Piedmont School Board adopted the new Math Pathways Proposal on a 3-2 vote.

    The purpose of the Wednesday, February 28 meeting was mainly to review the new proposed Math Pathways Recommendation for the Middle School and High School, championed by the Director of Curriculum for PUSD, Dr. Cheryl Wozniak.

    The Piedmont Board of Education is composed of five elected representatives oligarchy whose purpose is to represent the interests of all students, review and approve budgets and employs all school faculty members from teachers to the Superintendent and votes on policies within the State of California’s Education Codes. Piedmont School Board usually meets on the second and fourth Wednesday of every month in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00.

    The major issue addressed during the meeting was this was the last hearing of the adoption of the proposed Math Pathways program. Dr. Wozniak gave a presentation on the proposed 2018-19 Math Pathways proposal. In her presentation of the now adopted proposal, she explained students in the Grade Level Compression(“GLC”), High School Compression(“HSC) and Middle School Compression(“MSC”) will have the Math Pathways program. After 5th grade math, both pathways will have completed Common Core 6-8.  When the students reach 8th grade, however for students on MSC they will have already complete IM-1. But, once they are in High School, GLC students would only take IM-1 through 3 from freshman year to junior year, leaving these students with only an option of taking Math Analysis or Statistics (“Stats”) during their Senior year with no option of taking a Calculus class.

   In HSC and MSC both pathways by the end of 10th grade students would complete IM-3 and the pathway only allows students to take either Math Analysis or Honors Math Analysis in their Junior year and in their Senior year these students will only have the choice of taking AP Calc AB(“Calc = Calculus”), AP Calc BC, Stats or Honors Stats(“H Stats”). However, for students taking AP Calc BC, Calc A would be integrated in this class.

   PHS Seniors Jeremy Wong, Jane Anderson, and Kylie Hilton were the only students from the audience who opposed the now adopted math pathways proposal.

    I strongly oppose the new adoption of the Math Pathways 2018-2019 proposal.  It is fundamentally flawed for three reasons.

• One – What is the point of having HSC and MSC, 2 pathways, if the students when they arrive at their Senior year end up having the option to take either Calc AB, Calc BC, Stats or H Stats? In short HSC, and MSC end up at the same spot, their both really same pathway. It does not make any sense whatsoever.
• Two – The proposal prevents and limits High School Students from taking AP math classes (AP Calc AB and BC are the only AP math classes that PHS offers) during students’ Junior year. For the class of 2018 and 2019, students who were on the old Advanced Math Pathway could take AP Calc AB during their Junior year and AP Calc BC during their Senior year.
• Three – Since students under this proposal can not take both AP Calc AB and BC in high school and that AP Calc BC has AP Calc A already integrated within AP Calc BC, what is the point of having Calc AB. Students under this proposal would probably just take AP Calc BC because they are learning Calc A and Calc BC in the same course plus, the majority of colleges only accept calc credit if Students took the AP Calc BC test.

    We do not want to drive more students out of Piedmont because of the math program. Piedmont High School has 397 students and the senior class of 2018 only 97 students. The class of 2018 is the smallest class at PHS, and the class size has significantly decreased over the past four years. The adopted proposal will create more unnecessary stress and pressure, plus it will make it harder for the future classes to compete against students nationally and internationally when applying to colleges.

    Students and Parents were not well informed by the school of the math pathways proposal.

    I do not understand why the School Board passed an extremely flawed proposal which is detrimental to the future classes in the long run, instead of not adopting it and “assigning” the school to create a more revised proposal that gives students more autonomy when choosing their math classes.

    Before the meeting started, I interviewed MHS Senior Joshua Miller, VP of Millennium High School (MHS) who has a non-voting seat on the Board as a student representative.  Miller said to me that part of the role of the office of the VP of MHS is to address what’s going student wise in Piedmont and at Millennium as a part of the District. I asked what issues he would like addressed during the meeting. Miller said, “Well, academic wise I’m just bringing up how the quarter ends for Piedmont and marking period ends at Millennium, and activities stuff like the schools plays, the Bird Calling Contest, the community dinner and stuff that has been happening around the community.”

By Jeremy Wong,  Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Board Marches Toward Change

    On February 28th, Sarah Pearson, the President of the Piedmont Board of Education, opened up a discussion about change. Initially leading everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance, she stood in the center of the semi-circle table, surrounded by the four other members and the Superintendent. This was the second meeting of the month, as the Board meets bimonthly on the second and fourth Wednesdays in the Council Chambers of City Hall to discuss issues involving the School District and seek to make decisions that will improve the schools.

To start the meeting, Ms. Pearson introduced Mr. Kessler, the president of the Association of Piedmont Teachers (APT), who spoke about APT’s concern for school safety in relation to the February 14th shooting in Parkland Florida. He explained that the group had voted to declare March 14th a day of action, suggesting the possibility of letter writing to officials, moments of silence in respect for the people who died, murals, and marches. His words later prompted Board Member Doug Ireland to show his support for APT, and to voice his concern for the safety of teenagers in Piedmont and across the country.

Superintendent Randall Booker expressed his support for APT’s actions. He mentioned the nation-wide plans for showing respect to the victims of the Parkland shootings on March 14th and spoke on behalf of the School District in supporting students in taking part. He spoke of the importance of standing in unity during times like these.

Mr. Ireland spoke passionately about a couple different issues, including the mental health of students and the environment that Piedmont families create at our schools. He expressed horror at the number of students who are in states of, or who have ever been in states of, depression and at how many have contemplated suicide. Drawing connections between depression and stress, he mentioned the intense environment surrounding college that exists in Piedmont. He voiced a desire to change the level of expectations that are placed onto students as they apply and decide where to go to college.

In response to the recent resignation of the Athletic Director, a common occurrence for Piedmont High School in the past two years, he admitted that blame has to be placed on the parents and community. His assertion set the tone for the rest of the meeting: a desire for change.

Continuing with the theme of changing and improving, Dr. Cheryl Wozniak presented to the Board about past and future opportunities for members of the community to learn about diversity, inclusion, equity and other issues.

The Let’s Talk sessions have been successful, with many Associated Student Body members from the High School attending, along with other faculty and members of the community.

As expressed by Dr. Wozniak, there will be more sessions for people to attend, along with other events, including the “Unity in Community” assembly, which is organized by students. These attempts are all in the hopes of teaching people about diversity and engagement in order to fulfill new social justice standards for administrators.

Terry Montgomery spoke to the Board about measure H1, and the Board moved to accept her report.

Next, Pete Palmer presented the new Safe School Plans. The plans focus on emergency drill protocol, with the major change being the implementation of lock down drills. Amal Smith, a Board Member, spoke in favor of this change, mentioning that the frequency of fire drills has allowed students and faculty to have memorized the protocol. The Board approved the plan.

The next major item on the agenda was the issue of the new Math Pathways proposal. Dr. Wozniak also presented the proposal, explaining the changes that were being made and the many options that students will have if the proposal is passed by the Board. The changes would allow students entering high school to have the opportunity to study over the summer and then take an assessment to accelerate and take a more advanced class, for example.

Personally, I think that having so many options about math classes could be a bad thing. Students at Piedmont are constantly stressed and many take on very hard classes and have large work loads. Adding more options, and therefore more ways to seemingly get ahead or excel, will only cause the stress level of students to increase.

Math teacher, Diana Miller, later told me that she, along with others members of the Math Pathways Committee, attended the meeting to hear the information presented and the Board’s decision. The Board voted three to two in favor of the changes, which pleased Ms. Miller. The discussion was not a brief one, and had been going on for months. Ms. Miller said she was “impressed by the depth of discussion between the five Board members before the vote”, as all members thoughtfully considered what is best for the students in Piedmont.

by Zoe Adams, Piedmont High School Senior

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

Lets Talk –

In contradiction to what many people may believe, Piedmont is a diverse city. Each person has their own story to tell, and in our busy lives those stories are often left untold.

The Piedmont Appreciating Diversity Committee (PADC) gave Piedmont residents a chance to share some of these stories when they held several interactive group sessions called “Let’s Talk” at the Piedmont Veterans Hall. These meetings took place on three different dates, and PADC hosts other similar events throughout the year.

The speaker,  Sara Wicht, has over 20 years of experience in social justice and anti-bias education. The slogan for the “Let’s Talk” conference was “Building a more inclusive Piedmont through deliberative dialogue.” Since everyone has their own opinions and views, this can be a touchy subject. Sara handled this very effectively by allowing the meetings to function as discussions rather than lessons. All of the people attending were seated among an array of circular tables. Sara would bring up a topic that everyone in the room could speak to, and then each table group would discuss it.

One of the main topics of the meeting was Identity. Everyone was to write down how they identified in response to each item from a list of seven components of identity. The list consisted of: gender, sexual orientation, race, social status, citizenship, language(s), and religion. What these categories shared in common is that we are all born into these things. We have no choice (or are at least heavily influenced by external factors such as parents and the environment we grew up in) in how we identify in these categories. After we had responded to all of the seven prompts, we were asked to cross off an item from our list that we felt was least important to us. This was repeated until only one category was left. The most fascinating thing about this exercise is that everyone felt differently about what was most important. Some people who had attended multiple meetings said that the most important item on their list had changed since the previous meeting. A woman at my table even said that her most important item changed based on what the most prevalent political issue at the time was.

I was active in the conversation at my table throughout the three hour meeting. At first, I was rather shy because I did not really know any of the people at my table, but I quickly realized that they were at the meeting specifically to hear what other people had to say. My favorite contribution to the group was when we were discussing how we reacted towards people expressing specific emotions. If someone came to me and told me that they felt guilty about something, I said that “I would react by saying it wasn’t their fault even if it was to make them feel better about it.” This was my favorite contribution because everyone at my group strongly agreed even though my response was pretty far from the recommended strategy.

The other main topic covered during my time at “Let’s Talk” was Implicit Bias. Sara gave several hypothetical scenarios and asked the audience whether there was implicit bias going on, and if so, what was it? The most thoroughly discussed example was as follows: A black woman in Piedmont who is standing in front of her house is asked if she needs directions. I believed that there was implicit bias because the person assumes the woman doesn’t live in Piedmont because of her race. I was surprised to hear another member of the audience say that there was no implicit bias at all. He argued that the person asking if the woman needed directions was simply being nice and trying to be helpful. There was no definite resolution to the argument, but there was a chance for people to hear sides of the story that they may have otherwise not heard.

Attending “Let’s Talk” was an eye-opening experience for me. I heard many stories and opinions that I may never have otherwise been exposed to. The environment was a place where I felt safe and comfortable to talk about myself, and I fulfilled my initial goal of learning about how Piedmont perceives diversity. I highly recommend attending one of the PADC’s events because everyone will get something different out of the experience and it is pretty fun hearing stories from all sorts of people you otherwise may not have met..

 Xavier Talwatte, Student from Piedmont Unified School District

Let’s Talk About It

On February 5th, 10th, and 11th, Piedmont chose to broaden the dialogue.  As member of Piedmont Appreciating Diversity Committee member and Council member Jen Cavenaugh affirmed at the beginning of the first ever series of Let’s Talk workshops — which were a series of meetings to address diversity, acceptance, and inclusive dialogue within Piedmont — “all great things start with people showing up to the table.”  Among the scattered coffee cups and Cuties oranges, members of the Piedmont community certainly did show up.

The event started with a mirroring activity, led by Sara Wicht, a consultant who often engages audiences in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance program.  Encouraged to find a partner who each of us had not previously known, we took turns leading or following.  Staying connected in our physical actions took consistent eye contact, focus, and consideration to each others’ physical ability.

The activity set the tone for the entire meeting.  We were asked to relate the activity — and the focus it required — to the ways we go about engaging in vulnerable dialogue.  Truly engaging in a dialogue requires empathy and trust — an ability to navigate their sensitivities and abilities — as well as an awareness of oneself as an individual.

The rest of the meeting largely functioned off of this foundation of exploring trust.  We related the community of Piedmont as a whole to our own individual identities, feelings, and experiences.  As Piedmont is an affluent city — the median income is $202,000 per year according to the 2016 Census Data and 60% of the population is over 40 years old while 28% of the population is under age 19 — the community is largely stratified by age.  Piedmont is also home to 8,069 caucasian people, 1,499 foreign-born people, 2,018 Asian people, 649 multiracial people, 632 Hispanic people, 142 African-American people, 19 Native American people, and 6 Hawaiian or Pacific Islander people. This stratification of age and ethnicity results in a variety of generational or cultural mindsets, that we were able to see more clearly during a polling question section.  While 74% of participants full-heartedly agreed that they would want to be able to talk to neighbors about a variety of issues, the idealism began to crumble when confronted with reality.  50% of participants soon responded that “talking about race with neighbors could open a can of worms” and that it was “not worth it” sometimes. 49% of participants felt that only “sometimes” were they able to talk comfortably about religious or non-religious systems with their neighbors, while 9% felt uncomfortable.

As I shared with the entire group present, I see this split between idealism and reality as being due to a “cultural longing for agreement.  We have, in recent years of polarized politics and social issues, transformed ourselves into a culture that equates agreement with trust and friendship.  Disagreement, feels like a threat to understanding and empathy.  As we hold our personal beliefs very near to us — they form our identities, which often feel the need to safeguard relentlessly in a Trumpian era — the fear of disagreement precludes our sincere engagement on many issues.  When discussing issues and possibly disagreement seems connected to losing or gaining friends or community support, many freeze up.”

Indeed, even this meeting reflected a largely like-minded group.  As I shared to the group, “we have grown accustomed to our echo-chambers, but I believe we can apply the same sort of open empathy and trust to all people, regardless of whether we know they will agree with us or not.” Action must, and will, take place.  Especially after an activity that allowed us to organize our identity into seven different categories, and then quickly cross each aspect off one by one to leave the last one remaining. The Let’s Talk event brought more awareness to those who must “shed an identity everyday just to feel safe.” As an adult woman, Sara, spoke out: “privilege is not needing to shed an identity in everyday life.”  The Let’s Talk event confirmed that we must find ways to allow everyone to feel safe in their everyday life.  As an African-American woman reaffirmed to the group: “we must reinforce that anyone can have a positive social identity even if the community does not directly reflect it.”

For many, the desire to take this positive step was what brought them to conversation at Let’s Talk.  As we reflected on the first time we became aware of our racial identity, or considered the aspects of our identities that were most important to us, I noticed that the meeting drew upon members of the Piedmont community from all walks of life, and for all reasons.  Many adults present were parents of children in the elementary schools, hoping to better understand the culture of the high school.  Others were active supporters of the schools, and PADC.  Vanna Nicks, in a interview with me afterwards, found that she was there “to actually practice  [engaging in the uncomfortable]” and “explore many points of views, rather than just [learning how to] convince other people to adopt one way.”  Others, largely the teen contingent, were there to give a student insight into the actions of the high school.  All attendees, however, were there to support and shape a Piedmont that is tolerant and comfortable for all.

Many adults at the meeting voiced hopes for more intersectional contact for kids of Piedmont at a younger age.  After learning about the need for young children to develop the anti-bias domains of identity, diversity, justice, and action, many adults, including Nicks, concluded that a diverse Rec Department for elementary school kids — with different play styles and different kids — could help lay the foundation for trust and empathy early on.  Nicks also proposed that a “big brother-big sister” buddy program could help inspire younger students; high schoolers could play and talk with younger students about how to communicate, be brave, and take action.  Nicks views the learning she encountered at the meeting — from a newfound understanding of the word “cisgender” to learning frameworks for how to communicate with people and recognize when they are feeling pain or anger or suffering in a conversation — as being highly applicable to kids in the schools, especially if initiated in bite-sized, natural chunks.  Another adult, who had long taken part in a Mormon book group when she was not Mormon, also advocated for more exposure — at any point in life — to different groups of people.  Taking the time to be vulnerable and step out of one’s comfort zone was the resounding theme of all responses to the discussions.

Community member Vanna Nicks affirmed her hope for a tolerant populous in the United States as well as in Piedmont: “speaking as a person who stutters, I [sometimes] assume that people will want to end the conversation [with me] because I can’t control my blocks.  [Yet] living in the closet because of fear,” Nicks found, has limited her in the past.  Describing her pleasant surprise when, in fact, peoples’ attentiveness to her words grow due to her stutter, she feels ready to ask the question of “what can happen when we show our true selves.”   While she knows that the fear of lack of acceptance does indeed “come from somewhere,” she also knows that “we have a role” in our interactions and our lives.  Fear does not “just happen to us.” We always have the choice to respond to it with brave, kind action.

by Genevieve Raushenbush, Piedmont High School Senior 

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Piedmont and Crown Castle agreed to refer the cell antenna lawsuit to court mediation with a March 22 date in United States District Court, Northern District of California, in Oakland. On  October 16, 2017 the City Council denied eight of the 11 cell antenna sites requested by Crown Castle.  In response, Crown Castle sued the City November 15, 2017 and Piedmont is expected to respond no later than March 9, 2018.  

Resident assesses what to do regarding cell tower issues –

To the Piedmont City Council:

I encourage you to settle the Crown Castle lawsuit and approve their application. Here is my point of view for whatever it is worth to you:

1- All new technologies carry risks that have to be weighed against the benefits to our community, our State, and our Nation. Here is a comparison of common risks in the US:

– Lifetime risk of death by injuries (such by car, fall, gun fire, …) for a person born in 2014:  1 in 20 as documented by the Information Insurance Institute.

– Teenagers’ risk of injuries (treated in an emergency room) suffered in motor vehicle crashes: 1 in 25 as per Center for Disease Control.

– Lifetime risk of developing cancer due to background radiation : 1 in 100 as per the National Center for Health Research. Background radiation refers to radiation that naturally occurs in our environment and does not come from any manufactured devices, such as emitted from the earth, sun, our galaxy, and other galaxies. The vast majority of non-invasive cancers are non-melanoma skin cancers caused by non-ionizing ultraviolet radiation.

– Lifetime risk of brain cancer after 20 years of cell phone use: 1 in 200. This is the only available evaluation and an entry in the blog of Joel Moskowitz, PhD, a member of our community, Director and Principal Investigator, Center for Family and Community Health, UC Berkeley.

2- The Sutro Tower emitted TV programs at an Effective Radiated Power (ERP) of 10 Million Watt for decades (versus 730 Watt ERP for a Crown Castle antenna). A 2001 review of epidemiology studies by the San Francisco department of public health concludes as follows: “Because of weaknesses (in the peered reviewed studies), current evidence does not suggest that living near broadcast towers would lead to an increased risk of cancer”.

3- It is easy to measure the strength cell provider signals using one of the many applications available. A good one is “Network Cell Info” for Android phones. Note that -100 dBm is essentially 0 Watt, and -36dBm is 0.000,000,3 Watt. One can also test the effectiveness of the Faraday effect to shield an area by placing a flat conductive wire mesh between a cell phone and its sending tower antenna.

4-The power emitted by a cell phone during a call ranges from 1 milliWatt when reception is good to 1 Watt (a thousand time more) when the reception is poor. (The power level picked by a cell phone for a call is negotiated between the phone and the equipment attached to the cell tower antenna when the call is established. It is then adjusted during the call to maintain good communication). Transmitted energy density diminishes with the square of distance. At 1 Watt, the brain is exposed to a power density of 35 milliWatt/cm^2 (phone against the ear at 1.5 cm from skull). The additional maximum exposure to the signal transmitted by one of the proposed Crown Castle antenna is 19 microWatt/cm^2 or 1800 times less. It is quite possible that a resident who lives in an area with very poor coverage and who spends a significant amount of time on her phone at her home everyday would be exposed to less cumulative radiated energy should an antenna be installed in front of her house. Fear your cell phone more than tower antenna!

5- With regard to scientific research, studies’ reproducibility and replicability are among the main principles of the scientific method. There is an on-going crisis in research with regard to reproducibility as reported by the Journal Nature on May 25, 2016 : 70% of researchers surveyed by the Journal Nature have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.

Bernard Pech
Piedmont Resident

February 24, 2018

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Proposed Changes to Piedmont Governance Are Missing  Community Input – 

The February 5, 2018 Staff Report has the proposed revised  City Charter. There are single lines added that are fundamental changes to the way Piedmont operates and has operated for many, many years. Example: p19 Sec. 3.01 “All other officers shall be appointed and directed by the City Administrator.” Only the City Administrator and Attorney would be appointed by the Council under the new charter.

Under the current City Charter the City Council is the final authority. Under the proposed new Charter the Chiefs of Police and Fire, City Clerk, Director of Finance, Director of Public Works, City Engineer, Planning Director, Director of Recreation and such other subordinate officers, assistants, deputies and employees would be appointed by the City Administrator. This is a fundamental change in Piedmont governance. Much more community input is required for this and other fundamental changes.

The essential character of government in Piedmont is civic involvement and public discourse. The City Charter is the central document and rushing this to a vote without more public input and a committee report seems unwise.

Recently the Planning Commission approved a recommendation that Staff have more input on window reveals. If the distance a window is set back from the horizontal exterior wall plane is worthy of committee review, surely changing the City Charter also deserves a thoughtful committee investigation and report.

As public discourse is at the heart of Piedmont governance, an Open Government Ordinance is needed and should be made part of any new charter. This would extend the Brown Act three day notice requirement to a longer period such as eleven days so that during holidays, summer vacations and other demanding family times there would be more notice and adequate time for residents to digest and involve themselves in important changes in town.

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

League of Women Voters of Piedmont presents

Eric P. Brown

“Constitution in the Classroom”

Sunday, March 4, 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

40 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont presents Constitution in the Classroom with guest speaker Eric P. Brown. Mr. Brown is a member of the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society for Law & Policy.

Constitution in the Classroom brings members of the American Constitution Society (ACS) into primary and secondary classrooms to raise awareness of fundamental constitutional principles.  As lawyers, law students and educators, ACS representatives share knowledge and appreciation of the Constitution.  By spending as little as one-hour teaching in a high school, middle school or elementary school classroom, ACS members inform and excite young minds about their constitutional rights and responsibilities.

ACS believes that law should be a force to improve the lives of all people. The organization promotes positive change by shaping debate on important legal and constitutional issues through the development and promotion of high-impact ideas to opinion leaders and the media. The group builds networks of lawyers, law students, judges and policymakers dedicated to promoting these ideas, and counters activist movements that seek to erode enduring constitutional values. By bringing together powerful ideas and passionate people, ACS makes a difference in the constitutional, legal and public policy debates that shape our democracy.

Eric P. Brown is a partner in the firm of Atshuler Berzon LLP in San Francisco.  Eric’s practice consists primarily of representing labor unions, workers and advocacy organizations in all manners of litigation and advisory matters, including labor, employment, constitutional and environmental law. He earned B.A. from Yale College and his J.D., Yale Law School.

The event is open to the public at no charge.  Please RSVP by March 2, 2018 to Lois Corrin at loiscorrin@gmail.com or by text at 510-318-4840.

How many Tennis Courts do we need?!

Who doesn’t love free pizza and talking about parks of your childhood? That’s just what I did January 18th, 2018 in the Piedmont Community Hall. This was the second meeting of the Groundworks Architecture and Landscape Firm with the Piedmont Community, hosted by the Piedmont Recreation Department, to discuss the redesign of the Linda Beach Playfield.

    At the previous meeting, the Groundworks team gathered ideas from about forty attendees about what the community wanted and valued. They put this information  into a list of guidelines. They then used guidelines to come up with designs.

    We were presented with three options: sports, nature, and hybrid.

    The sports option focused on expanding the tennis courts to fit two regulation size courts with colorful mural like retaining walls as well as a skatepark for teens under the bridge.

    The Nature design gave a serene and peaceful vibe, bringing a sculpture garden/public art space under the bridge, a terraced amphitheater/event space at the north end of the field.

    The Hybrid design was a perfect combination of both. Hybrid updates the tennis court to regulation size, while adding an event space with outdoor classrooms and a green space at the north end. The Tot Lot was moved in this design to the south end of the park featuring a slide into the park from Howard Street.

    After the presentation of the three designs, the audience was split into five table groups to discuss the options. Most of the people at the meeting were advocates for having as many tennis courts and sports areas as possible. On the other hand, many others were excited about having a green area to relax and hang out as a community. The skatepark was a big topic, but we students at the table were insistent on not including the area. Ryan Stokes, a Piedmont resident, was an advocate for the skatepark.

I spoke to Lorri Arazi, a listing agent for the newly built townhomes on Linda Avenue, about the plans. “I initially came on a fact-finding mission, I thought I’d be a listener and less of a participant. But I felt strongly, I had a strong gut reaction when I saw the skatepark next to the bridge,” Arazi told me, “I think that’d be really noisy for the people buying the condos.”

    More issues were brought up about the bathrooms, flex space for group activities, noise complaints, and wasting the space by planting more trees everywhere. Many younger people showed up to voice their opinions as well as the adults. “It was really really wonderful to see people of all ages here and involved and interested,” Arazi commented. Everyone had a positive reaction to the plans, were excited to voice their opinions and see this area remodeled.

    Arazi told me that, “I’ll definitely come to the March 21st meeting. If [the skatepark] shows up on the next iteration, then I’m going to want to voice my concern.” She also explained that by then she will hopefully have a few units sold, and can bring those families to voice their input as part of the community. The city will be having an online survey about this topic, in addition to a City Council Meeting being held on March 21st to talk about the final design. I look forward to seeing the final design, and the community support around the area.

by Maeve Andrews, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~

Courts or no Courts?

    As the Piedmont Community Hall began to fill up with intrigued families, city officials, community members and Civics students, I could tell that I was in for an interesting evening. The debate over what to include in the new Linda Beach Playfield design had just begun.

    On Thursday, January 18th, at 5:45 p.m., I attended the Linda Beach Master Plan meeting to learn more about the city’s project and to share my thoughts on the subject. The project, headed by Piedmont’s Parks and Recreation Director, Sara Lillevand, is intended to landscape, renovate, and redesign the land surrounding the Beach Playfield on Linda and Howard avenue. A similar meeting had convened on November 16 of 2017 to introduce the project and present the Groundworks Office firm which was chosen to landscape the park.

At the beginning of the Master Plan meeting, the project leaders reviewed the notes from the past meeting and revealed three detailed design concepts that the Groundworks team had put together. We then broke off into groups and worked to address the pros and cons of each of the three designs. Design one was labeled as the ‘sports’ design and consisted of two regulation size tennis courts, a skate park, a community activity space, and a boardwalk entrance to the park from Howard Avenue. The second design, known as the ‘nature’ design, featured several community flex spaces, lots of planted trees and seating areas, and no tennis courts. The third design was labeled as the ‘hybrid’ plan and consisted of one full size tennis court, an adult exercise area, a bocce ball court, and some community flex space.

As a tennis player, I advocated for a version of the sports oriented plan because it included two regulation size tennis courts. Other community members spoke up about how the tennis courts take up lots of area and that the land should be allocated to multipurpose or flex spaces that can be utilized by any and all community members at different times.

One community member spoke about how the tennis courts are a much desired aspect of the Beach Playfield and eliminating them would upset many residents. He also brought up the interesting prospect of installing night lights for the courts which would increase the hours of use. There was much debate over what to include and what to not include during the meeting but the council decided to take the copious amount of community member input and work to build at least one new plan which will then be reviewed at the next meeting.

After the meeting I spoke with the project leader and Recreation Director, Sara Lillevand, to discuss her opinion on the project and the project’s next steps. She explained to me how her main goal of the meeting was to bring as many community members together as possible to receive input on what should be included in the design. She said that the meeting exceeded her expectations primarily due to the fact that there were so many young community members present. Moving forward, Lillevand will collaborate with the Groundworks team to gather the community input from the meeting, work with the city contractors, and develop a final plan to present. This project is moving quickly and I am excited to follow it in the coming months and utilize the final project. Let’s hope for tennis courts!

by Andrew Pinkham, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.