Piedmont Center for the Arts Application for Conditional Use Permit – 

The recent posting by Garrett Keating contains several inaccuracies which I would like to correct.  The most important one is the fact that The Piedmont Center For The Arts, Inc. has applied to the City of Piedmont for a Conditional Use Permit to allow THE CENTER to sub-lease space to a commercial sub-tenant. Garrett has represented that The Piedmont Post has applied for this Conditional Use Permit and would become a “tenant” of the City in a City-owned building.  In truth, it is The Piedmont Center, which has a right to sub-lease some of its space to a tenant of its choosing, that has applied to the City for a permit, in accordance with the new zoning laws requiring this procedure.

Garrett also represents that Gray Cathrall, Editor of The Piedmont Post, is on the Board of The Piedmont Center.  This is untrue.  Gray was termed out and resigned from the Board last summer.  He was a major contributor to the formation and ongoing publicity needs of The Center.

The Piedmont Center For The Arts has a lease with the City of Piedmont covering a portion of the space in the building at 801 Magnolia.   The initial lease was effective on May 2, 2011 and it has been amended several times.  The original lease DID restrict any sub-tenants to non-profit entities.  In the Lease Amendment effective August 31, 2016, that restriction was removed by amending the Lease to allow The Center to rent to any tenant in accordance with Piedmont’s zoning law.

Why does The Piedmont Center need a tenant?  A good question to consider and the answer is simply money!  In the original business plan for The Center, the opportunity for rental income from the old Christian Science Reading Rooms was intended as a cash flow which would subsidize all of the arts activities.  It was intended to pay all of the overhead and maintenance costs plus a little extra for unforeseen expenses and upgrades.

For the bulk of our tenancy, the Bay Area Children’s Theatre rented our extra space.  They were an ideal fit as a sub-tenant because The Center has to have some partial use of these rented rooms & BACT was a very compatible and easy-going group.  The extra space at The Center can only be rented as a “shared space” with no exclusive access by either party.  During the year, The Center uses those back rooms as the “Green Room” for all theatre productions (make-up, costumes, changing rooms, entrances & exits), the on-going artists’ exhibitors use these rooms to store their wrappings, all Center users utilize the smaller back room for their catering needs, and musicians use them to store their clothing & instrument cases.

Bay Area Children’s Theatre moved out of the building last summer (when they were able to rent an entire vacant church in Montclair) and we have been trying to find a tenant(s) ever since.  The problem is that they all want exclusive use, locked doors, a separate alarm system and no use by The Piedmont Center for its programs.

In order for The Piedmont Center to be able to sub-lease even shared space to a commercial tenant, The Center has to obtain a Conditional Use Permit.  The Board realized that The Piedmont Post office would be a sub-tenant who would not increase congestion, noise or parking around our building and they are willing to lease on a “shared space” basis at top dollar.  That was the kind of sub-tenancy we were looking for.

Nancy Lehrkind, Vice President
The Piedmont Center For The Arts

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

 Regarding the proposal to move The Piedmont Post newspaper into 801 Magnolia Avenue – the Piedmont Center for the Arts Building (public space) –

On the Monday, December 11 Planning Commission agenda is an application by The Piedmont Post to sub-lease office space from the Piedmont Center for the Arts (PCA) in the 801 Magnolia building. Some background/history: The editor of The Post serves on the PCA board.

PCA was given an essentially  rent-free lease for half of the 801 Magnolia Building by the City Council in 2010 as a non-profit with the authority to sub-lease to other non-profit organizations. As the city owns the building, it is public space and private for profit uses were prohibited. PCA has certainly earned that status as a public space given the arts activity it has brought to Piedmont.

Last spring, the City Code (Chapter 17) was revised by the Council to allow private for-profit uses in public spaces. Private businesses are required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, one criteria for which is that “the intent is to allow commercial uses which will serve the residents of the City” as opposed to regional users.

City staff explicitly recommended “newspaper” as an acceptable use in its report to Council at the time. In The Post’s application for a Conditional Use Permit, it addresses this intent requirement with the following response: “It will be very convenient for students and residents to file sports stories, notice cultural events, to pick up copies of the weekly newspaper, and provide photographs, etc.”

The Post has been publicly critiqued by Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) School Board members for its biased reporting on school bond measures and stories maligning PUSD staff and hires.

If the use permit is granted, such conduct will continue from taxpayer-supported office space. Comments on this matter can be sent to Kevin Jackson, Planning Director, at kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or City Council at citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us.

By Garrett Keating, Former City Council Member

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

    I went to the Piedmont School Board meeting of November 8, 2017. There were a total of 5 Board Members including a high school student.  During this meeting, the Board discussed new tax reforms for the upcoming year, as well as the proposed Piedmont school schedule modifications and fire relief donations for Sonoma. In the beginning of the meeting, the Board addressed the topic of the resignation of teacher Mr. Cowherd. They stated that their first priority is for the students to feel safe at all times, but also added that they would not be able to fire a teacher off of the first complaint.

    The next topic the Board talked about how to react to the new tax reform. The tax reform debate was an in-depth analysis on two different plans. The first plan the Board was considering would not allow them to switch plans until 2035 and they would stay on the current plan. If the Board chooses this option, there is a chance they would lose money depending on the new tax reform bill President Trump is evaluating. There were two men from the community who spoke in support of  this plan and both worked in the financial industry. The second option could force them to make a decision as to whether to switch to a new tax plan in the next month.

    There was another resident, who also worked in finance, that promoted this plan and he came prepared with a long slide show of how the taxes could change in upcoming years.  In the end, the Board concluded that they would schedule an emergency meeting in the upcoming weeks to decide which plan they would choose.

    I think that the Board should push for the second option which is switching the plans now. It seemed that Piedmont would save more money if they chose the second plan because they don’t know what changes Trump’s proposed taxes will have on the community and it may lose a lot of money on the current plan.

    The next topic the Board discussed was related to the Piedmont school schedule. They decided to permanently change the yearly schedule which continues to allow finals to be given before Winter Break. A positive factor for this new schedule is that students get a full week off during Thanksgiving since the school was losing money when kids took the whole week off while school was in session.

    I was torn between which schedule I liked best, because I really like the current schedule, but I also enjoy having a week off for Thanksgiving. I spoke on the topic of the schedule and pushed for the schools to stay on the same schedule they are on currently. Though after hearing what the Board had to say, I definitely do not mind switching because finals are still before Winter Break and students get a whole week off for Thanksgiving. I also really like how the Board chose to keep block scheduling because it allows students to have more time to work on their homework. Kids have so many other activities going on besides school that it can be hard to complete all the homework and with this schedule, it allows kids to get their homework done and have extracurriculars.

    Another topic discussed was the fire in Sonoma. Piedmont has been raising money for the past month to help the fire victims and ended up raising a lot of money. The representative speaking for this topic was Heather Frank and she stated that they have raised 1.8 million dollars. She said that only a small portion of the population had donated and Piedmont could do a lot better if everyone participated.

    The last topic that citizens spoke about was in regards to Mr.Littlefield, the new Piedmont High School principal. It was very challenging for Mr. Littlefield in his first year as principal at Piedmont to manage the recent issues around charges of Mr.Cowherd’s harassment of students. A community member, Ms. Cooper, talked about a recent article written by the journalism class at Piedmont where students spoke about how great Mr. Littlefield is and how well they believed he handled the situation. I agree with the student who wrote this statement. I think Mr. Littlefield did a great job handling the Cowherd situation and I also believe he is a really good principal in general. He shows a lot of school spirit and always talks during school wide assemblies which shows that he cares about the students’ learning environment.

    I interviewed Ms.Cooper in reference to her comments about Mr. Littlefield and how well he handled the sexual harassment situation. She was there to give credit to the students who wrote the article and to compliment Mr. Littlefield as well. She enjoyed the meeting and was glad to get her opinion heard. In the situation Mr. Littlefield was put in, there are a lot of ways to slip up and make a big mistake and it was nice to hear someone complimenting him.

    As a high school senior, I have never been to a School Board meeting and I actually really enjoyed it. I learned how decisions are made in the community and how easy it is to make an impact on our community. Attending this meeting will have an impact in regards to my involvement in the communities in which I live down the road.

by Kai Zimmer, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Open letter to Tim Rood regarding sexual harassment prevention training.

I’d like to thank you, on behalf of the School Board, for your input on sexual harassment training in the District. Earlier this fall, the District began to take steps to update sexual harassment policies to ensure they are consistent with Title IX, Ed Code and best practices under the law; and to outline procedures for providing staff training and professional development on sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and Title IX. The District expects new policies will be in place for Board review early in 2018.

Currently, and in accordance with Ed Code, all District administrators and/or supervisors are required to participate in sexual harassment training every two years. The District will change the frequency to every year. As you may already know, sexual harassment training for our union employees is part of contract negotiations.

Respectfully,

Amal Smith, School Board Member

Piedmont Unified School District Superintendent Booker responses to Tim Rood’s request that all PUSD personnel, including teachers, receive sexual harassment prevention training.  (Read Rood’s letter here.)

Mr. Rood-

Thank you for your recent inquiry around the District’s Sexual Harassment Training.

You are correct to state that the law requires that all PUSD employees in a supervisory role receive sexual harassment training every other year.  PUSD Administrators and Supervisors complete sexual harassment training every other year and beginning in 2017 have moved to annual training.

While the law requires mandatory training, my administrative team welcomes the professional development in support of staff and students and does not see it as “unpopular” in the least bit.

In the future, please feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns.  I’m happy to walk you through the District’s policies and procedures.

Sincerely,

Piedmont Unified School District should go beyond state law and require all staff members to be trained in sexual harassment prevention. 

Dear School Board members,

      I urge you to adopt a policy requiring all PUSD staff members who work with students or who supervise other staff to be trained in sexual harassment prevention. While California law requires employers with more than 50 employees to *offer* such training under AB 1825, such training should be mandatory.

      Recent events at PHS as well as the scandals on this topic in the country at large should make clear to you the value of taking positive steps to reduce the likelihood of sexual harassment of PUSD students and employees in the future and avoid to the loss of talented employees who may not be aware of the offensiveness of their inappropriate conduct. Such a policy would also give you more latitude in disciplining staff who sexually harass students or other staff in the future.

      In light of the greater awareness of sexual harassment in recent months, many organizations and employers are now requiring training in sexual harassment prevention for supervisors and instructors. I, myself, have been required to complete such training for my managerial position with the City of San Jose, my instructor position at UC Berkeley, and my position as a Piedmont City Councilmember, and I found it quite valuable in all cases.

       This article in today’s Chronicle (http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Sexual-harassment-training-in-vogue-for-companies-12390354.php) highlights some of the inexpensive options for providing this important training. As noted in the article, online training can cost less than $50 per person, while in-person training can cost a total of $1,500 to $5,000 — but those costs are still much less than hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars it could cost to investigate improper behavior and deal with lawsuits.

      While mandatory training may not be popular with some administrators or staff members, it is your responsibility as a board to set policy, and I encourage you to take additional steps to mitigate this pervasive problem by requiring training.

Thank you for your attention.

Tim Rood, Piedmont High School parent

November 29, 2017

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

On November 13, 2017, I attended the Piedmont Planning Commission which meets on the second Monday of each month. On this particular date, the purpose was to discuss the laws regarding marijuana use in Piedmont, as well as to discuss plans for various homes in Piedmont.

The first big issue discussed regarded marijuana regulations in Piedmont. Kevin Jackson, Planning Director, led the discussion. Jackson expressed his desire to minimize recreational and medical use of marijuana and cannabis products in Piedmont. In an effort to maintain Piedmont’s control over the distribution and agricultural growing of the product, Jackson suggested regulations.

Jackson proposed that cannabis products could not be delivered between 9 AM and 7 PM. He also recommended that “marked cars”–automobiles that display that they are cannabis delivery vehicles– be required for deliveries of cannabis.

After Jackson finished speaking, Commissioner Susan Ode added her agreement with these regulations. She also mentioned that other forms of distribution, such as drone delivery, should be addressed in order to limit potential loopholes. The Commissioners discussed and voted, ratifying Jackson’s ordinance to regulate the time and method of delivery of cannabis.  The Commission’s recommendation on the ordinance will be sent to the City Council for their consideration.

The second large issue revolved around a review of a design for a home at 47 Fairview Avenue. The owner of the home, Elliot Brown, wished to increase the height of the home so that his family could have a home better suited for their growing children; he stated that a raised house would also create a stronger “indoor to outdoor flow.”

Eric Behrens, Planning Commissioner, expressed his lack of support for the project due to Piedmont’s desire to maintain the old architecture.

Brown’s neighbor, Dale Turner, offered his thoughts on why he is against the project. Turner mentioned his concern for the height of the home, as the new design would compromise the privacy and take natural sunlight from his residence. In addition, Turner was worried about having the value of his home decrease because of having this large home near the property line.

The last neighbor to add his thoughts was Rick Schiller. Schiller had similar thoughts as Turner, mentioning how the added story of Brown’s home could be invasive to the privacy of the neighbors. He also added that if this project were to be accepted, an undesired precedent would be set that could potentially allow passage of future proposals that would adversely affect neighbors. As an alternative, Schiller suggested that Brown look into expanding his home horizontally or downwards.

The proposal was denied by the Planning Commission.

My personal opinion is that the Planning Commision correctly denied the plan. This plan would potentially invade neighbors’ privacy as well as decrease the value of the nearby homes. There should be a way for Brown to expand the size of his home without obstructing his neighbors light and privacy.

I spoke out during the meeting at the very beginning. I suggested that a sign of some sort should be placed near a road next to my street, Prospect Avenue, to help decrease the danger of cars speeding at a place of poor visibility. The street is so steep that it is nearly impossible to see up or down it when driving. The Planning Commissioners said that they would think about the suggestion and thanked me for my contribution.

I interviewed Dale Turner. A transcript of the interview is below.

Why are you here? What difficulties and problems brought you here? What did you learn? What is your reaction to the meeting?

“I am here to oppose the plans for the remodel of the home at 47 Fairview Avenue because of the design including increasing the mass of the home to such a degree that it would decrease privacy and light in my home. I learned that prior to proposing a remodel, an individual should attempt to inform and get the approval of the neighbors so that the plan will have a higher chance of being accepted. I am satisfied with the decision of the Planning Commission.”

What next step will you take to get your particular concern addressed?

“There is not a next step for me to take, but my neighbor will be responsible for coming up with a new plan that will be accepted by me and the rest of the neighbors.”

by Will Richmond, Piedmont High School Senior

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

On November 13th, 2017, I attended the Piedmont Planning Commission meeting at City Hall, which meets on the second Monday of each month. The purpose of the meeting was to cover the proposed revisions of Proposition 64, which legalizes the adult use of recreational marijuana, and discuss proposed housing in Piedmont.

The Planning Commission’s first major issue pertained to the marijuana regulations. Kevin Jackson, Planning Director, expressed concern for the fate of Piedmont as a result of Proposition 64.  Jackson fears that Piedmont’s reputation as a safe community will be tainted as a result of marijuana legalization. Since cannabis would ultimately become more prevalent in Piedmont, Jackson is concerned that children in the community would be more likely to take in the second hand smoke. In order for Piedmont to regulate the distribution of the product, Jackson proposed that cannabis products not be sold between 9AM and 7PM. To better inform Piedmont residents, Jackson believes that cannabis delivery vehicles should be required to be marked clearly so one can be aware where cannabis is being delivered.Additionally, Jackson stated that a person should not be able to have more than seven cannabis plants in the home.

Edwin Wang, a Piedmont High School student in attendance, suggested that the Commission replace the word “marijuana” with “cannabis,” since cannabis is a broader term that covers more products. After discussion, Jackson’s proposals were ratified.

I agree with Kevin Jackson’s argument, because I believe it would be in our town’s best interest to do everything it can to reduce the prevalence of cannabis. Proposition 64 will harm our community, because some minors will be able to pass as 18, which will result in the distribution to middle and high school kids. Reducing the availability of cannabis is the right decision, if Piedmont truly cares about the investments in children’s futures.

The other major issue addressed was the proposed design of 47 Fairview Avenue. Elliot Brown, the homeowner, spoke about his plan to create a home to meet the needs of his family by adding another story to the home. Mr. Brown would like to increase the height of his home because he wants to move rooms away from the kitchen due to food scents.

A member of the Planning Commission, Eric K. Behrens, expressed his unwillingness to support the design due to the Piedmont tradition of preserving original architectural heritage. The architect, Bill Holland, had a compelling argument for increasing the height of the home since the front of the house is uninhabitable due to its low 6’8’’ ceilings.

A neighbor of Elliot Brown, Michelle Turner, was easily able to counter this argument because the proposed design would allow the neighbors to see directly into their third story. This would affect the Turner’s house because the window curtains would always need to be shut for privacy, and when not closed the light from Mr. Brown’s window would reflect back into their home.

After hearing both sides of the argument, Commissioner Susan Ode along with the other Commissioners rejected the proposed design due to its inconsistency with Piedmont patterns and disturbance to the neighbors.

I interviewed Dale Turner, husband of Michelle Turner.

Why are you here? What difficulties and problems brought you here? What did you learn? What is your reaction?

• “I am here to oppose the application of plans for the neighbor’s remodel. The design mass caused a privacy issue and blocked light. I learned that anybody should inform neighbors of plans before bringing it to the City for approval. My reaction from tonight is that I am satisfied with the decisions of the Planning Commission.”

What is your name?

• “Dale Turner.”

What is the next step you will take to get your concern addressed?

• “It is not up to me, the neighbors are responsible for coming up with a new plan that would be approved by the neighbors.”

I spoke and advised that the City should place a stop sign at the bottom of my street at the corner of Crest and Hampton Avenues. This should be a high priority because taking an unprotected left up Crest is extremely dangerous as a driver cannot see oncoming traffic, since it is at the top of a hill. Therefore, in order to turn left onto my street, drivers must essentially guess whether it is an appropriate time to turn. Once I stated my case, the Commission thanked me and I sat down.

by Max Bekes, Piedmont High School Senior

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

On Monday, November 13th, the City of Piedmont Planning Commission held a meeting in Piedmont City Hall from 5PM to approximately 7PM.

The meeting began with the standard call to order, leading into a review of the items on the agenda before the Public Forum, in which people may introduce items not on the agenda in order to address the Planning Commission directly. After two Piedmont High School students proposed stop signs in different intersections, which the Planning Commission planned to pass on to the Public Works Department, the meeting’s regular agenda proceeded.

The first item on the agenda was the “consideration of an ordinance revising the land use regulations in the City Code Chapter 17 relating to cannabis” in order to address recent state legislation.

California had recently passed new laws regarding cannabis and the City of Piedmont planned to change the terms used in its ordinances to match the terminology used in state legislation.

A Piedmont High School student spoke on the issue, expressing concern that cannabis was essentially a euphemism for marijuana and requesting that it remain noted in the ordinance that cannabis is the same as marijuana, the Planning Commission responded noting that the only difference between the two was one being a broader term encompassing other forms of cannabis rather than just marijuana to be smoked.

Five other items were on the agenda in which various permits were to be reviewed, each had their own issues and some had neighbors, residents, and architects speak on the behalf of proposals. The applications for permits were regarding construction of various changes to homes including variances, designs and fences.

Oftentimes, the issues of privacy was a major concern, as when one neighbor raises the height of their home, they may block the amount of sunlight on another home and possibly give a direct view into rooms such as master bedrooms and bathrooms. Another potential issue in the approval of a permit was the definition of an uninhabitable space versus a habitable space and how it may have been possible to modify one into the other quite easily.

During one of the considerations, the designers were attempting to make it quite clear that a space was supposed to be made habitable.  However, the Planning Commission noted the ease in which one might change one from the other, changing the home in a drastic way that would be a problem for the Commission.

One such petition included a homeowner who could not make the meeting, and so, on their behalf, only those they had hired spoke.

In an interview of Bill Holland and John Hardgrove following another application in which their request for a permit was denied, they stated their careers oftentimes included presenting such applications to cities in order to do work. Although their application had been denied, they expressed their motivation to continue working and pointed out the homeowner’s willingness to talk to their neighbors, prior to presenting a new application.

When the meeting concluded, many stayed around after the meeting to discuss their next course of action, as well as many homeowners talking to their neighbors about their concerns about the changes to homes. Hopefully, these homes will, in a safe and unobtrusive way, successfully get their desired remodeling and make Piedmont a better, and safer, place for the community to thrive.

by Edwin Wang, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.

On Tuesday, Nov. 7, the City of Piedmont Planning Department and the Climate Action Plan Task Force held a community meeting in the Piedmont Community Hall from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

At the meeting, speakers discussed Piedmont’s new Climate Action Plan, including the reasons it will be introduced and how it will change the city. These speakers included Climate Action Task Force members, a program director at a UC Berkeley research energy lab, an East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) board member, and others. Attendees asked these speakers questions, and at the end of the meeting, attendees got into small groups for discussion.

According to the first speaker, a member of the Climate Action Task Force, Margaret Ovenden, Piedmont’s first Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2010, with the goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15% below the 2005 levels by 2020. Piedmont has met this goal.

The new plan, Climate Action Plan 2.0 as Ovenden calls it, is specially tailored to Piedmont’s needs, hoping to have the city meet the new California goals. The Task Force has been meeting since March to create the plan, which includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions 40% below the 2005 levels by 2030, and 80% below the 2005 levels by 2050.

The Climate Action Task Force expects to act on November 28 to recommend to the Piedmont City Council an adoption of the draft plan.  The Task Force will present a final draft of the plan to the City Council in mid December. After having the public review the plan, it will again be presented to the City Council for final adoption in January 2018.

Several attendees of the Nov. 7 meeting asked questions concerning when the public could see and comment on the plan. When I interviewed Ovenden after the meeting, she explained the importance of hearing the public’s opinions.

“I’d like to condense [the plan] and get it out to the community more,” Ovenden said. “It is really important for people to understand it, especially as we are heading more towards electrification. We will be bringing [the plan] out for public comment, encouraging people to comment.”

Another new development discussed at the meeting was East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). Board member of EBCE and City Council member Tim Rood said that Piedmont will soon switch to get their electricity from renewable sources. EBCE will allow public agencies to purchase electricity for residents and business, providing an alternative to the usual investor owned utilities.

All Piedmont residents will be switched over to the new energy plan hopefully by the spring of 2018, Rood said. Residents will be provided with three options, with the cost of one option being almost identical to the PG&E program.

Another speaker, Chris Jones, who is a program director at a research energy lab at UC Berkeley, presented data from Piedmont. The data taken from 2015 showed that Piedmont’s main greenhouse gas emission sectors include home energy, buildings, and transportation.

Piedmont’s average carbon footprint is higher than the typical global household. For example, Oakland residents have a footprint about half the size of Piedmont residents, according to data Jones presented from PG&E. In Piedmont, Jones said the highest greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation, due to high amounts of air travel. However, Piedmont’s electricity emissions are below the global average, since some residents can afford solar panels.

Jones said that ways to reduce Piedmont’s emissions include electrifying homes, reducing transportation, getting goods from local sources, and eating less meat.

Jones’s suggestions caused me to ask a question at the end of the meeting. Many of the suggestions outlined in the plan are geared towards adult homeowners, so I asked what teenager students can do to reduce emissions. The speakers responded that students should stop driving to school. Considering how small Piedmont is, it is very easy to walk from place to place, so I agree that this is a good option for students.

One speaker, Sarah Moe, said that teenagers can influence their parents, by discussing these issues with them, pushing them to change. I agree with this response, since in discussions with my parents, I can persuade them towards becoming greener.

Piedmont’s plan, Ovenden said, is truly a community plan that requires residents to take initiative. Unlike other cities, Piedmont lacks major industry and commercial areas, so the greenhouse emissions are primarily from residents themselves. “[The task force] just realized that this plan would not be successful unless we got the community more involved,” Ovenden said. “Even though we are not quite done with the plan, we wanted to start sharing the main points and directions that this is going to be heading.”

Moe discussed the importance of shifting cultural norms in Piedmont in regards to climate change. When implementing the plan, she hopes that by working together, it will create safer, more resilient neighborhoods, boost neighborliness and social cohesion, and preserve the future for Piedmont’s children.

In the small discussions at the end of the meeting, my group talked about how important it is for the community to understand how to implement the plan in their lives. We also discussed the importance of people globally understanding climate change, which is best implemented through education. I brought up the issue of the lack of uniform education on human caused climate change. My group agreed that the best way to make steps towards all communities having climate action plans is through education.

 I am glad that I attended the climate change meeting since it opened my eyes to the ways Piedmont works towards becoming greener. All community members should attend these Climate Action meetings so they can understand how the City’s changes will affect them. For this plan, Ovenden said that it will take time to be fully implemented, so residents have time to learn about it. People can join the mailing list to hear about more meetings in the future.

“The state of the climate is so desperate,” Ovenden said in the interview. “It is very, very serious, and it is kind of shocking that the majority of the people aren’t getting it. We have an opportunity still to change things, to not have such terrible effects of climate change.”

by Margo Rosenbaum, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~

On November 7th, a Climate Action Committee Meeting was held at the Piedmont Community Hall. The meeting was open to the public and was organized by the Climate Action Task Force with the goal to educate residents on Climate Action Plan 2.0 and its schedule for ratification.

Climate Action meetings have been occurring monthly since March of this year. The Climate Action Plan 2.0 is Piedmont’s framework to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2040.  This plan ¨2.0¨ is customized to the emission patterns of Piedmont, which are entirely unique from any other city in the Bay Area.

Task Force member Margaret Ovenden voiced that because Piedmont is almost entirely residential, the plan is very tailored to empowering the community as a whole to change its habits. The draft plan is in line with California’s goal of reaching an 80% emissions reduction by 2050. Tentative dates were set for the plan’s review by the city government, the public comment period, revision period and the hopeful ratification. The Task Force hopes the plan would be in effect by 2018.

The first speakers capitalized on the benefits of acting now and identified the community’s main sources of emissions. An analyst, Christopher Jones, from Cool Climate Network provided data showing that Piedmont’s leading emissions source is from transportation with air travel being a factor significantly higher than in other cities. The analyst clarified that the data wasn’t actual data collected from the City of Piedmont directly but were estimates created from other American cities that receive similar incomes. This upset some audience members who asked how achievable benchmarks could be created for Piedmont with information that is not about the city’s emissions specifically. Jones claimed he understood the concern, but the data was a good starting point. Jones applauded the city’s popular use of solar energy, but revealed our emission levels were far greater than our much larger neighbor, Oakland.

Many solutions were discussed from carbon offsets to counter the air travel discrepancy, heat pumps to utilize our strength in solar power, and an upcoming opportunity for residents to get up to 100% renewable energy with East Bay Community Energy. East Bay Community Energy is a service that would be selected by default for all Piedmont residents starting in 2018. There are multiple options with varying percentages of renewable energy. EBCE is predicted to be less expensive than PG&E services and more eco-friendly with PG&E being only 30% renewable. EBCE allows an entire city to purchase energy from a renewable source, rather than have a private company, like PG&E, be a middleman allowing residents little choice in where their power comes from.

Pam Hirtzer, a resident of Piedmont for over twenty years, was adamant about EBCE and claimed she would get it immediately. Hirtzer stated she has been interested in climate action for 10-15 years and shared that just days ago she had tried to purchase an electric car; however, it was too expensive. Looking for other ways to invest in green energy, she attended the meeting. She expressed excitement about the Climate Action Plan 2.0 and was eager to see it in full when it is released for public comment in late December.

The meeting concluded with a workshop in which the attendees got into groups and shared ideas about how to make Piedmont a more environmentally-friendly and climate-conscious city. Residents young and old spoke with Task Force members on ways they wished their schools, homes, and business could be more eco-friendly. Ending the meeting in a hopeful dialogue, I mentioned that environmental education should not be an elective but should be ingrained in the curriculum. Piedmont Middle School maintains a ¨Green Team¨ class for all students but that requirement does not continue to the High School.  I have faith that it soon will.

by Claire deVroede, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.

On Wednesday, November 8th, 2017, I attended the School Board meeting of the Piedmont Unified School District.

There were many topics covered the night I attended. The first speaker was Mr. Kessler, a representative of APT (the Association of Piedmont Teachers) from the Middle School, who reported on his success with students with recent lessons on social justice.

Then, Ms. Heather Frank from the Piedmont Education Foundation gave an update on the Giving Campaign and its recent efforts to increase participation in donating.

Following her report, Josh Miller, a student representative from Millennium High School reported on the ASB efforts to raise money and resources for fire victims, as well as other ASB-sanctioned events, such as Spirit Week.

Next up was the “items not on the agenda” portion of the meeting, in which I addressed the Board after also hearing from some fellow  students. With the upcoming renovations to the facilities, I spoke to the Board about the opportunity to provide more food options for students on campus. After informing them that schools like Monte Vista High School provide options such as Subway and Pizza Hut on campus, I explained that this could solve the rampant line-cutting problem at food service. For students who cannot afford off-campus options nearby or want healthier food choices closer to class, this would solve some very important problems, while also teaching planning and budgeting skills.

The Board then heard from a representative of KNN Public Finance and discussed the financing of the District’s budget involving the CABs (Capital Appreciation Bonds). The representative, along with Superintendent Randy Booker, discussed how to successfully renew the bonds that are expiring in 2023. The board has an opportunity to renew some of the District’s bonds now, but some of the School Board members are unsure of what to do.

Mr. Ireland, one of these Board members, worried that if the District renews the CABs now, they will miss out on possible future options. But, Ms. Smegal argued that if they don’t renew now, and interest rates go up, the District could be charged more for the transaction and costs.

Some community members, including Mr. Bill Hosler, who are experts in this field, offered their advice and insight and the Board decided to hold a Special Meeting in early December to discuss this matter further.

After this report, Superintendent Randy Booker spoke to the Board about the new academic calendars that had just been approved by the APT (Association of Piedmont Teachers). The teachers’ union approved two calendars, for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, which will be similar to our current calendar, scheduling finals before the holiday winter break. One change is that the students will have the whole week off for Thanksgiving instead of just three days.

I was happy to hear that finals would continue to be held prior to the break because student surveys have shown that this schedule has resulted in lower stress levels. My experience has been that having to worry about finals during Christmas, Hanukah and New Year’s lessens the enjoyment of the holidays for everyone. After listening to Mr. Booker’s report on this topic, I felt that the Board had really made an effort to listen to the students and adjusted the schedule according to our suggestions.

I also spoke with Ms. Heather Frank, the Executive Director of PEF (Piedmont Education Foundation), about the meeting and why she was there. She elaborated on the Giving Campaign, which she had updated the Board on earlier in the meeting, and told me that she attends as many meetings as she can. As an important leader of the fundraising network that supports the District, she said it’s important for her to understand the opportunities and challenges facing our schools so that she can help the community understand the District’s needs.

Frank also enjoyed the meeting and was happy to hear about The Highlander’s endorsement of Principal Littlefield. She said it was good to hear that we have strong leadership at our high school.

Frank went on to say, “A small but important piece of the meeting – and my particular concern – was the approval and adoption of Board Policy 7310 – Naming of Buildings and Facilities. This policy adoption paves the way for the School Board, PUSD administration, PEF and the community to potentially work together on a campaign that will not only raise funds for the schools, but will allow us to honor and recognize Piedmont families that have made a difference through the naming of school buildings. My next step in this area is to meet with PUSD administration to begin planning for a feasibility study for a naming campaign.”

After attending this School Board meeting, I understood firsthand the importance of civilian participation in the government. Without the input of experts such as Mr. Hosler, for example, the Board may have had a much more difficult time deciding how to vote on bond renewal. Or without the student report from Josh Miller, they may feel disconnected and distant from the actual students they are working so hard to support. Ultimately, I feel that the School Board meeting was just one great example of a governmental body working hard to support the broader community.

The Board is the governing body of the School District, which is responsible for the hiring of the Superintendent and for ensuring that he or she carries out the mission of the District. They meet every two weeks, with the exception of special meetings that can be scheduled anytime with the approval of the Board.

by Minnie Cooper, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.