WELCOME TO THE OPINION PAGE
The following letters and other commentary express only the personal opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
Submit a letter, opinion, article, etc. | Receive email notice of new articles
How often in Piedmont do you hear the phrase, “I didn’t know about that ?”
It seems to be a common concern in letters and public forums. Certain Piedmonters are in the know while others are uninformed. Residents learn about activities that have been going on behind the scenes with only three days notice before a Council action – or even after a decision has been made. > Click to read more…
A response toresident, Dan Marks:Friday, 28 October, 2011
Dear Mr. Marks:
I am in receipt of your recent email correspondence dated October 21, 2011. You have raised a number of questions regarding the current status of CEQA review for the Moraga Canyon Sports Fields Project (“Project”). I would like to take this opportunity to respond.
As you know, the City has posted information regarding proposed modifications to the Project on the City’s website. City staff has authorized the City’s environmental consultant to prepare environmental review to address the Project modifications. Staff, in consultation with the City Attorney and the City’s special legal counsel, will > Click to read more…
Field of Dreams or Everybody’s Nightmare?Oh Truthiness thy name is PRFO. Rolling out their new PR slogan “Blair Park is everybody’s park” along with a “rally” to celebrate the “final” plans for what will be a sports facility, NOT a park. It is with much amusement that I read that the “rally” is not actually being held in “everybody’s” Blair Park, but in Piedmont Community Park. Is it just me, or is it odd how those who want to save the park hold rallies IN it, and those who wish to destroy it, celebrate elsewhere? > Click to read more…
Mr. Grote:According to a partial rough transcription of a presentation by Mr. Delventhal to the Piedmont Recreation Commission (see below), the City has already authorized work on what he refers to as an “addendum” to the Blair Park EIR. As you know the terms “addendum” and “supplemental” have very different meanings under CEQA, and for those of us who are familiar with CEQA and are following this project, it is confusing to hear that the City has begun the “addendum” process, but has not yet made a determination as to whether an addendum or supplemental is required. > Click to read more…
Citizen complains about noise from Witter Field and Lamorinda films leaf blowers in Piedmont
It’s fall leaf season and athletic teams are in high gear. That means noise from leaf blowers and neighborhood concerns about noise pollution. Lamorinda Patch reporter Russel Albert Daniels visited Piedmont, Orinda, Los Altos, and Mill Valley to report on the noise of leaf blowers in communities that have controls on sources of noise pollution. Watch leaf blowing and interviews with Piedmonters and others on the Lamorinda video.
PCA received a copy of the following letter from a Piedmont resident:
To the Piedmont Board of Education, Superintendent of Schools, and High School Principal Kitchens,
There were two evenings/nights (October 6th and 7th) of extremely loud noise from the Witter Field (Piedmont High School) football field public address system. Thursday’s game went on until 9:30 p.m. The loud, blaring music and announcer voices could be clearly heard in our home with all of our windows closed and our TV on. > Click to read more…
The following letter was sent to PCA on October 18, 2011
Re: Moraga Canyon
I read Mark Menke’s letter and want to respond to what I believe are two inaccuracies.
First, Mr. Menke attempts to belittle those who oppose the Moraga Canyon project by
asserting that they are merely a “handful of vocal residents” as compared to the more than a
thousand parents of kids who will use the field who are supporters. I believe he is mistaken
in at least three respects. > Click to read more…
Citizen responds to the Oct. 17, 2011 Agenda Item #3: Acceptance of Audit Subcommittee Interim Report
In a democratic society, those who gift public money away do not investigate themselves. Now, Mayor Barbieri and Vice-Mayor Chiang will “accept” the report they prepared, a report that is non-substantive as to most of staff’s actions. Once the plans were in place and the first shovel hit the dirt in July 2009, virtually all responsibility shifted to staff. To have the City Administrator (Geoff Grote) be the staff for the Audit Subcommittee speaks for itself; he is ultimately responsible for this debacle. Documentation was presented to the Audit Subcommittee that directly contradicted statements by Mr. Grote. Those documents were ignored.
This “audit” took far too long, evidently in the hope residents’ fading memories would wipe out the multimillion dollar loss. Judge Kawaichi wanted to do a proper investigation, regardless of the time required. This is a sad day for Piedmont.
Investigation of the Crest Road washout was not done by the Audit Subcommittee. My research concluded there was a “gift of public funds” on Crest Road; Oct. 3 Mr. Grote acknowledged the misuse of the Sewer Fund. Soon this Council will consider transferring General Fund money to the Sewer Fund. Staff robbed the Sewer Fund of $296,000 two years ago. A transfer of taxpayer money will not erase the original act.
Staff withheld critical information and provided false information concerning Crest Road. Staff did not inform Council there was an initial construction error that created the washout. Equally troubling is that Valley Utility was instructed Oct. 14, 2009 to repair the damaged trench with cement slurry, as approved by PG&E. That repair method had no trench dams. The Nov. 4 Kleinfelder (Geotechnical Consultant) trench dam* recommendation was obtained after the work had been completed. Additionally, staff presented false information concerning Valley’s protection of their job site and the existing drain system on Crest Road.
On Feb. 1, 2009, a day before the Municipal Election, staff stated there was another cost overrun, citing pipe mis-measurements. Five days later the overrun morphed into taxpayers paying another million. The City’s litigation places this mis-measurement cost at $200,000 (complaint @ p4:18-24). These contradictory facts reveal a culture of concealment at City Hall.
Piedmont taxpayers assumed unlimited liability by the contracts Mr. Peyton, City Attorney, reviewed and approved. That’s why we’re here tonight. Mr. Peyton ruled it was legal to debit the Sewer Fund, but ignored the fundamental issue; without the construction work for the special benefit of PHUAD (Piedmont Hills Underground Assessment District) there would have been no washout. Mr. Peyton never addressed the initial Crest Road construction; the City has included that specific point in its litigation. Despite all this, the Audit Subcommittee was unresponsive to any questions concerning George Peyton’s breach of his fiduciary responsibilities.
A year and a half ago, I presented my PHUAD analysis to council members; Mr. Wieler lamented the loss of “esprit de corps” among staff. That loss is the least of residents’ concerns.
Rick Schiller
Piedmont, CA
*Short definition: Trench dams prevent bedding erosion and drain excess water to the surface in a trench situated on a steep slope
Explanation: Trench dams are an internal construction in utility (and other) trenches that are placed on steep slopes. Water getting into a trench will form hydrostatic pressure because of the force of gravity on the slope. This pressure erodes and washes the bedding sand which is at the bottom of the trench. Once the sand is washed away, the material above can collapse down and in some instances collapse part of the existing street into the trench. The trench dams are placed at fixed intervals from the bottom of the trench to just below the street surface. On the upper portion of Crest Road they were specified every 75 feet. The trench dams prevent the bedding from eroding by relieving the pressure and allowing excess water to flow to the surface through a drain outlet installed in each trench dam.
Resident objects to PRFO agreement with City on Blair Park project
Despite the Municipal Tax Review Committee’s warning that Piedmont’s parcel tax will fail at the polls if governance does not become more transparent and inclusive, the city continues to cater to special interests. In, for example, another attempt to make the gift of Blair Park to private sports clubs appear a gift from them, the City Administrator has signed an agreement with the clubs that makes them responsible for paying > Click to read more…
An August 25, 2011 letter from Kathleen Quenneville, who served on the Task Force on Undergrounding of the League of Women Voters
Dear Council Member Wieler:
I guess you didn’t really mean it when you apologized for your “Piedmont Taliban” article in the Piedmont Post. That may be inferred from your “Nattering nabobs of negativity” article in the August 24 Piedmont Post.
I thought you recognized that name-calling was not a productive means of encouraging dialogue about the issues on which we disagree. Apparently that is not the case. It is shocking that you would unilaterally dismiss those who criticize Piedmont’s governance as “people who are never satisfied and who will show up and complain at every public meeting.” This illustrates that you do not understand your fiduciary responsibilities and are not fit to serve on the City Council. > Click to read more…
A letter from Thomas Clark notes recommendations leave the City on the hook for cost overruns
The subcommittee has labored mightily at producing an autopsy of the financially disastrous City involvement in undergrounding projects. But so far as I can determine from reading over the glut of words it has produced, it has not focused on what really matters to me as a City resident and taxpayer. > Click to read more…
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane
