WELCOME TO THE OPINION PAGE
The following letters and other commentary express only the personal opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
Submit a letter, opinion, article, etc. | Receive email notice of new articles
Piedmont is no place for a RACIST and anti-LGBTQ mayor. Jeff Wieler’s political outbursts on social media show that he clearly has no regard for his diverse group of constituents. It sounds like Wieler needs to move to coal country where his anti-liberal hateful rhetoric will resonate amongst the uneducated.
I have lived in the Bay Area for my entire life, and there is absolutely no way this man can claim his comments were incorrectly interpreted. Saying that the Black Lives Matter movement is designed to incite violence against the police (the term the mayor used is “cop killing”) is an extremely dangerous accusation. Considering racially profiled black men are dying at the hands of police in growing numbers, the Black Lives Matter movement was created to help stop the violence. Only a racist would say such things.Calling trans people “mentally ill,” is just the kind of hurtful stereotypes that allow people to continue to discriminate and even harm trans people. Wieler even stooped so low as to call progressives, “dangerous and un-American.” Stoking the fires of hate has already proved dangerous in Charlottesville, at black churches, at Jewish synagogues, and many places people should feel safe in this country. This kind of hatred should not be allowed from the leader of any community, as that is truly un-American.As a refusal to give a moment of silence for the murdered woman in Charlottesville, Wieler clearly is not a mayor who stands for equality and justice for his entire constituency. His hateful comments illustrate the level of his prejudice and his desire to discriminate against people in his own community. He must be removed from office.Lisa E. Hern
– Remarks Prepared for 8/21/17 City Council Meeting
Thank you to Jennifer Smith Cavenaugh and Teddy Gray King for encouraging speakers at the August 21, 2017 Piedmont City Council Open Forum.
No one should have to show up at a City Council meeting to make sure their council members condemn the violence and hate that resulted in the deaths of two Virginia State troopers and a peaceful protestor as the direct result of racism, bigotry and hate. But there is a reason we are all here tonight. We all showed up because it is important to us to show moral leadership and speak unequivocally against the bigotry and hate that was on display in Virginia.
After I had commented that I found President Trump’s failure to denounce Nazis especially disturbing in light of the fact he has Jewish grandchildren, Mayor Wieler defended President Trump’s comments as adequate, arguing that the antifa protesters “picked a fight.”
An interesting point of view, despite the fact that Republican leaders, Business Leaders, Clergy and others expressed outrage at President Trump’s comparison of the behaviors of two opposing protest groups as equally wrong; Despite the fact that the messages of hate and bigotry advocated by White Supremacists, the KKK and the Alt right resulted in murder.
I am personally concerned that Mayor Wieler appears to judge the behavior of people who are actively trying to legitimize racial discrimination, people who carry signs and chant anti-Semitic, racist, and homophobic slurs with the behavior of counter protesters. There cannot be 2 sides. We can condemn those who champion violence and racial discrimination without conflating those who protest AGAINST discrimination.
Most importantly, I am here because Piedmont children are listening. I have encouraged Mayor Wieler to make a personal connection with the families he represents. Our children are seeing messages of hate across media screens.
There are children in our town who have recently been the victims of anti-Semitic jabs; there are children in our town who have been victims of racial bias and there is a current lawsuit against the city by a former police officer calling out incidents of racism.
Justifying the President’s pathetic response to the tragedy in Charlottesville has local repercussions on the well being of Piedmont families.
So when I asked Mayor Wieler if he would join City Councils across the United States sharing a moment of silence in observation of the tragedy in Charlottesville, he responded:
“As a moment of silence, I will stop engaging with you.”
He then referred to me as a “Lurid Partisan” and an “Irish Catholic claiming to be Miss Sensitivity.”
Which brings me to the second reason I am here tonight…
It is unacceptable for a nonpartisan mayor to express hatred for liberals. Mayor Wieler, you have a public FaceBook page and you post on it almost daily…often several posts a day. AND, you regularly represent Piedmont at Bay Area Conferences of local small town leaders. Allow me to suggest, YOUR IDEOLOGY DOES NOT REPRESENT PIEDMONT:
A small sampling of Mayor Wieler’s thoughts:“The left burns buildings and deprives people of free speech and physically attacks conservatives. There’s a b***h named Falatco who led a gang that attacked a Trump rally in Berkeley.”
“Black Lives Matter encourages cop killing.”
“The Left is dangerous and un-American.”
“Transgenders are mentally ill.”
‘The left is Intellectually bankrupt.”
“Democrats are the plantation slave masters of today.” (article)
“Fight the leftie barbarians.”
“The tinfoil hat crowd of the left should be pitied because insanity is a terrible fate.”
“Some people hate Trump, but more people hate liberals.”
“The loonies of the resistance are worth a laugh, but not much more than that.”
Finally, I am here tonight to tell you, Mr. Mayor, when you threaten to use your friendship with the Editor of the hometown newspaper to denigrate those who would disagree with you, you have crossed a line.
You crossed a line when you threatened me and threaten people I care about with an “investigative story that I would not like.” You abuse your power Mr. Mayor.
Piedmonters should hope for leaders who are open-minded, even tempered and emotionally stable.
Beyond that, Piedmonters should feel safe in knowing their small town mayor isn’t going to confer with the small town newspaper editor over lunch to invent ways to take down a member of the community with whom they disagree.
That is an abuse of power.
I would fully support this City Council in a decision to elevate Vice Mayor McBain to Mayor while allowing Jeff Wieler to quietly finish his term on the Council through November 2018.
by Conna McCarthy, Piedmont Resident
Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. |
In his column “Silence is Golden,” Mayor Jeff Wieler took heart in that no speakers showed up to address the Grand Avenue zoning changes adopted by Council at a recent Council meeting. I think he may be confusing neighborhood absence at the meeting with acceptance.
Anyone familiar with the process knows how unresponsive the Mayor and some Council members were to neighborhood and community concerns about the initial zoning proposal. Starting from a “community workshop” that amounted to a presentation by the developer that was followed by tailor-made zoning code, the neighborhood had to push hard to get City Hall to listen to their concerns and consider the General Plan.
With the help of some Council members, the city hired a planner and held workshops with the neighborhood leading to the final zoning code passed Monday night. After attending many Planning Commission meetings and workshops, many neighbors probably didn’t see the point in appearing before a Council that had not listen to them in the first place.
And speaking of listening, I hope the Mayor will listen to his Planning Commission and reject the the Crown Castle cell tower proposal.
Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member
Piedmont Post Claim about Measure H1 Plan is Inaccurate –
The May 31, 2017 Piedmont Post headline asserts: “School Board to spend $57 million on one building; Balance of $9 million from H1 bond not enough to pay for theater.” Apparently, the Post reporter or editor failed to read the memo to the Board setting forth what was included in “Option 2B,” which the Board approved.
The memo is available online as the supporting material for the May 24, 2017 Meeting Agenda, Item VIII.A,> https://agendaonline.net/
public/Meeting.aspx?AgencyID= 1241&MeetingID=44038& AgencyTypeID=1&IsArchived= False” Among other things, it clearly states: “OPTION 2B 3-Story Main High School Building on Magnolia + New Theater.” And it includes: “Modernize the vacated 20s building, converting antiquated science labs to general classrooms.” And further: “($526,500 in FFE for 27 new or modernized classrooms),” which are the classrooms in the new STEAM building, new AHT [Allan Harvey Theater] and modernized 20s building.
At this point, these are all estimated costs. However, Piedmont residents should understand what is actually included in Option 2B.
Richard Raushenbush, Former Member, Piedmont Board of Education
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
On February 11th, the Planning Commision met in Piedmont’s City Council Chambers at five o’clock. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss variances and design review of building applications within Piedmont.The session began with an approval of minutes from the prior meeting, followed by a public forum.
I, Brock Settlemier, spoke out on an individual issue that was not on the Planning Commission’s agenda. There is an absolute lack of motorcycle parking in the City of Piedmont. An initiative taken by the city was the “Complete Streets Plan”, to balance the transportation system of Piedmont, making it compatible for all cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, and senior citizens. However, they left out the minority group of motorcyclists in Piedmont. As a licensed motorcycle driver, owner, and student of Piedmont High School, I strongly voiced my concerns and advocated for the creation of motorcycle parking for the school. The possible benefits would be a more balanced transportation system, a new way to commute to school for students/faculty, safer roads for motorcyclists, a reduction in greenhouse gasses, and a new modernization for the City of Piedmont.
The major issue discussed at the meeting was item four of the agenda, 110 Fairview Avenue Variance and Design Review. The owners, Mike Smith and Anne Beth, wanted to add a second story of 1,278 sq/ft to their home. They live in a small, one story, Dutch Colonial home. With their disabled son, grandchildren’s toys, and a lack of a decent socializing space, the applicants wanted to build up by adding the second story. This proposed second floor would contain a bedroom, bathroom, and closet. Their most convincing argument was that their addition would be more compatible with the neighborhood, where most of the houses are two stories and 2000 sq/ft or more. This addition would make 110 Fairview more similar to the other homes in the area. The architect was commended by Aradhana Jajodia for maintaining the style of the home, building up and saving space in the backyard.
Mike and Anne were met with heavy resistance from nearby residents about their second story addition. The owner of 129 Nova Drive, opposite the house, stated that the addition would be an issue of privacy. He stated that, “A net 17 windows looking onto my back garden and into the house.” This was one of the major issues of the design plan and was a repeated concern throughout the other neighbors’ statements. Luckily, the owner was open to future conversation to find an alternative.
The contractor of the house took the podium next. He worked on 110 Fairview Ave ten years before, and was in support of the proposed plan. His argument was clear. The house would not expand on its small, original footprint. The plan was underdesigned, and would not meet the maximum square footage that the city allowed. The second story addition would not be too monumental.
Down the street, Terry London voiced his concerns against the project. He stated that the building would block their only view of the Piedmont Hills, completely obstructing the master bedroom’s view and seventy percent of their guest room. In a later interview with him, he stated that the rules and regulations guiding development in Piedmont, “Don’t always take into account the specifics of particular situation, like height, topography, and the surrounding homes.” He will remain involved in the future of the project.
The meeting was a textbook example of how our government works efficiently in the United States. Opening up the agenda to the public gave all the neighbors the opportunity to voice their opinions to the officials, who thoroughly considered and questioned each individual on their opinions. Voices from both sides of this argument were effectively dealt with in the Commission’s final decision.
The Planning Commision made a final deliberation on the issue in front of the audience, but closed to further opinions. Planning Commissioner Tony Theophilos spoke out first from the Commission by addressing the issue of privacy. He believed that there should be a reduction of windows, and finding a balance could be feasibly found.
Next, Commissioner Aradhana Jajodia said the architect did a quality job on the design, except the back of the house was unpleasant looking from the neighbors point of view.
Commission Chair Eric Behrens believed 108 Fairview Ave was the only house with a significant view of the Piedmont Hills. He said “it seemed a little too big to me.” Behrens suggested the applicants build down rather than up, such as a basement.
Finally, Commissioner Jajodia made a motion to reject the design. It did not comply with the design review view guideline and the design presented a scale and mass violation. Her perception was that the building should not overpower or dominate any of the surrounding homes. The item was delayed to another meeting to allow a new plan by the architect.
The Planning Commission meets once a month for a net four hours at minimum.
By Brock Settlemier, Piedmont High School Senior
Below is a student report on the Piedmont Unified School District Board Meeting of February 8, 2017.
The Piedmont Unified School District School Board meeting on February 8, 2017, took place at City Hall and began at 7:00 PM. opening up with statements from each board member on recent community activity. Max Miller, the student representative to the Board from Millennium High School gave statements concerning the goings-on at both Piedmont and Millennium high schools. Miller focused on service learning and community service at both schools, the Millennium community dinner, which supports the Millennium trip to Camp Augusta, an upcoming night rally at Piedmont High, new musical Legally Blonde, and a college presentation from Ms. Bly.
The other board members updated the audience on recent events they had attended in the community. Notable events included upcoming Elementary School Enrollment Day, an information night regarding transitional and traditional kindergarten, and a community engagement meeting regarding Measure H1 to take place on April 1st, from 9:00-12:00 AM. All these reports were presented by Superintendent Randall Booker. In these opening remarks the Board also discussed the process for finding a new principle for Piedmont High, and Board President Sarah Pearson mentioned a recent coffee discussing the transition held by co-principals Eric Mapes and Irma Munoz.
Following opening remarks, the Board moved to a presentation by Blake Boehm from KNN Public Finance, LLC, regarding Measure H1 finances. Currently the Board is largely concerned with the implementation of Measure H1, a large bond passed June 2016. H1 addresses gaps in Piedmont’s education system, from insufficient facilities to opportunities to modernize Piedmont’s curriculum.
Boehm discussed bond implementation, specifically focusing on upcoming parcel tax hikes and how to guarantee that taxpayers are paying only the necessary amount to fund the bond. The bond will be instituted in three series, for a total of 66 million dollars to be spent starting in 2018. Bond sales to the community will take a maximum 6 years, and any debt incurred during this time will be paid for with property taxes. Boehm was optimistic that a continual trend of high fiscal value and community growth in Piedmont would ensure that the bond would continue to be valuable for years after its initial implementation, and saw no problems paying off any debt in upcoming years. As interests rates continue to increase, Boehm stated that savings could even surpass current predictions. At Boehm’s conclusion, the Board voted to see another presentation from Boehm at the next Board meeting.
Following presentations on Measure H1, the Board heard presentations in support of implementation of Extended Day Kindergarten (EDK) by Piedmont kindergarten teachers and the principle of Wildwood Elementary School Carol Kramer. EDK is a proposal to lengthen the normal day of a Piedmont kindergartener from half day schooling to a full day. Supporters of this change state that kindergarteners are better able to become immersed in the curriculum with a longer day, and would have more time for exploration and play. Presenters also stated current kindergarten models are outdated and need modernization. Furthermore, Measure H1 allocated funds specifically geared towards the district-wide implementation of EDK. These monies would pay for more facilities, better materials, and a higher salary for kindergarten teachers working a full day.
Opposition to EDK stated that a longer school day could increase stress at a very young age. The Board voted unanimously to move forward with EDK across the district. EDK would bring back some elements of joy and play to school, where these have clearly been lacking currently.
From my perspective, the Board correctly ruled in this case, and the benefits of implementing EDK will be seen not only in kindergarteners themselves, but across the board as they move up through Piedmont schools. While the opponents of EDK are justified in their concerns over increased student stress, EDK would actually help alleviate the stress of moving from half-day kindergarten to full-day first grade. The benefits would also extend to working parents, who could spend less on childcare. The Board will continue to hear opinions concerning the nuances of executing EDK in all three elementary schools for the remainder of the school year.
The School Board meets bimonthly, excluding special meetings, and hears issues pertaining to Piedmont schools. The Board attempts to promote better schooling for all Piedmont residents while ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used as efficiently as possible.
By Madison Wilson, Piedmont High School Senior
The League of Women Voters annual fundraiser event is open to the public. Keynote speaker will be Berkeley Professor Steven Raphael discussing “Crime and Punishment in California: Recent Trends and Reforms”
Dr. Raphael is an adjunct fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California and professor of public policy at UC, Berkeley. His research focuses on the economics of low-wage labor markets, housing, and the economics of crime and corrections.
He is the author of The New Scarlet Letter? Negotiating the U.S. Labor Market with a Criminal Record and Why Are So Many Americans in Prison? He is editor in chief of Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society and a research fellow at the University of Michigan National Poverty Center, the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Germany. He holds a PhD in economics from the UC Berkeley.
Date: Sunday, March 12, 2016
Time: 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. Refreshments from 3-3:30pm
Location: Piedmont Community Center, Highland Avenue
Tickets for the event are $25.00 per person in advance and $30.00 at the door. To purchase tickets in advance go to >
or send your check payable to LWVP in care of Ward Lindenmayer, 40 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.
_________________________________
Editors’ Note: The Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) and the League of Women Voters, Piedmont are separate, non- affiliated organizations.
Correspondence between residents and Mayor Wieler.
Thank you for your prompt response Mayor Wieler. There is nothing in law or code to suggest existing homes would be “non-conforming” if Piedmont zoning remains as is- that should not be an impetus and it’s certainly not a rationale.
We are in full agreement with the spirit and most of the substance of the editorial on the January 22, 2017 Piedmont Civic Association website.1) What is the purpose of this omnibus approach to zoning in our city? What’s the benefit to us, to our neighbors? Piedmont Planning Director Kevin Jackson has repeatedly cited historically high variance approval rates as an indication that our zoning rules are outdated. Is it possible those high approval rates are a function of reasonable plans and compromises engendered by the variance approval process itself?2) Smaller lot sizes (which as you know are already accounted for in the current code), reduced set backs and potentially larger structure footprints will encourage the construction of larger homes and more density which will- over time- change and, in our opinion erode the character of broad sections of our community3) Absence of material change to Zone E lot sizes and set backs – hmmmmmm.We hope you and the city council will consider Piedmont Civic Association’s recommendation for more transparency, clarity and outreach in these matters. The power to effect changes of this magnitude should not reside with staff and a few select committees. We urge our city government to take the necessary steps to seek formal approval from our citizens before these changes are adopted.Respectfully,Philip & Jean SteinPiedmont
On Jan 23, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jeffrey Wieler <jswieler@gmail.com> wrote:Thanks for your email. I urge you to come to tonight’s meeting to express your concerns and ask questions. Concerning the lot size issue, I believe one impetus for the change is the fact that most Piedmont homes sit on lots under 10,000 sq. feet in size, and it makes no sense to deem them non-conforming. As a practical matter, I doubt anybody would find it economical to tear down a large home on a large lot to sub-divide.
However, we are having multiple meetings on the rewrite precisely to answer questions like yours.Jeff WielerOn Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Philip Stein <treehousephil@gmail.com> wrote:
Editorial ALERT: Changes Impacting All Piedmont Houses and Properties Obscured in Proposal Documents
Hi, Neighbors,
Have you read the 535 page staff description of proposed changes to Piedmont’s zoning?Rather than simply affecting the commercial and “civic center” zones, this proposal has become a massive set of changes affecting essentially every Piedmont single family residence (SFR).
The changes appear to include:
- reducing minimum square footage required Single Family Residence lot size by 25% (8,000 sf to 6,000 sf)
- reducing frontage – reduced by 33% (90 feet to 60 feet)
- reducing side setbacks by 50% (to as little as 2 feet (using language that falsely appears to expand the setback!)
A simple proposal for “Grand Avenue zoning fixes” appears to have expanded exponentially. If this proposal moves forward, it could potentially significantly increase the density of Piedmont’s residential areas. It would allow substantially larger structures next to your home . . closer to your home, allow many larger lots to be subdivided, and allow much larger second homes on one lot.Is there any description in the voluminous city documents of the total eventual impact on our city? Will these proposals, in combination, lead to a tear down of many old Piedmont homes? Will residents only find out what’s really in this massive proposal after the Council passes it?
Unfortunately, no effective executive summary of the 535 pages is provided, nor any effective notice of specifics in this massive mission creep.Changes having the potential to transform Piedmont should not be obfuscated within a 535 page document. It now seems to cover everything from Airbnb rules . . to parking . . . to 4-story civic center buildings with zero (0) setbacks . . . to increasing density for virtually every Single Family Residence lot. All important issues – and in some cases “hot-button” issues for Piedmont.The multiple issues encompassed in this hydra-headed proposal should be dealt with separately, with appropriate opportunity for public input for each.
Staff was initially simply working on clean up language in the ordinance and a few zoning changes affecting the Grand Avenue commercial or civic area. Why have Single Family Residence changes been slipped in? Does the citywide impact on single family residences, commercial, and public property make a citywide vote necessary . . . . or at least desirable?For those who have a few spare days to review it, the 535 page staff report is here:
http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/publicworks/docs/planning/ch17revisions/2016-11-10_report.pdf
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane
