly empty, unused space.  I have personally enjoyed art exhibits, music presentations, plays, business networking sessions, and more.  The Center has added a vibrancy to the town center (and the town, as well), that is wonderful.

I think it would be terrific if the additional space could be used primarily, for a community orchestra.  Clearly there are a number of musicians, of all sorts, who reside in Piedmont and who often perform for various events in town.  It would be lovely to have a space for a community orchestra, that could be peopled by adults and serious students in town.  It would also be a complimentary use of the building and could also, possibly, provide additional space for the events that are currently happening at the Center.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my thoughts on this.  Best of luck.

Anne Brandon

Alain Pinel Realtors

__________________________________________

Posted 3/26/13

Some type of adult facility is appropriate for the East Wing. The Piedmont Adult population is severely under-served in Piedmont with no facilities provided by the City. Given the existing multiple child-care and extensive recreational facilities, I question staff putting forward a plan for yet another child-care venue. A gathering place for adults and especially seniors is needed and 801 Magnolia is likely the only venue where this can occur and fortunately would be well suited for such use. Limited coffee/tea and pastry availability would be a welcome addition, and at market pricing rather than the show prices as is the case near by. Having a facility for guitarists, musicians and other low volume instruments would be a fantastic addition to the community.

PCA has grown in a relatively short time to be a vibrant and needed addition to Piedmont. The varied programs benefit all and another child-care facility would be at odds and detract from the art and culture based programs that are ongoing and growing.

Rick Schiller

___________________________________________

Posted 3/21/13

Just a brainstorm list of possible events/activities for PCA and/or the East Wing.

• Feng Shui presentation/
• Frame making class
• Guest speakers from Dance companies
• Guest speakers from Symphonies, Musicians, rock bands, etc
• Lecture/class in Art Marketing
• Class/lecture in different art media: original oil, acrylic, watercolor, giclee, lithograph, etc
• class on how to self publish
• Guest speakers from Comedy – how to make it a career
• A class or presentation on Understanding Shakespeare
• A class or seminar on floral arrangements

__________________________________________

Posted 3/10/13

The Piedmont Center for the Arts has proven to be a great success.  I recommend that the the east wing of 801 Magnolia be used for a purpose that is consistent with the Center, namely art.  In particular, it would be a benefit to Piedmont if the east wing is used to further art education; such as holding classes or workshops geared toward adults in learning about how to do art or appreciate art.

Posted 3/7/13

Dear City Council Members,

I would like to put forward a couple of ideas concerning use of the East Wing of the Piedmont Center for the Arts.

I am in two singing groups, and there are many other groups like mine in the area which need practice spaces.  It would be nice to be able to rent a place for rehearsals–ideally with a piano and enough room for 10-15 people.

Also, if we perform at the facility, it would be great to have a place to store equipment overnight in a safe place so that, for example, costumes, props or sound equipment won’t have to be carted in and out several times during the rehearsal/performance cycle.

Private music lessons could also be conducted if the rooms in the East Wing were sound-proofed.

And, having a functional “Greenroom” for performers while they wait to take the stage would be wonderful!

So, as you can see, I think we should strive to preserve this entire building for arts-related activities!  And I would hope, that if this “dream” could come true, it would make the already fabulous PCA even better!
(And I would hope the prices for rental could be kept reasonable!  Musicians
often are not particularly wealthy individuals.).

Thanks for your consideration,

Sincerely,
Jan Zovickian

_________________________________________________

Posted 3/7/13

To whoever:

________________________________________________

Posted 3/4/13

sounds like the White House, but it’s our own Center for the Arts.  We’ve got a new space, and lots of possibilities for it.

-Adult art classes– They’re available through the Adult (night) school – should we compete with the school across the street?

-An open house from 10-2 twice per week for adults to gather, share, have coffee, play cards, mah jong, converse, etc.  An Adult Clubhouse of sorts– Might be fun.  Will there be lunch?  That’s lunch hour..

-A place to hold photography classes and workshops — Adult school again.. Hmm ..

-An intimate film theatre for daytime and evening shows (to showcase the many documentary films by Piedmonters, perhaps to entire Indie filmmakers to show their works)–  This is a really cool idea.  maybe we could even get Michael Fox to do a class on documentary film.  He’s an Olli instructor – he’ll have a class this spring on Wednesday mornings.

-A place for a class on Screen Writing — sounds very specialized – why not other kinds of writing, too?  Whatever isn’t already covered at the Adult school..

-A place for blocking theatrical productions when we cannot have the trust stage up for rehearsals due to the heavily booked Main Hall. — Sounds good to me!

-Dance classes

If I come up with anything that hasn’t already been thought of, I’ll let you know.  But don’t hold your breath.  I guess classes involving singing and/or musical instruments, besides probably being covered at the Adult school, might be a problem for the neighbors.. 

H/H

_________________________________________________

Posted 3/3/13

The Institute for Development of Education in the Arts (IDEA) is a non-profit 501(c)3 corporation founded to connect senior adults and young people through the arts.

IDEA would like to collaborate with PCA. Our proposal for use of the East Wing space is to present Life of the Artist – a weekly class for senior adults about arts professions, with lectures and demonstrations by professional artists, musicians, composers, dancers, actors, filmmakers, writers.

IDEA’s mission is to facilitate multi-generational artistic development, and to exchange and promote inter-generational community building through the arts; to encourage arts learning for people of all ages and backgrounds, especially underserved populations of seniors, youth, disabled, and economically challenged; to provide arts curricula and resources for educators, and promote integrated arts learning in schools; to serve as an arts resource for senior facilities, and enable seniors to experience the arts through performances, exhibits, workshops, and hands-on activities; introduce the arts to children using performances, exhibits, and workshops; and to build future audiences and encourage participation in the arts.

___________________________________________________

Posted 3/3/13

As a space with many opportunities for development (in a town with few
opportunities for space), I would like to see one of the bays in the East
Wing of the Center set aside for the storage of the city’s Block Books and
Sanborn maps.  These large books are a valuable resource for the city and
homeowners, providing information that is not available anywhere else.
Moving them to off-site storage with a 24-hour retrieval would make them
essentially unavailable.  Seventeen linear feet of shelf space would
accommodate these valuable books, two sides of a bay, two shelves high.  The
walls are already in place, and a door with a lock would keep them safe.

I sincerely hope that you will consider this small storage space as part of
your plans for the Piedmont Center for the Arts.

Gail G. Lombardi
Architectural Historian
Piedmont Historical Society

_______________________________________________

Posted 2/26/13

Hi there–

Just a little feedback from the community re: programming in case of interest.  I have a first grader in Piedmont who LOVES studio art.  I am only finding really neat places to take summer art classes in locations that are a bit of a schlep esp for working parents.  I would encourage the art center to consider offering some programs in the summer (not this summer obviously– too late but for 2014 perhaps?) in the vein of this place (different themes, all day):
http://westsidestudio.squarespace.com/summer-camp/

From what I’m hearing in the community, there would be tremendous interest in something more local of this variety (the rec center is a fantastic resource for many things but is not quite this for the arts….)

Just a thought…..
Regards,
st

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

Resident Urges City Council  to Reconsider Risk Management Policies – 

The following is an open letter to the Piedmont City Council.

Re: Risk Management Policies

To the Piedmont City Council:

I urge you to reconsider some of your members’ stated opposition to reviewing the risk management oversights which were made in connection with the City’s consideration of the Moraga Canyon project, as understanding how and why they occurred will help guide your review and consideration of the recently proposed risk management policies.

As a preface, these issues are independent of the political wisdom for or against the Moraga Canyon project. They deal solely with the project risks presented, some of which were similar to the risks which surfaced in the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding project. I will confine my comments to three principal aspects of the project: 1) The contracting arrangement was not legal because Blair Park LLC was not properly licensed; 2) design responsibility and liability was omitted from the agreements; and 3) the bond requested was not required to be posted by the proper party and so would have not protected against the appropriate risks.

First, while creating a new entity – Blair Park LLC – to be the contracting party was apparently done in an attempt to insulate the City from potential construction cost overruns, because Blair Park LLC was agreeing to cause to have the complex constructed, it was required to be a licensed contractor, but was not. It was immaterial that all the actual construction work was to be performed by Webcor, a licensed contractor. Vallejo Development Company v. Beck Development (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, 941 (“The fact that [the developer] subcontracted with licensed contractors to provide the actual labor, equipment and materials to construct the infrastructure improvements is irrelevant. [Business & Professions Code] Section 7026 plainly states that both the person who provides construction services himself and one who does so ‘through others’ qualifies as a ‘contractor’. The California courts also long held that those who enter into construction contracts must be licensed, even when they themselves do not do the actual work under the contract.”) Because Blair Park LLC was the contracting party with the City, it was obligated under California Business & Professions Code Section 7028 to be licensed.

Indeed, under Business & Professions Code Section 7028.7, the City itself could have been issued a citation and fine by the State Contractors License Board Registrar for entering into a contract with an unlicensed contractor. A contract with an unlicensed contractor is considered to be illegal and unenforceable. I brought this issue up with the City staff and the project proponents prior to the Council meeting at which the project was approved.

Second, notwithstanding the fact that Blair Park LLC had design/build responsibilities, because the City’s proposed agreement with Blair Park LLC, and Blair Park LLC’s conditions of contract with Webcor were apparently modeled on the Webcor-Havens School contract model (under which the school district owner provided the design, unlike here where Blair Park LLC was obligated to provide the design), the agreements and conditions for approval and site Lease completely omitted any reference to design liability and professional liability insurance. Public owners are used to providing the design, and being responsible for it, so it is perhaps easy to understand how this important risk factor would get completely overlooked when the City was contemplating the use of a different contract delivery model (i.e., design/build), but it also highlights why a risk management assessment of not just the detailed procedures but also more importantly, the big picture items, is so important.

Lastly, although the contract required Webcor to obtain a performance bond (and there was to be a further requirement to provide unspecified neighboring property damage security regarding potential future damage to houses), the exact risk which was at the center of Piedmont Hills Undergrounding – unforeseen subsurface conditions requiring extra work – was a Blair Park LLC risk, not a contractor risk, and would therefore not be covered under Webcor’s performance bond. Blair Park LLC was responsible for providing the design of the significant retaining walls, which design was necessarily dependent on unknown subsurface conditions.

Webcor was to be responsible for constructing what was depicted in the design and shown on the plans. If the subsurface conditions actually encountered were different than what was shown on the plans, and the design had to be modified and required extra work, those extra work claims – that cost over $2.5 million on the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding project – would not have been covered by Webcor’s performance bond (nor any damage security bond). Blair Park LLC was the only party to have design responsibility, and it was not required to post any performance bond. By analogy, requiring the undergrounding contractor on Piedmont Hills to post a performance bond did not mitigate its $2.5 million in extra work claims. The City had to pay for the extra work to complete the undergrounding because it could not leave the streets with open trenches. So too on Moraga Canyon, if the contractor encountered unknown subsurface conditions requiring extra work in the middle of constructing the retaining walls and re-routing sewers, somebody would be required to pay for the extra work because the work would have had to have been completed for safety reasons. Blair Park LLC was not required to provide any security demonstrating any ability to pay beyond the agreed upon contract construction costs. As occurred on Piedmont Hills, the City, as owner, would have been responsible to cover the extra costs to allow the construction to be completed. However, the City has demonstrated that it cannot even recover from the project proponents its out of pocket consultant costs under the Indemnification Agreement. There was no agreement to cover this real risk. Thus, while the Moraga Canyon project called for a bond, it was the wrong party being required to post the bond, and so the City remained at risk if the project required extra work to deal with unforeseen subsurface conditions. This was a repeat of the same exact risk as on Piedmont Hills.

These risk issues could have and should have been caught and addressed in a risk management analysis. The presently proposed Risk Management Procedures did not, and would not have caught these material oversights. As the old cliché provides, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. If these types of risks were not addressed on the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding project, or on the proposed agreements for the Moraga Canyon project, on what basis does the Council think the present City project team, procedures and proposed risk management policies will catch them in the future? A change in paradigm is needed if one wants a different result. Learning from past mistakes is more productive than simply trying to ignore them, and focusing on minutiae to the exclusion of understanding the big picture is bad policy.

Respectfully submitted,

Rob Hendrickson

cc: Piedmont Civic Association

Piedmont Patch

Piedmont Post

Piedmonter

LWVP

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