Apr 27 2017

The Piedmont Planning Department and Planning Commission have been reviewing the recently revised regulation of City Code Chapter 17 to assure compliance with Government Code Section 65852.2 governing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), also known as Second Units. The City Council will consider the matter on Monday, May 1, 2017, 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

The following PCA questions in bold black were submitted to the City Planning Department and the answers are in blue; questions and answers are reproduced as presented. 

Questions and Answers regarding Accessory Dwelling Units in Piedmont: 

Response to Questions from the Piedmont Civic Association regarding proposed revisions to the regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units for compliance with State laws. Received April 24, 2017.

  1. Will the City have to add more staffing to oversee affordable ADU compliance?    No additional staffing needs are anticipated.
  2. Some cities require affordable ADUs to remain affordable for 20 years rather than Piedmont’s term of 10 years. Why did Piedmont pick a 10 year term for affordability?   Ten years was determined to be appropriate and was sufficient for the State certification of the City’s Housing Element.
  3. Once an ADU no longer falls into the affordable category, will the forgiven parking or other requirements continue to be forgiven or will existing ADUs return for a new permit?   If, after ten years, the termination of the recorded deed restriction is not automatic (by its terms), the City shall record a document terminating the declaration of rent restrictions, upon the written request of the property owner. The accessory dwelling unit permit is not terminated in this process and the ADU will not be required to add additional parking otherwise required by the City’s ADU ordinance.
  4. Does the City have adequate public services for increased demands – street widths, parking needs, public safety, city staffing, schools, etc.?   The City will respond to any needs for increased public services when they arise.
  5. How will ADUs be taxed ?   As an accessory unit to the primary dwelling unit, ADUs may contribute to a parcel’s value and assessment thereby impacting property taxes. If occupied by a tenant, the property owner will need to pay the City rental tax.
  6. Will all Piedmont taxpayers be required to pay more for any increase in public services or will new ADUs trigger a new property tax assessment based on a reappraisal by the County?See responses to questions 4 and 5.
  7. How many new ADUs are projected in Piedmont in the next 5 to 10 years?   From 2005 through 2016, 43 accessory dwelling units were approved. Five of these were never constructed. Thus, the precedent is that 3.45 accessory dwelling units have been developed annually. An increase in the number of applications for accessory dwelling unit permits might be expected in response to the State laws, but the amount of that increase is unknown at this time.
  1. Should the Council and public have been informed State Law 65852.2 would be inconsistent with recently revised Chapter 17 by the Council and Planning Commission such as: parking space sizes, covered parking requirements, parking spaces required, allowing tandem parking, setback requirements, etc.?    Yes. Information on the recently adopted State laws modifying Government Code Section 65852.2 was provided to the City Council and separately the topic was brought up during the study sessions Council held in January on the comprehensive Chapter 17 updates.
  2. If a garage is removed to build an ADU, must the existing house meet the standard parking requirements?    The City can require that the “removed” parking spaces be replaced on-site, but the State laws require local jurisdictions to allow those spaces to be in any configuration (e.g., uncovered, tandem, any location). See Section 17.38.060.B.5.a in the proposed ADU regulations.
  3. Can an accessory structure be built on a property line and then converted to an ADU without a variance?    No, not for new construction. See Sections 17.20.040 and 17.28.040 of the City Code regarding setbacks to accessory structures. However, State laws requires local jurisdictions to allow for the conversion of existing accessory buildings, such as garages, into accessory dwelling units. See Section 17.38.060.B.5.b in the proposed ADU regulations.
  4. What techniques will the City use to identify traffic or safety issues when applications are presented to the City?    State laws prevent the City from requiring on-site parking for accessory dwelling units when the proposed ADU is within 1⁄2 mile of a transit stop or when a proposed ADU is within an existing building. The entire City of Piedmont is within 1⁄2 mile of a transit stop. As a result, vehicular and pedestrian safety are not included in the development standards for accessory dwelling units. See Section 17.38.060.B in the proposed ADU regulations. However, if exterior features are proposed to be modified or newly constructed, a design review permit is required. As set forth in Section 17.66.060 of the City Code, which provides the standards for a design review permit, the proposed design must not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety. Safety concerns are also addressed as part of the review of a building permit application.
  5. With no required notice procedure, how is a neighbor to know if an ADU application has been filed or how to appeal a decision?    California Government Code Section 65852.2 requires that local jurisdictions consider an application for accessory dwelling unit permit ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing if it meets all the standards for approval. Notification of neighboring property owners would occur if the application for accessory dwelling unit permit did not meet all the standards for approval, and might occur if there was a concurrent application for design review permit, depending on the level of proposed design modifications.

13. How will the City know when a neighborhood is overly impacted with additional traffic issues from ADUs?   City staff and Council Members often hear from Piedmont residents on such topics.

14. What will the application and permit fees be for an ADU?  The current fee for an application for accessory dwelling unit permit is $750. Fees for applications for design review permit range from $170 to $1,630 depending on the cost of exterior modifications. Fees for an application for a building permit are approximately 2 percent of the total cost of construction.

15. What are Piedmont’s covered parking requirements for existing and proposed buildings?  Parking requirements are outlined in Division 17.30 of the City Code, which is available on the City’s website and at the Public Works counter in City Hall.

16. Since the School District only taxes parcels, does this mean ADUs will not be taxed for School Bond costs or other previously approved additional property taxes?  ADUs will not be subject to separate parcel or property taxes from those of the primary dwelling unit.

17. Did the City Council take a position on State Law 65852.2 when it was being considered by the legislators and governor?   Assuming that you mean AB 2299 and SB 1069, the two 2016 bills that amended Government Code Section 65852.2 (originally enacted in 1982), no.

The City Council will consider the matter of Accessory Dwelling Units on Monday, May 1 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.  Interested persons may observe the First Reading of changes to Piedmont’s recently approved Chapter 17 on the City’s website under videos or on Cable Channel 27. 

The City’s announcement and the actual language of the proposed ordinance can be read below:

Monday, May 1st – 7:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers

In September 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law changes to Government Code Section 65852.2 resulting from the enactment of Assembly Bill 2299 and Senate Bill 1069. These changes limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as Second Units. The provisions affected by the changes to state law include, but are not limited to, off-street parking requirements, unit size limitations, and application approval timelines. The State laws permit cities to adopt ADU ordinances as long as the ordinance is consistent with the State laws and imposes certain local standards. Click to Government Code Section 65852.2.

Planning Commission Recommends Changes to City Code

On April 10, 2017 the Planning Commission voted to recommend proposed revisions to the regulations in the City Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units. Click to read the Planning Commission staff report and minutes of their discussion on this topic. The report prepared by staff for the Planning Commission outlines the proposed code revisions. On May 1, 2017, City Council will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the proposed code revisions. Click to read the Council staff report for this matter.

Residents are invited to engage in this process. Interested members of the public are encouraged to read the staff report and attend the City Council meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on May 1, 2017 in the City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue. Written comments may be submitted to the Piedmont City Council at citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us or by US Mail to John Tulloch, City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA  94611.

Requests to receive email notification of activities related to revisions of City Code provisions related to Accessory Dwelling Units should be sent to Planning Director Kevin Jackson at kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us. Comments on paper can also be submitted by hand or by mail to the Piedmont Planning Commission, 120 Vista Avenue,Piedmont,CA 94611.

Comments to be read by other PCA readers may be submitted below.

Apr 27 2017

PRESS RELEASE by Superintendent Randall Booker – April 26, 2017

Appointment of Adam Littlefield

On Wednesday, April 26th, the Board of Education of the Piedmont Unified School District voted unanimously to appoint Adam Littlefield as the new Principal for Piedmont High School effective July 1, 2017.

Mr. Littlefield will succeed Brent Daniels, who resigned his position as PHS Principal in January of this year to become Director of Human Resources for the Berkeley Unified School District. Since that time, Assistant Principals Eric Mapes and Irma Muñoz have served as Interim Co-Principals, and will continue in this capacity through the end of this school year.

Mr. Littlefield brings more than 32 years of experience as an educator, administrator, and STEM curriculum innovator to his new role as PHS Principal. Born and raised in the East Bay, Mr. Littlefield earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Industrial Arts with a minor in Music at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, and a Master’s Degree in Educational Management from the University of La Verne.

Mr. Littlefield began his career as a teacher and then as Assistant Principal at Arroyo Grande High School (AGHS) in the Lucia Mar Unified School District. After 11 years at AGHS, he moved to the Cotati-Rohnert-Park Unified School District (CRPUSD) in Sonoma County, serving as Assistant Principal at Rancho Cotati High School, Technology High School Principal, Gold Ridge Elementary School Principal, District Technology Coordinator, and District Student Services Administrator.

During his 15-year tenure in CRPUSD, Mr. Littlefield helped develop Technology High School into an award-winning magnet STEM school. Located on the campus of Sonoma State University, Technology High School focuses on project-based learning, integrated curriculum, use of technology, and student empowerment to self-manage their learning. Under his leadership, Technology High School earned both a California Distinguished High School and U.S. News & World Report’s Best High Schools Program Awards.

For the past six years, Mr. Littlefield has developed and managed several award- winning STEM programs for the San Marin High School community in the Novato Unified School District.

The selection process for the new Principal included input from a large interview panel of Piedmont High School staff, students, parents, and administrators, with additional interviews and reference checks by Superintendent Randall Booker and the Piedmont Unified Board of Education.

“We are thrilled to have Mr. Littlefield join the Piedmont High School community,” said Randall Booker, Superintendent. “His extensive experience in STEM education will tremendously benefit students and staff, especially as we look to construct new facilities that have a focus on STEM. Also, he brings a rounded approach having a deep background in both athletics and the arts,” commented Booker.

PUSD is delighted to welcome Mr. Littlefield to his new role as Piedmont High School Principal. He begins his new role as Piedmont High School Principal on July 1, 2017.

*****

Piedmont High School is located in Piedmont, California, a city of approximately 11,000 residents in the San Francisco Bay Area. PHS has 802 students, 53 teachers, and a record of high academic performance. The outstanding staff provides a remarkable education and learning environment for all students. The residents of Piedmont demonstrate a strong sense of community and are committed to maintaining and enhancing educational programs, services and school facilities. Parents and community members have developed a variety of support organizations that work collaboratively with staff to support the needs of the school system.

###

Apr 27 2017

Opinions and involvement –

April 18th School District Town Hall Meeting –

I attended the Town Hall meeting sponsored by the Piedmont Unified School District on April 18th, which focused specifically on the three plans for new high school facilities. The School Board regularly meets every month, however this special meeting was the third of its kind to give the community a chance to see where the money from measure H1 is going to improve school facilities at the high school, and to give the Board, Committee, and staff their input on which renovation plan is superior.

The major issue discussed in this meeting was the need to pick from three alternative plans which utilized a portion of the money raised by bond measure H1 to renovate the high school. All three of these plans included a new STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and math) building. In each plan, the STEAM building was placed in a different area of campus: one on the unused blacktop behind the gym, one where the theater currently is, and one where the gym is currently.

The first plan featured the STEAM building along with a new theater and renovated “20’s building” classrooms with new offices. The second included a new theater and a remodeled theater, where the “10’s building” is currently. The third plan featured no new theater, but a new gym and a relocation of Millennium High School to the “20’s building.”

Several points both for and against each plan were brought up by the people attending the meeting at my table, and to the larger group. For the first plan, the best point about it was that it was by far the cheapest of the three plans. However, this plan has some very convincing downsides brought up by the students of Piedmont High School, such as the intense amount of foot traffic it would create from the STEAM building to the main area of campus.

The second plan does not have this problem, because it focuses the main classrooms where they are located now, around the breezeway. This plan also does not eliminate the view of the city from the quad. Another important point brought up by current Piedmont High students was the fact that this plan included Millennium High School the most out of the three plans. Millennium is currently isolated due to the setup of the buildings, but the new STEAM building would shift the focus of the campus onto the quad in plan number two. For these reasons, plan number two is the plan that I believe would be best for Piedmont High School.

The third plan was the least favorite among the people in attendance at the meeting for one simple fact: it does not renovate the theater. The theater is the single largest problem with the high school, and ignoring it to renovate the gym seems illogical to the people in the community. Gina Bartlett, the meeting facilitator, even said that this point was what turned most people away from plan number three.

 After the meeting, I interviewed Kathryn Levenson, one of the current librarians at Piedmont High School. Mrs. Levenson attended this meeting because she is “interested in having a beautiful, environmentally conscious school for students.”  She believes this will help the students reach their full potential at Piedmont High School, and leave a legacy the students at the school now can be proud of. The issue which brought Mrs. Leveson to the meeting was the fact that she wants to “preserve the look” of the library at Piedmont High, while also making sure that the technology stays up to date. Mrs. Levenson enjoyed the meeting, because she found that Piedmont High students had the same concerns as she did, especially when it came to making sure MHS will be more centralized in the new plans for the school. After this meeting Mrs. Levenson plans on coming to the next round of meetings and Board discussions to make her opinions heard by the Board. Along with this, she wants to start conversations about the remodel with students at PHS so they too can have their ideas heard.

by Molly Szczech, Piedmont High School Senior

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

Measure H1 Meeting

    In the third and final Community Town Hall Meeting on Measure H1, residents, students, and others offered ideas and gained insight on the upcoming project. Held in the PHS Student Center, people were seated at multiple tables and were welcomed by Superintendent Randy Booker.

In his presentation, Booker briefly described the thought process of the School Board during the creation of each option. For instance, he recognized that the placement of the STEAM building in the first option would cause an issue of foot traffic. He also mentioned that the emphasis of the third option was on the placement of the gym; it’s difficult to find and has mobility issues. Additionally, Option Three is more mindful of safety by placing PHS offices at the entrance to monitor who comes in and out. Then he briefly opened it up for a few questions so I asked if they planned on making the new buildings more sustainable to which he assured they were.

After Booker presented an overview of the three options available for renovations, pros and cons were brainstormed in small groups. With people gathered around posters and scribbling down ideas in colorful sharpies, the setting felt more inviting and collaborative than a typical government meeting. In each group, people discussed what they agreed and disagreed with for the three options. For instance, everyone felt strongly about the beautiful view being partially blocked by the STEAM building in Option #1.

Meanwhile, people approved of the new main entrance that would be introduced in Option #3. One person mentioned that they felt the Millennium High School being in the “10s building” for Option #3 would isolate them. However, I completely disagree because any building on campus is closer than where the Millennium is located currently.

After about 25 minutes, everyone reconvened to go over key insights from the discussion. One frequently brought up subject was the STEAM building. Several people questioned if the building needed to be three stories since it would compromise the view. Someone in particular brought up if it would be possible to widen the base of the building to compensate for removing a story.

Finally on a fresh poster, the small groups huddled together to jot down new ideas for any of the options. In my group, people mentioned preserving large trees along the buildings, adding rooftop access to the new buildings, and that the amphitheater should be removed because it’s a waste of space. Throughout the meeting, putting an emphasis on the arts was of interest to those attending. Having space for an art gallery and putting large art pieces around campus were mentioned.

The facilitator, Gina Bartlett, led most of the meeting and was hired by the District to design the workshop. She appreciated everyone’s different perspectives and was surprised to learn that “people are very interested in creative spaces which is more of a recent thing.” Bartlett encouraged those with more concerns to submit comments online and continue to have their voice heard at future meetings. Overall, the meeting was successful in addressing concerns and involving everyone in the process of improving the proposed plans.

by Gina Samec, Piedmont High School Senior

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

Community Participation in High School Planning

Making sure her three children have the most advancements possible was the reason Zoa Town attended the school board meeting on April 18, 2017.  The meeting was held to discuss the future plans to remodel Piedmont High School.

Superintendent Randy Booker lead the meeting, starting by presenting three of the board’s most viable remodeling plans and explaining some of the potential problems and benefits of each.  Then the community members, school faculty, concerned parents, and students, provided a large range of perspective as they discussed the pros and cons of each option. The three options played with a new gym, a new theater, relocation of PHS offices and all included the addition of a STEAM building.

 Option one proposes the addition of the  three story STEAM building on the flat blacktop behind the gym, a remodeled “twenties building” and a complete remodel of the theater.  This proposes an issue of traffic flow to and from the STEAM building because it will contain most of the classrooms – three hundred to four hundred .  This would require lots of site work and would still be problematic for any disabled students to make their way to and from the building. In addition, this option is the least energy efficient.  However, option one is the cheapest, doing the bare minimum of what could be done.  Overall, this is a strong and viable option.

 Option two was my personal favorite out of the three.  It created the new STEAM building in the current location of the theater, moving the theater to the “thirties building”, and remodels the “twenties building.”  The STEAM building does not block any of the view from the quad and creates a better entrance way for the school.  One additional benefit of this option, as I spoke about in the large group discussion, is that it shifts the center of campus so that Millennium High School and Piedmont High School have a more integrated community.  This option has the most community benefits for the Piedmont Unified School District.

 Option three was a balance of pros and cons.  The STEAM building would be placed in the location of the gym and would have easy access directly from the quad.  This is the most energy efficient building, yet is also the most expensive.  No new theater would be added, however a new gym would take the place of the current thirties building.  Just like option two, the main entrance would be shifted and revamped, however now MHS would no longer be integrated, but instead be moved to the remodeled twenties building.  This would isolate MHS students even further than current conditions and, in my opinion, is not a viable solution.  Logistically, this option makes sense, however it is not the best for our community and the students of both MHS and PHS.

 Being able to speak both in small table groups and in front of the larger group gave me more insight into the process the School Board goes through to make advancements.  It made me realize the importance of student involvement, especially for changes like the remodel plans of a school.  It is key to have the perspective of the students who actually attend the current school and know what works best and what needs improvement.  It is clear to me that option two is the best way to upgrade our campus and change our community for the better.  However, even after attending the New School Facilities Advisory Meeting, there is much more to be considered, as Town told me, there is “still a lot of questions to be asked and answered”.

by Olivia Bott, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~~~~

School Board New Facilities Advisory Meeting

    At the meeting I attended, Superintendent Randall Booker and some School Board Members discussed the pros and cons of the possible remodels that will be taking place at Piedmont High School in the coming years. The goal of the meeting was to help gain a better understanding of people’s and student’s opinion on what the new school should look like and to get some original ideas about carrying out the remodel. This was the third meeting so far, and I would assume many more to come as final decisions go down.

The major issues that came up in the discussions were about the location of the new S.T.E.A.M. building and whether to remodel the gym or theater, as funding did not allow for both.

First, in smaller groups we discussed and took notes on plan number 1. The view from the quad and the movement of campus center were the main things discussed. Mr. Booker noted that the walkways from where the new S.T.E.A.M. building would be placed would be not suitable for the new foot traffic.

Another important debate was about whether or not to renovate the gym and the theater.  I asked whether or not both of them could be fixed, but neither completely redone, since money was limited. But, apparently if anything is done to the theater, the whole thing has to be redone to get it up to code.

After this, we moved onto the second plan, which is my personal favorite of the three, as it creates a new S.T.E.A.M. building in the center of campus, establishing a new entry way into the school and making it seem more like a high school. This plan also renovates the theater and maintains the great view from the quad. I think that this plan, like many students at the meeting, also does a good job of incorporating Millennium High School into the larger campus. Since the only problem with this plan is that the gym is not fixed, I find it satisfies the needs of most people in the community, as the gym is still functional.

The third plan, similar to the first, blocks the view from the quad and moves the gym up to the street. While many parents expressed favor for having the gym closer to the street, and near the pool and Recreation Department, I find that this plan disturbs the atmosphere of Piedmont High, isolating Millennium High and sticking the gym in the middle, where it does not really fit.  I think overall most of the students definitely preferred the second plan over the rest, despite it being more expensive.

To get a more in depth opinion from someone other than a student, I interviewed Shirley Lee, who is the mother of a High School sophomore and an eighth grader. She stated that she attended the meeting to learn more about the key issues in the presentation in order to further understand the goals of Piedmont High School and to see what the future of the High School might be.

Lee expressed her appreciation for the many opinions of students and parents alike and that she really enjoyed hearing the pros and cons of all of the plans. It was great that both parents and students, even if they were obliged to be present by school assignments, attended as their opinions differed on many topics. Lee also showed gratitude especially for student attendance, since “they are the ones who know what going to school here is like, while the parents are only here for back-to-school night.”

I personally agree that current students’ opinions are very important, although I may be biased, expressing the difficulties students go through at the school and providing possible solutions. This was a very essential meeting for the future of Piedmont High School as opinions and concerns were really taken into account to better the future of Piedmont High School.

by Trevor Huffaker, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.
Apr 23 2017

Despite concern expressed about losing the “small town feel” of Piedmont, the extensive, recommended changes to Piedmont’s zoning regulations were readily approved by the City Council. Two peripheral items were deferred for future Council consideration: short-term rentals and Grand Avenue Commercial Zone D.

    The Piedmont City Council met on March 6, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont California.  The meeting began with a motion by Council Member Teddy King, and support by the rest of the Council, to approve the first four items on the consent calendar. Having been discussed by the Council, the fifth consideration was a resolution affirming the action of the Alameda County Mayors’ Conference in passing a resolution condemning violence and hate speech, expressing solidarity with those who have been targeted, and supporting immigrants and refugees. Council members King and  Jennifer Cavenaugh both supported the resolution, agreeing that although it is purely symbolic, it has meaning and is important for opening up discussion about these topics.  Following the consent calendar was the Public Forum.

    The first item on the regular agenda was the introduction and first reading of the revisions to the City Code, including Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use.  Kevin Jackson, the Planning Director, discussed how the revisions aimed to streamline the code and make formatting improvements, along with meeting goals for short-term rentals, parking regulations, and for-profit business regulations, among others.  He also acknowledged that the zoning code is a living document, so these revisions seek only to improve on what already exists and are not necessarily a perfect solution.  Next, Eric Behrens Chairman of the Planning Commission spoke to the revisions, saying that they will be easier to follow and will benefit the Piedmont community.

    Council Member Robert McBain brought up the widespread public dissatisfaction on two issues: banning short-term rentals and Zone D, the Grand Avenue sub-area.   Due to the discord surrounding these issues, McBain proposed deferring these so there is more time to review them.  City Administrator Paul Benoit explained that this could be done by changing the wording in the revision to match the current wording, so status quo would be maintained just in those sections.  Therefore, the rest of the revisions could be approved quickly, but the Council would have more time to hear the community’s views on short-term rentals and Zone D.  Mayor Wieler and Council Members Cavenaugh, King, Rood, and Vice Mayor McBain expressed support for this compromise.

    When this topic was opened up for the public input, the Council received overwhelming support of deferring those two issues.  Many residents had prepared to speak about their concerns regarding short-term rentals and Zone D.  One woman requested that all residents in the Grand Avenue area be notified by mail of upcoming meetings so they will have the opportunity to share their opinions.  Another community member expressed concern regarding the zoning revisions, saying he grew up in a similar town that has changed greatly and lost its “small-town feel” after changes were made in the City Code.

    Although I do understand the City’s desire to prevent short-term rentals, I do not think that they should be banned completely.  As Rick Schiller asserted in a letter to the City Council, Piedmont is not a tourist destination, so short-term renters are usually people associated with residents of Piedmont.  I fully support regulations to ensure that nobody is abusing the privilege of renting out their property and protect Piedmont residents, but a blanket ban is too extreme.

    City Council meetings are held twice monthly, on the first and third Mondays.  The City Council works as the legislative body of Piedmont, working to create laws and policies to benefit and protect the citizens.

by Shannon Baack, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Apr 23 2017

Blight, Commercial zone, winter impacts, paving, and solar panel installations.

On the twentieth of March, 2017,  the City Council discussed at their meeting  the rundown house of 954 Rose Avenue,  the dates to discuss Zone D in the City Code,  the City’s response to the winter storms,  the paving project, implementing solar panels, and actions regarding the damage to Cavendish Lane roadway.

The rundown house was an important and key point at the meeting as it was claimed there was a lessening of neighborhood value by hazardous, safety concerns. It had been over a decade and the property had not changed indicating to the City there was a need  for the City to take action. The property owner had started to make progress and had asked for an extension from the 27 of October to the 6 of January, but no further progress  was made.

Currently, the homeowner’s hut is falling in the neighbor’s driveway. Also, there is a big hole about four to five feet from the sidewalk; the staircase and chimney are broken; and there is a hazardous tree. In this meeting, many neighbors spoke upon these matters. One neighbor who is putting her house on the market expressed that she had to play guard for the house on Halloween as children think it is a haunted house. She also has to help the delivery guy to deliver packets to the owner and stated that people ask her: “Is it a crack house that you live beside?”

The difficulty in this case was that there was no previous similar case making the situation new territory. The Council realized the nearby property owner needs help as his renters are leaving and no progress is happening.  The City needs to pay their staff and there is no magical money coming from the issue. Therefore, a daily hundred dollar penalty will occur from the twentieth of March for three months. If there is no progress occurring such as repairing the stairs and chimney or having a construction schedule, then the City will take this to court on July first.

It is my opinion that this will bring Piedmont greater safety and a less blighted place, especially on Rose Avenue which has been a hurting street.

For Zone D, it has been a lengthy and complex process for residences, but the City has come forward with dates. The short term rentals are going to be scheduled to come back to the City council in April. The Grand Avenue area needs different approaches.  Work Session meeting to take further public input will be held to solicit concerns and issues.

In the City of Piedmont, we have been lucky to have Public Work’s Dave Frankel here 24/7. He is making sure Piedmont stays safe from falling trees, trash filling up the City, or creek overflows. In the winter months, it is hard to get anyone out to help, but Frankel and his staff have always been on the case. The winter months have therefore not been too devastating.  The streets have been regularly and repeatedly had the street sweeper. There have been 800-900 yards of trash picked up on scheduled street sweeping and 500 yard of unscheduled sweeping. The Council thanked Frankel and  his team for the hard work to keep the City clean.

The City’s pavement is being planned by contract City Engineer, John Wanger, who rates the pavement a 63. Since there is a budget for pavement, work is done on pavements which are badly degrading and preventive maintenance on pavements subject to degrading. Magnolia Avenue is waiting for renovation sewer work and Harvard Drive has been delayed. There is a lot more work needed on the pavements because of an increase of water cracks caused by the wet winter. There has been many improvements to come with better pavements, stop signs, pumps, and cycling lines.

The City of Piedmont may soon be clean and renewable energy per Jonathan Whelan who discussed the solar panel assessment. He discussed the location of the solar installation, the interconnection program, and the financials.

Clean renewable energy is something I personally support a lot and I spoke for solar lamps being put in the parks and other locations so that pedestrians can walk safely from athletic practices and other places.

This meeting went over a great amount of points to make our city better. This is why many of our citizens and organizations come to these meetings to get their voices heard and understand their city better.

Public Works Director Chester Nakahara came and was involved in the meeting. He was at the meeting on a number of issues including the paving program.  He talked about the work done to keep the roads clear and the City safe during the storms.

With all these wonderful people making sure our city is at its best and the citizens involved, we continue achieving goals to have a vibrant city.

by Lea Rygg, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

____________

On March 20, 2017 City Council had it’s biweekly meeting in Piedmont’s City Hall. The City Council covered issues pertaining to the City of Piedmont like infrastructure, blight, solar panels, and the job of public works. The meeting began with an honoring of the City’s relationship with the American Red Cross, where Piedmont declared March Red Cross Month.

This was followed up by topic #6 on the agenda which was the Compliance Order Issued for 954 Rose Avenue which took up about half of the meeting. The issue with the home on Rose Avenue is that the front of the house has been deemed unsafe and a blight to the community of Piedmont. The three staff participants in the discussion where City Administrator Paul Benoit, City Attorney Chad Herrington, and the Director of Public Works Chester Nakahara.

The City of Piedmont had issued a compliance order on the house after the homeowner requested one but no improvements were made to his home. The City Council debated possible solutions on what could be done about the home.

Something easily noticed among the Council was how well they worked together to find the best possible solution. For example, they stated they could try to get a work warrant to fix the home, but decided that by the time they had gotten the warrant, months would have gone by.

Also, early on in the discussion, the Council had several neighbors speak about the house. Many of the neighbors stated that the house was an accident waiting to happen. One neighbor described a story of how on Halloween kids believed the house was actually a haunted house.

After hearing these messages the City Council took the neighbors’ consideration of immediate action and deliberated on a possible solution. The City Council agreed on a $100 per day fine until the homeowner obtained a permit with a construction schedule on it.

I agree with the City handling of the house on Rose Avenue because the issue has dragged out for so long that now the fines will grab the homeowner’s attention to hopefully take action.

Later, the City applauded the work of Public Works Department after one of the wettest winters in 60 years. The main jobs that the Public Work team focused on was providing sandbags for people as well as checking on Piedmont creeks to make sure they weren’t overflowing, which affects sewer lines. The main point of congratulating the department is that they do not receive a lot of recognition and to remind them to keep up the good work they are doing for the city.

After the meeting I was able to speak with Chester Nakahara, who is the Public Works Director, and oversees five divisions (streets, buildings, sewers, public works, parks.) For the most part, he thought that the meeting went well and the decisions the Council made, specifically for the Rose Avenue house, were steps in the right direction for the Piedmont community.

By Nicholas Pacult, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions are those of the author.
Apr 23 2017

Three options were described and discussed at the Town Hall meeting sponsored by the Piedmont School District.

    On April 1st, 2017, the Piedmont Unified School District Town Hall meeting took place at 9:00am in Piedmont High School’s Student Center.  The new Facilities Advisory meeting was convened to get feedback from Piedmont citizens on the three options for the new designs for Piedmont High School.  The meeting began with one of the facilitators, Gina Bartlett, telling the audience the purpose of the meeting and what was hoped to get out of it.  She said that they did not want agreement on the options, they wanted feedback.  The goal was to get the opinions of teachers, students, parents, and community members.  Bartlett also went over how the small groups should discuss each option in their small groups in order to get the most out of the discussions. Each group included five to six people, and there were 12 groups.  As it was a discussion-style meeting, speakers did not share their names.

    Superintendent Randy Booker spoke next.  He went through each option so people could have background on the project.  He stated that since Measure H1 passed, the District has $66 million for the new high school.  Booker went over the constraints for the proposed facilities.  They include: funding, lack of real estate and topography, and lack of interim housing.  These were the three things the board struggled with when creating the three options.  He said that it is important that the plan fits into the Piedmont community.  There needs to be a logical entrance.  This will provide a face to the school, and improve security.  Booker emphasized that though not every building will be new, the Board is planning to reserve a portion of the funds to improve the classrooms in the untouched buildings.  An animation was shown of the three options.  Each one involves building a three-story STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and math classrooms) building and a new gymnasium or theater.  The video, along with more information and places to give feedback, can be found at www.measureh1.org.

    The rest of the meeting was spent critiquing and sharing ideas about each option in the small groups.  Each table wrote what they liked and disliked about each one on a piece of poster paper.  These ideas are then going to be discussed by the Piedmont Board of Education to create the final plan.

Option 1 involves putting the STEAM building behind the current gym, and putting in a new theater in the same place as the current one.  School Board offices would then be moved into a remodeled 20s building.  The benefits discussed about this plan included that it is the least expensive and creates the most classrooms.  A repeated criticism of this plan was that it would be difficult and inefficient to have a building that houses so many classrooms far away from the rest of the school.  Students would have trouble getting to it because of the small walkway that would lead to the entrance.

Option 2 would include a new theater in the place of the 10s building, and the STEAM classrooms where the current theater is.  People noted that this would create a face to the school.  Both these buildings would be along Magnolia Avenue, so it would be the first thing people would see.  The main entrance would be between the two buildings, and the main office would most likely be in the bottom floor of the STEAM building.  This would improve security, as office staff would have an easier time monitoring who is entering the campus.  A con mentioned was that both these buildings are very large, so they would be invasive to the feel of the current area:  architects would have a hard time making large modern buildings that fit into the surrounding area and campus.

Option 3 has the STEAM building in the place of the current gym and the new gym along Magnolia Avenue in the place of the 10s building.  People liked the idea of removing the unused amphitheater and having the three-story building make use of the hillside.  Because the entrance would be level with the quad, it would make another centralized building.  Having the gym on Magnolia makes it easier to find, and for more community members, able to utilize it.  Several groups thought that having a new gym is not as important as a new theater.  More people in Piedmont could make use of a new theater than a gym.  One parent reminded the group that when students are taking PE classes, they often go from the locker room to Witter Field.  Moving the gym further from the field makes it inconvenient for the teacher and students involved.  One student also brought up the idea that the identity of Piedmont High School is not sports.  By having the gym so prominent on the outside of the school, it disrupts what the students value most, which is academics.

After reviewing each option, I believe that #2 is the best for the school.  I think a new theater will be more beneficial to the school than a new gym.  Not all students play sports in the gym, but all students use the theater.  The new one would be wheelchair accessible and be up to date with earthquake and fire standards.  This option would also move Millennium High School into the current 20s building.  MHS students would be more integrated with PHS students.

There will be more chances to get involved and voice opinions.   Input from all meetings will be used by the School Board in preparing a final plan.

by Gemma Fucigna, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Apr 23 2017

Groups work to inform District of issues and concerns –

    On Tuesday night, April 18th, I attended the New High School Facilities Meeting in the Student Center. The topic was on the three possible new ways the high school is going to be remodeled in the near future. Every two weeks these meetings occurred; this meeting being the last of the three, but more will come later this month.

    Three options were displayed and described in a short video and then questions were welcomed. I stood and asked why in Option 3 the “PHS Offices” and “Millennium H.S.” were simply being swapped since it didn’t seem logical to me at the time. I got a response from the coordinator of the meeting, that the plan would allow the front offices of the high school to monitor closely who comes in and out of the campus. Today any stranger could walk onto our campus during school hours and no one might notice. After she addressed my question, it made much more sense to me.

    The issues of the overall remodeling of the campus were brought up and seemed extremely realistic, unfortunately. The first issue is a lack of real estate; in other words, there is not much other space than the campus we have to build in. The second issue is the campus being in a hard location with hills and streets to build on and the third issue is that while the school is being remodeled, there seems to be a lack of interim space for classrooms, offices, bathrooms, etc.

    Next on the agenda was group discussions. My group went around the table and each person, including myself, gave their likes and dislikes for each of the three plans. In my opinion, Option 2 is the best plan since it gives students a new STEAM building and also relocates and remodels the theater. Although the most important aspect of it was that unlike options 1 and 3, Option 2 does not intrude on the view students have from the quad, something that everyone at the school can appreciate. Option 1 had a large, 3 story STEAM building and seemed to promote traffic jams during all of the passing periods since a majority of the school’s students would be in one building. Option 3 didn’t appeal to me because it did not show any remodel or renovations to the theater, something that in my opinion should be a priority.

    After the groups discussed their thoughts, a final round of “Aha moments” and further questions began. I spoke out and responded to someone’s comment that even though the STEAM building in Option 3 takes away the view, students can still enjoy it from inside the building. My response was that, similar to Option 1, Option 3 would generate lots of traffic flow of students and teachers especially during lunch and also that realistically, unless its raining, most students at the high school and Millennium enjoy having lunch outside.

    After the meeting ended, I interviewed a former School Board member, Sue Smegal. She said that since she has four grandchildren in the Piedmont schools, it’s her responsibility to make sure the meetings offer good insight and eventually the right school overall. “We can’t lose the feel of the campus. When I walk on it [the campus] I feel happy, we can’t lose that,” she said. As for the future, she plans to go to the upcoming meetings and will always try her best to give her opinions and have her voice heard.

by Sam Watters, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions are those of the author.

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

Town Hall meeting produces new ideas for developing the high school.

    On April 1, there was a Piedmont School District Community Town Hall meeting to discuss the new high school facilities in the Piedmont High School Student Center. The purpose of this meeting was to get feedback on the three proposed options for the new high school facilities under Bond Measure H1. (Further discussions were held on April 6 and April 18.) 

     As the community was seated around tables, the meeting began with Superintendent Randy Booker and two facilitators Gina Bartlett and Julia Golomb introducing the school plans, including the budget and funding. A video was shown (one can find it on measureh1.org) and the key facts about each option were given with handouts showing each design outline, cost, classrooms, etc.

     Next, each table group split up and discussed each option. Beginning with option one, each person went around and said what they liked about it. Then each person spoke again, saying their concerns about the option being discussed. A scribe wrote down a “pros and cons” list on a large poster as the discussion continued and ideas were shared. This was repeated for each option.

     Once the groups completed discussing each option, they agreed on main objectives for the new high school facilities and what we wanted Piedmont High School’s “identity” to be. Next, a speaker from each group said their main insights as a group and what their main priorities for the school were.

     For option one, the main ideas that people were excited about was the new theater, but the group did not like having the new STEAM building so far away from the other classrooms.

     Option two has a new theater as well as a new STEAM building and an entrance and center point in the school.

     In option three, most people seemed to like the placement of the STEAM building, however, the Gym being in the middle of the school brought concerns about giving off the wrong idea of the school, isolating MHS more, and also having PE students running around the school to get down to the field.

    I thought that the theater was a main priority for the school and also a clear entrance and center point were the main objectives for the new facilities making me rule out the third option because it didn’t update the theater. Of course, there are many more positives and negatives about each option and other tradeoffs.

     Then, each group split off again and discussed new ideas and wrote them down on a poster. Some of these new ideas consisted of making the STEAM building two stories instead of three and moving the offices to the forties building. Other ideas were filling in the amphitheater and creating a place to eat or garden, using the space better. Simple ideas like just adding picnic tables or making the quad the center point of the school were also shared. Finally, each group expressed their new ideas and the meeting was wrapped up.

A variety of people showed up including Brad Hebert, who is on Randy Booker’s committee. Brad thought the meeting went very well, and “validated the committee’s hard work.” He is excited for the next steps the committee will take as they revise designs and work with architects to make their vision come to light. This meeting was exciting for PHS’s future and extremely informative. Community members walked away with new ideas and opinions.

By Addie Christensen, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Apr 23 2017

Who decides if a street tree should be planted?  Residents or the Commission?

    On April 5th, 2017, the Parks Commission came together for their monthly meeting for the main reasons of nominating a Vice Chairman, talk about the opening of Hampton Field, the Arbor Day Celebration on April 6th, and how the planting of new trees with public works.

    Following the relatively short nomination period, the focus was shifted to the opening of Hampton Field.  Hampton Field was recently renovated turning the field from a grass field to a turf field.  All concurred that the opening ceremony went extremely well and was a huge success.  They also think that it will be an opportunity ripe for donations as families whose kids have played at Hampton Park will want to donate to have their names on benches and such.

    After the success of changing Hampton Field into a turf field, the Park Commission then said they would turn their attention to Coaches Field, another grass field in Piedmont, and evaluate it for a possible grass to turf transition.  Betsy Goodman then asked about the life span of the turf field, as this was a concern voiced by members of the public.  The lifespan of a cork and sand turf field was about 10 years but could also be replenished, a huge reason why this type of turf field was chosen.

    One concern voiced by a commissioner was about the poor condition of trees at the basketball courts near the back of Hampton Park following a rough winter.   A member of the Public Works Department was present at the meeting and said that public works was planning on taking the trees out.

    The next topic on the agenda was the Arbor Day Celebration planned for the following day. Arbor Day is a national celebration of trees.  Though set up was coming along very well, there were concerns about the weather and if it would rain or not.  A citizen attending the meeting just said to make it clear where it would be held inside if there was rain and where outside, weather permitting.

      Then, the public works member, Dave Frankel, started the Park Commission’s report which consisted of how public works has been combating one of the wettest winters in years and how their reforesting projects are going.  Frankel said  85 cubic yards of debris has been cleared from the creeks in Piedmont.  Public works has also been reforesting the streets of Wyngaard, Inverleith, and Lexford, to name a few.  Public works were also looking at trying to plant new types of trees, like Chinese pistachio trees instead of the lateral outgrowth of Cherry trees.

     It was at this point I wondered why there aren’t any trees on my street. So I went up and asked about the process for choosing which streets to plant trees on.  Was it citizen requested or a Commission decision? Frankel responded by saying that the streets used to be chosen by the Commission, but the residents on many street didn’t take care of the trees so they changed the process to citizen requested.

    After the meeting, I stopped Commissioner James Horner. He came to the meeting to talk about the street tree plantings and the upcoming Arbor Day Celebration.  He learned that public works was changing the species of trees that they were planting to Krauter Vesuvius.  When I asked him about his reaction to this meeting, he stated matter-a-factly, “How short it was”.

by Nick Loduca, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Apr 23 2017

Recreation Commission Meeting of March 15, 2017 – 

On Wednesday, March 15th, my classmate and I attended a Piedmont Recreation Commission meeting. The sessions are held monthly at 120 Vista Avenue in the Council Chambers and provide a platform for community members to discuss recreational matters with the commissioners which decide them. The agenda for the meeting included the record (or “regular minutes”) of the last meeting, and speaker cards are provided to everyone as they enter the room.

The first order of business is Public Forum, or a 10 minute period for citizens to bring up issues not explicitly mentioned in the agenda. A man took the time to address a problem he has with the Hampton Park tennis courts. He described his frustration at the busy nature of the courts. He said that when the courts are full, he asks people to leave and let him play tennis, they remain unmotivated to leave. The man suggested that a portion of the day, say 3-7 pm should be reserved for Piedmont “decal holders.” The Commission heard his idea but was doubtful of how exactly to enforce the plan. The man suggested a sign would do the job “at least in the beginning.”

After the Public Forum, the Commission went on to revisions of the last meeting’s minutes. The changes were minor, for example, a correction to the adjournment time.

After a short Chairman’s report, Recreation Director Sara Lilleland gave an update on the reopening and current status of Hampton Park. She explained that the remodeling has turned out tremendously and she is very proud of the park. She suggests that everyone go and see for themselves. Only some more benches and basketball nets are needed to finish the park. Unfortunately, four or five trees have fallen onto the basketball courts warranting minor repairs. The grand reopening was on March 25th.

The commissioners went on to talk about the CIP or Capital Improvement Projects Review Committee. Then, updates were given on “Facility Master Planning Projects” such as Aquatics and the Recreation Department. The consensus of the Commission is that these projects are going smoothly and should continue. A young swimmer asked about the possibility of a 50 meter pool in Piedmont but the Commission acknowledged the fact that there is simply not enough space.

After summarizing the projects, the commissioners gave their nominations for the Betty C. Howard Award for volunteer service associated with recreation. Nominees included former commissioner Kim Hebert and coach David Reed, known mostly as “Pops.”

Finally, the meeting closed with a ceremonial matter, Brian Cain’s receipt of a plaque commemorating his years volunteering on the Recreation Commission. March 15th was his last night. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

by Walker Johnson, Piedmont High School Senior

 Editors Note: Opinions are those of the author.
Apr 18 2017

Citizen Request for more information on Piedmont Bus Lines Locations-

AC Transit Bus Lines #12 and #33 operate in Piedmont and Bus Line #29 stops near Piedmont.

Line  #12 has 4 stops in Piedmont northbound:

  • Grand Avenue at Fairview Avenue
  • Linda Avenue at Grand Avenue
  • Linda Avenue at Lake Avenue
  • Linda Avenue at Rose Avenue

Line #12 has 3 stops in Piedmont southbound:    

  • Grand Avenue at Sunnyside Avenue
  • Linda Avenue at Grand Avenue.
  • Linda Avenue at Lake Avenue

Line #12 terminates in West Berkeley on 4th Street (instead of downtown Berkeley) and on Harrison Street at the Jack London Square Amtrak Station in Oakland, with stops at three BART stations: Ashby in Berkeley, 12th Street and 19th Street in Oakland.

The Line #12 stops on Broadway in downtown Oakland changed: going toward Berkeley it now stops at 9th Street instead of 10th Street. Toward Jack London Square it stops at 13th Street and the south side of 12th Street instead of at the north side of 12th Street.  Through Friday, April 21, the Line #12 bus will not stop at 22nd Street on Broadway in downtown Oakland.

Line #12 operates every 20 minutes from about 6:20 am to 6:45 pm on weekdays, then every half hour until about 11:30 pm and every half hour on weekends.  

Map and schedules for bus Line #12 can be read here.

Line #29 replaced lines #26 and 31, serving Hollis Street in Emeryville, operating from Emeryville Public Market, West Oakland BART, 12th Street BART to Lakeshore Avenue at Wala Vista Avenue in Oakland, which is only a few blocks from Piedmont. On weekdays the last bus returns to Wala Vista Avenue at 9:47 pm and on weekends at 10:20 pm.  The first Line #29 bus leaves Wala Vista Avenue at 6 am and operates every 20 to 30 minutes daily.

Map and schedules for bus Line #29 can be read here.

Line #33 has 25 stops in Piedmont on its large horseshoe shaped route with stops at 12th Street and 19th Street BART stations in downtown Oakland.  There are stops on or at Crocker Avenue, Estates Drive, Hampton Road, Lexford Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Saint James Drive, Seaview Avenue, Sheridan Avenue, Sierra Avenue, and Inverleith Terrace only until evenings on weekdays with no service during a two hour lunch break.  The first Line #33 bus departs Highland Way at 5:51 am and the last at 10:29 pm operating every 15 minutes until 7 pm when it switches to half hour intervals. There are also two half hour intervals in the morning.  The last night time trip ends on at St James Dr on Park Blvd at 10:48 pm on weekdays and on Highland Way in Piedmont at 11:53 pm on weekdays and Saturdays. On Sundays and holidays the last night time trip ends on Highland Way an hour earlier and the last trip reaches Saint James a half hour earlier.

Map and schedules for bus Line #33 can be read here.

Information on fares and Clipper Cards can be read here.