Jun 19 2012

Language, impact, government involvement and principle –

For over an hour and a half on June 18, the City Council considered a controversial landscape ordinance proposed for Piedmont.  A number of residents spoke in favor of the principle of adopting new rules aimed at improving the environment by curtailing water use and transporting less green waste, while other residents found the ordinance unnecessary, inconsistent with existing Piedmont Municipal Code language, and intrusive on private property rights.

Katy Foulkes, former Piedmont mayor and council member, currently Piedmont’s elected  representative to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Board, asked the Council to adopt the ordinance to reduce the amount of water used in gardens.   She acknowledged that she had not read the ordinance and could not comment on the language.  She stated, “It is going to impact so few people; it is important to approve it.”

Others urged approval on environmental principles and implementation of the previously approved Piedmont Climate Action Plan (CAP), although the CAP emphasizes education and incentives, rather than mandates (except in a few limited circumstances related to new construction).  Anne Weinberger, a landscaper, and Margaret Ovenden, a member of Piedmont CONNECT, recognized that the ordinance would apply to a very small percentage of Piedmonters, bucontended it was an important ordinance as a matter of principle.

Speaking against the ordinance was Valerie Matzger, former mayor and council member, current President of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation, and a 20-year local landscape designer.  Matzger noted her longtime commitment to the environment and recommended the use of organic pesticides and fertilizers as one way to protect the environment.  She noted the ordinance was inappropriate, overly bureaucratic, and unnecessary for Piedmont, stating the Council should “Nip this in the bud.”

Piedmont resident Joseph Gold was also strongly opposed to the ordinance based on adding another level of bureaucracy and preferred the Council focus on priorities – police, fire, schools, etc.  He stated, “Keep government out of our gardens.”

The Planning staff composed of Kate Black, Kevin Jackson and Jennifer Feeley had revised the proposal to accommodate issues previously identified by the public and Council.  However, questions and concerns persisted.

Council Member Garrett Keating, Piedmont’s Council representative on the StopWaste JPA, was firmly in favor of approving the ordinance and, to reach consensus, was willing to change or remove language in the ordinance that Council members found unacceptable.  Mayor John Chiang worked to seek a solution to newly presented issues at the meeting.

Council Member Jeff Wieler was the most outspoken critic of the ordinance, finding it so poorly written he was embarrassed for government.  He found fault with the ordinance’s lack of clarity as to rebuilding a home and various wording, as well as the required Checklist.  He questioned the origination of the $22,000 grant funding, which Keating clarified came from the San Francisco. This led Wieler to question why it was not coming directly to Piedmont as our money. Considering the projected few properties impacted by the ordinance, Wieler felt the ordinance was a waste of time.

Council Member Bob McBain stated since it applies to so few, the ordinance has no validity.  He said he had received phone calls and emails from many, many people who were opposed to the ordinance.  McBain felt landscaping education and information was preferable for Piedmont’s good, intelligent citizens who can make decisions on what makes sense to them.  He preferred cooperative efforts, rather than legislating another mandate, and noted that Piedmont does not have the resources for enforcement.

Vice Mayor Margaret Fujioka raised additional concerns regarding poorly drafted language.  She was particularly concerned about overly broad discretion by the Council and lack of specifics upon which the Council could grant a waiver to the ordinance. She advocated education over legislation.

Mayor John Chiang came off “of the fence” after hearing the other members of the Council and City Administrator Geoff Grote  who acknowledged that the majority of the Council was not comfortable with the ordinance as the appropriate approach for the City.  Using a “carrot rather than a stick” could be more effective and avoid many of the regulatory concerns.

After discussion, Council Member Keating’s motion to approve the ordinance died for a lack of a second.

Jun 12 2012

Piedmont on the brink of ceding local control for $22,000

On Monday, June 7, the Piedmont Council rethought its plans to give up local control of landscaping rules to a regional agency, StopWaste.org A number of citizens objected to a proposal to conform Piedmont law to a set of rules devised by StopWaste, plus any future rules it decides upon.  The future revisions to Piedmont law could occur without notice to Piedmont residents.

Mayor John Chiang expressed concern about forgoing one-time money of $22,000 offered by StopWaste.  But, the City of Newark, has already declined the offer of money, based on its determination that a one-year grant will not cover the extra staff time and costs on an ongoing basis. The City of Pleasanton has also declined the StopWaste offer.

A principle . . . not just one issue > Click to read more…

Jun 3 2012

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

Piedmont Landscaping Requirements To Be Controlled By Another Agency – 

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

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

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

Jun 2 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Schiller, Piedmont resident

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

May 4 2012

No Broadcast, No Recordings, No Minutes –

The City Council formed the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) in response to 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee recommendations.  The BAFPC will be providing advice to the Council on five-year financial projections and expenditures of more than $250,000.  The Committee is composed of Mary Geong, Steven Hollis, Bill Hosler (Chair), Tom Lehrkind, and Tim Rood.  The Members are taking their > Click to read more…

Mar 31 2012

Twenty Tapped to Serve-

Following hours of interviews and deliberation on March 29, the City Council made the following appointments to City Commissions and Committees: > Click to read more…

Mar 28 2012

City Council To Interview Applicants Thursday-

The City Council will interview applicants for committee and commission positions on Thursday, March 29, in City Hall.  The proceedings are open to the public and begin at 5:30 p.m.

> Click to read more…

Mar 27 2012

Council Interviews Commission and Committee Applicants-

A special City Council meeting will be held on Thursday, March 29, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue. > Click to read more…

Mar 26 2012

Comment on Recommendations of Investigative Committees-

Piedmonters are invited by the City Council to comment on a list of 35 recommendations drawn from the reports of the City Council Audit Subcommittee, the Municipal Tax Review Committee, and League of Women Voters Task Force to investigate and report on the problematic Piedmont Hills Underground Utility District. > Click to read more…

Feb 29 2012

Residents Rallied — Asked to Serve  Piedmont – 

The City is seeking volunteers to fill vacancies on five City committees and commissions and two potential new committees.   Interested residents may download the Applications for Appointive Vacancy and the Commission Descriptions of Duties from the City’s website  (see links below). > Click to read more…