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
On May 4, 2016 at 5:30 pm, the Park Commission meeting commenced as Chair Jamie Totsubo called the participants to order and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. On the first Wednesday of every month, the Park Commission meets to address issues and come up with arrangements regarding the beautification of Piedmont; everything from the parks to the street landscaping. After Commissioners Brian Mahany, John Lenahan, Jim Horner, Jonathan Levine, Patty Siskind, and Betsy Goodman introduced themselves, the discussions began.
The meeting started off with the Public Forum, where several Piedmont High School students brought their concerns to the attention of the Commission. Sam Cheng and Alex Chueh requested that lights be put in around the softball field. Kalen Davison stated that the Linda tennis courts are in terrible condition, especially the nets, and suggested that the courts be checked every three months so as to keep them in a safe, playable condition.
After the Public Forum, the meeting moved on to address the items on the agenda, the first of which was a hearing to consider a request from residents Maggie and Lannie Spencer for the implementation of additional street trees on Lorita Avenue and Monticello Avenue. They proposed to remove the agapanthus on the street, and instead put in five new street trees.
Maggie Spencer brought up the point that there is a city owned space on the street that used to have street trees; however, these street trees were removed many years back and never replaced. Three other residents spoke in favor of street trees; one resident on Monticello Avenue later stated that they attended the meeting to make sure that their “opinions were being heard”, as they were “strongly in favor of beautifying the street.”
However, Anne Hall, a resident on Ramona Avenue, wanted to express her feelings against tall street trees, as they would block sunlight from her backyard and the roots going under her fence would be problematic.
I agree with this sentiment, as it is not often taken into consideration the tremendous barrier that tall trees can impose.
Therefore, the residents as well as the Commissioners agreed that the agapanthus should be substituted with a plant that grows the height of the fences, and does not spill over so as to disturb the neighbors. Commissioner Jim Horner stated that ginkgo trees stay small in a confined setting, and suggested to use ginkgos but keep the spacing narrow (about 20 feet apart). All of the Commissioners agreed on replacing the agapanthus with ginkgos, and the motion passed.
The Commission then moved on to the next items on the agenda, which included an update on the Linda/Kingston Triangle. They will soon be setting a date to put the drawings to bid, hopefully within the next month, so that the bulk of the project will be completed before school starts again in the Fall.
The next item involved the planting of a maple tree in Piedmont Park; the planting ceremony date is set for May 24, 2016 with the ceremonial planting beginning at 10 a.m.
The Park Commission also was given an update on the Hampton Master Plan; the project was awarded to Suarez and Munoz, a local group from Hayward. The project is to begin on June 13, the Monday after school lets out for summer, and the goal is to complete the project by August 16, the start of the 2016-17 school year.
After the final item on the agenda (the monthly maintenance report), the Commission came to the decision that July 6 would be the date for their summer recess, and the meeting was adjourned.
Kaelli Thiel, Piedmont High School Senior
I went to the Piedmont Planning Commission on Monday, May 9th. The meeting opened up with the Commissioners taking roll. They then brought up the issue of renovations to house, specifically a new garage. Speakers who had previously filled out a form to speak about the issue were allowed to address the Commissioners. The Commissioners had each been to the site, but were not allowed to discuss it amongst themselves before the hearing.
First, the architect talked about the proposed plan and argued for why it would be a good project. Then the Commissioners asked questions about the details of the plan and how willing the owners were to compromise. Next the neighbors talked about their issues with the plan, namely how it was less attractive.
After hearing everyone who wanted to speak, each Commissioner gave their opinion and then one of them started a motion. They all agreed it was a good project and it passed unanimously.
A similar process followed for owners who wanted to expand their guest house and pool which was met with more opposition from neighbors. This time the Commission decided to reject their plan as it was, but the owners could come back with a different plan.
Miles Vinson, Piedmont High School Senior
City of Piedmont Recreation Commission Meeting, April 20, 2016
The City of Piedmont’s Recreation Commission meets once a month to discuss, dispute and hear from the public on anything related to recreation in the City of Piedmont. The meeting began with a ten minute Public Forum. This public forum allows anyone in the audience to bring up a subject they would like to discuss that is not on the meeting agenda. Given the audience was limited to four other Piedmont High School Civics students, a former member of the Recreation Commission and myself, no one chose to speak during the Public Forum.
The first item on the agenda was the welcoming of the three new Recreation Commissioners: Glyn Burge, Jeff Dorman and Vincent Fisher. After the meeting, I asked Vincent Fisher why he chose to join the Commission and how long he planned to stay. He had just recently moved to Piedmont and was very active in the City Council of his previous town, so he wanted to get involved. He was appointed to a three year term as a Recreation Commissioner and is very excited for what the future held.
The second agenda item was the vote for the new Chair and Vice Chair of the Recreation Commission, the Chair going to Betsy Andersen and the Vice Chair going to Brian Cain.
After a few more short agenda items that seemed to be more due diligence than anything, the meeting arrived at its biggest agenda item, an update on the Hampton Park Master Plan. This update was led greatly by the Recreation Director, Sara Lillevand, with a few clarifying questions asked by members of the Commission and audience members like myself.
The Hampton Park Plan has been a massive work in progress for about ten years and is just now beginning to come to fruition. My older brother actually attended a meeting six years ago that included discussion about the project for this same assignment. The construction is planned to begin in June of this year and be completed in a single phase. The project is hoped to be wrapped up by mid October but could continue as late as mid February. The Hampton Field Renovation is the result of a massive community push for better field space in Piedmont, and has been funded partially by donations.
The following agenda item pertained to potential changes to the Beach Playfield usage restrictions. Starting this summer these changes, if made, would be entirely temporary and solely for the purpose of not displacing the users of Hampton Field while it is under construction.
Agenda item number seven brought up future changes to Piedmont’s Aquatics. No plans have been drafted as of yet, but the Recreation Commission recognizes the Piedmont Community Pool is where they need to shift their attention next. This seems to be the start of yet another ten year process just like the Hampton Field Project.
Although it was not seen at this meeting, there is a lot of public disagreement when plans like the Hampton Field or Piedmont Aquatics are brought up. While it is important for the public to shape their community, in my opinion it would be much better for the public to let the City Council make decisions in a timely manner. This way things would get done much quicker and lead to a better Piedmont.
by Rhys Daniel, Piedmont High School Senior
March 21st City Council Meeting
The primary issue that was debated at the City Council meeting on March 21st was a petition to expand the area where dogs can be off leash in Dracena Park. Currently, there is a popular loop taken by dog owners that goes around most of the upper part of the park, where dog walkers are able to have their dogs off-leash. However, once they reach the main upper field area they are required to put their dogs on their leashes for a short period of time until they reach the pathway on the other side; where dogs are once again allowed to be off leash.
If this petition were to be successful, dog owners would be able to walk the full loop without having to put their dog on their leash. There is also a lot of opposition to this petition, primarily from those who live around the park such as Mark Becker. Also, Council member Robert McBain, the Council Liaison to the Park Commission was opposed.
Patty Siskind, Chair of the Park Commission, suggested a solution to the issue that she and her colleagues had come up with. It would be to build a dry stack wall that would separate the dog area from the rest of the lawn. This would leave roughly one-third of the area for dogs to play and the remainder would be an area where people could play openly without concern for dogs. This dry stack wall would also help to properly drain the lawn because there is frequently a large puddle in the center of it after it rains. Building the wall Piedmont would have the ability to level the lawn, making it an easier and better place to play.
I believe that this is a proper solution to the issue, and once Piedmont has the monetary means to build this dry stack wall it should be done. It is a good compromise for both dog owners and residents who live nearby.
For my interview, I had a conversation with Trevor, a student at Piedmont Middle School. He was at the meeting because he wanted to argue in favor of increasing the area where dogs can play off-leash. He believes that Piedmont does not have enough open space for dogs to properly enjoy themselves and thinks that the compromise suggested by Patty Siskind would be a good solution. Trevor’s plans his next step is to attend several City Council meetings and to see the progression of this issue.
William Bird, Piedmont High School Senior
Why are some properties not taxed for the Piedmont School Support Tax?
Over the last several months, PUSD has received inquiries about our collection of the School Support Tax (Measure A) that was passed with resounding support by the community in spring of ’13. In question is whether the district is applying the tax to all the appropriate properties.
Let me start by saying, the district administration and school board is appreciative of the overwhelming support we receive. The community contributes substantially to maintain our excellent schools and we are grateful for that. We do not assume it will be forever thus and we aim to earn your support at every election and with every decision. Where we fail, we hope to learn and improve.
And vigilant community members play a vital role keeping a watchful eye on our performance. It is a healthy process that we appreciate.
The parcels in question fall into four categories for potential assessment or exemption. They include; church parcels, public parcels, “minor” parcels adjacent to existing taxed parcels and parcels straddling Piedmont and Oakland.
Our law firm, Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost has worked closely with district staff, our financial agents NBS and the County Assessor to review the parcels in question and the prevailing jurisdiction.
Having reviewed their opinions, having ourselves investigated the parcels in question and legal precedent, we are convinced of the proper performance of the parties to assess and collect the appropriate monies. It breaks down like this:
-Under the California Constitution and Revenue Code, church properties used for religious worship are exempt from property tax. While the School Support Tax is a parcel tax, it is also a property tax and therefore exempt.
-City of Piedmont properties are similarly exempt.
-With respect to “minor” parcels in Piedmont, the owners of homes including such parcels already pay the School Support Tax on their main parcel–the question is whether they should pay twice. Under Government Code Section 53087.4, parcels created under the Subdivision Map Act are treated as a single tax assessment unit and other parcels are treated as separate tax assessment units only if deeded separate from adjoining parcels. Moreover, property owners can simply combine their minor and principal parcels through the assessor’s office, as they surely would if the District attempted to tax them twice.
-There are parcels sitting astride Oakland and Piedmont. Historically, homeowners have the option to pay one or the other, and are assessed by Piedmont only if they chose to take advantage of our school system. Those parcels straddling the border with children in the PUSD schools pay our School Support Tax. One might argue that the option of sending children to Piedmont’s fine schools represents an intrinsic value to their home and should therefore be responsible for the tax. But it goes against precedent and would potentially invite litigation that the district, mindful of ongoing budget constraints, is loath to take on for the modest additional revenue it may represent.
We seek to comply with the law while avoiding potential litigation pitting us against the Piedmont residents we serve.
We hope this makes sense to the community. The Superintendent and the Board will continue to run our schools to the best of our ability with prudence and good judgment. Thank you for your ongoing interest and support in our efforts.
Douglas M. Ireland, Piedmont Unified School District Board Member
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Read William Blackwell’s opinion here.
Report on the City Council Meeting of March 7, 2016
On March 7 2016, the Piedmont City Council came together for its usual bi-monthly meeting in the City Council Chambers. However, this meeting was more rare than most as the Mayor presented the State of the City Address, which only happens once a year. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and the Public Forum, the Mayor spoke of the state in which Piedmont has been in and what changes have been made and what still need to be improved upon.
The first item on the agenda, the Consent Calendar, was to approve the minutes of the Council meeting on February 16, 2016. All Council members voted unanimously to approve the minutes. Following this was the Public Forum, which is when any member of the audience can raise an issue not on the Agenda. However, Public Forum is allowed only 10 minutes and the time has to be split evenly between all those who wish to speak. There were 7 speakers, including myself and my partner. Five speakers addressed climate change.
Sustainability
There were two aspects talked about in the diversion of fossil fuels: morals and financial burden. Two Middle School boys spoke out about their concerns of the drought and pointed out that it was only getting worse, as well as the idea that there was no risk in counter action. An additional two Piedmont residents, both of whom had had children who attended Piedmont schools, spoke out about the unsustainability of relying on fossil fuels. They explained that Piedmont is able to divest from fossil fuels, as 7 other Bay Area cities have already done. Finally, a woman who had grown up in Piedmont spoke out about how renewable energy was infact cheaper than fossil fuels and it would be a smart idea, financially, to divest.
The main speaker for fossil fuel divestment, was Piedmont resident Julie Walsh. She was the woman who is spearheading the appeal and has created a petition, with 160 signatures, in order to support her cause. When asked about her presence at the City Council meeting, Walsh said, “I am here to try to talk City Council members into divesting from fossil fuels, which they voted down in May by a small margin and several factors have changed since then.” In addressing her concern about the divesting, Walsh said that, “If they don’t put it on the Agenda, then I will come back and appeal it again. In order for them to put it back on the Agenda, I will only have to persuade one City Council member.”
State of the City Address
After the Public Forum, Mayor Margaret Fujioka, gave the second annual State of the City Address, which covered many events occurring in Piedmont. First, she spoke about the new renovations that were done to the entry of City Hall and thanked the residents of Piedmont for making it possible. She then went on to talk about how this was her final year as Mayor, which then led to her thanking everyone on the Council as well as all of the Department heads, like the Police and Fire Chief.
Following this, Fujioka spoke about her four main goals as Mayor and how she has reached them. Her first goal, to improve public safety, has been done through the installation of license plate readers on the edge of town and also she mentioned that this year is the third consecutive year where crime rates have been down. Fujioka’s second goal is to maintain health, which has been done through the Fire Department assisting on many fires and through active shooter drills done on campus. Her third goal is to embrace technology, which has been done by working with a tech company called Client First, and starting a 5 year plan. Finally, her last goal is to improve infrastructure, which has taken place as $500,000 was granted to improve Hampton Field beginning this summer. Also, the Piedmont Pool is looking at renovated locker rooms, including new doors, lockers and heating systems.
After talking about her goals, Mayor Fujioka spoke about all of the positive changes that have happened in Piedmont since the last State of the City Address. She spoke about Piedmont’s clean audit and high marks, guided fiscal prudence and accountability. As well as how the parcel tax, which is proposed to be raised 30%, brings in 1.6 million per year. She also spoke about how Piedmont has been working to become more eco friendly by installing LED lights into the lamp posts to save energy, worked with the Schools to reduce energy output, and began a road diet on Grand Avenue reducing the number of vehicle lanes. The bonds between the City and the School District have been well maintained, and the attempt to reduce traffic at the Middle School in the mornings has been successful. Lastly, Mayor Fujioka encouraged that with the new election approaching, community members continue to speak up and offer ideas to further towards the betterment of Piedmont.
By Hannah Castle, Piedmont High School senior
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
As this website is dedicated to civic affairs, readers may want to take notice of an interesting example of civic process playing out in City Hall right now.At a public hearing of the Park Commission to address 10-grader Milo Gaillard’s petition to open the upper lawn in Dracena Park to off-leash dog use, a Dracena Avenue neighbor opposed to the petition introduced a map showing that the current off-leash areas of the park are in contradiction to the intent of the 1974 Council resolution establishing the dog run. A subcommittee was established to evaluate the petition but also took up the question of the validity of the current off-leash areas.The subcommittee returned a report with little analysis of the feasibility of the petition but rather with a detailed analysis of the “legislative history” of the Dracena off-leash rules concluding that the current off-leash use of the park is “not consistent” with City Code. The subcommittee report offered the following history as justification for its conclusion (emphasis added):
The subcommittee history leaves out important facts about the adoption and implementation of the Dracena Park off-leash rules (emphasis added):~~~~~~First, from Piedmont Municipal Code, Chapter 4, “Animals”, 1989:“Sec. 4.13 Running at Large.
~~~~~~~ from Ordinance 569 N.S, 1997:
~~~~~~From the minutes of City Council, November 6, 2000:
Section 3.4.2 is amended to read:
Section 3.4.3 is amended to read:
With this additional history, especially the definition of off leash dogs in Chapter 4 that allows dogs to be within 50 yards of their owner, the current off leash use of Dracena Park is completely consistent with City Code.Under the definition of off-leash in Chapter 4, all of upper Dracena Park is off-leash dog run, being within 50 yards of the Dracena-Artuna pathway.In this context, the 1993 trial period allowing dogs on the upper pathway was a reduction of the off-leash area of the park and Milo’s petition, rather than a request for a new use, seeks restoration of what was once allowed.Even without Chapter 4, the history supports the intent of City Council to expand the off-leash use of the park from the 1974 resolution to what it is today. In Ordinance 569, City Council established the authority of the Public Works Department to designate with signs the area to be used by dogs off-leash and current signage in place for over 20 years supports that.In 2000, Council explicitly removed references to a trails map and again reiterates the role of Public Works to designate the areas and rules for off leash dog use. In Dracena Park, staff implementation is clearly evident by signage which designates upper and lower pathways as off -leash and the lawn as on-leash.So here’s the civics question: does a single word from the 1974 resolution, “pathway”, trump 30 years of Council action and city administration to the contrary? Are off-leash dogs that wander off the pathway “inconsistent” with City Code or do the signs throughout the park define the off leash area?It’s the classic example of the “original vs. living” document debate of Justices Scalia and Breyer at the U.S. Supreme Court! OK, that may be a stretch as we are talking about a 10th-grader’s “simple” petition to let dogs on the lawn. But the consequences to dog owners are serious.The Park Commission is recommending a 50% reduction in the use of the upper half of the dog run, the section most used by dog owners, especially seniors.Now, Council will take up this “great debate” at its March 21 meeting. Will it continue with this can of worms and reopen this contentious issue or will it honor past Council direction and maintain staff’s discretion to manage the off leash areas? In that regard, the Council might want to consider some advice Milo has been hearing from City Hall – be careful what you ask for.With a pending ballot initiative to increase the parcel tax, will it reduce off-leash use of Dracena Park, one of the most popular municipal services provided for by the tax?Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Councilmember
Lawsuits –
On February 19, Piedmont’s City Clerk announced resolution of the second of two lawsuits arising from the excessive cost overruns of the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding District, and the Hampton-Seaview Undergrounding District. The City recouped $667,000 from over $2 million of excess costs. The bottom line is that Piedmont’s taxpayers are stuck covering a $1.3 million debacle.
Now it’s over. It’s time to move on. We must accept the penalty and see that such gross mismanagement is never repeated again. True enough. But there are consequences from this financial fiasco. Future proposals for tax increases or bond funding for big projects will have to meet higher standards of review. And if there is any doubt at all about the veracity of new proposals, or the competence of their sponsors, Piedmont’s citizens will probably reject them. Once bitten, twice shy.
Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident
3-4-16Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
The current version of the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) facilities plan would take away a number of parking spaces on the High School/Middle School campus. School Board Vice President Sarah Pearson has brought up several times her concern about parking, and expressed her view that somehow the new facilities should include parking spaces for staff and teachers. Per the school architect, the cost of adding a parking floor to a standard building is around $40,000 a space.
School Board Member Doug Ireland has expressed his desire to see the City and the District work closely together to solve this problem (and many others). So maybe the City could provide much needed parking.
I talked with the CEO at Park Works, a local supplier of Puzzle Parking. Bottom line his solutions are still expensive: $20,000 to$30,000 per parking space, occupying about a third of side-by-side ground parking. The company claims to have installed 1.6 million parking spots in Japan and 1 million in Europe. There are an 82 unit storage system installed in San Leandro and a 20 unit one in Berkeley at 1218 7th Street (a BMW repair shop).
I then found a Chinese company who sells Puzzle Parking structures as a kit to be assembled on site. There is no need for excavation for installation. Here is their product spec for 26 level puzzle parking. The company claims that the cost is between $2,000 to $4,000 per spot, with a very reduced footprint. Their full catalog is available at: Full catalog.
Would Puzzle Parking be a solution for PUSD?
Does anybody have any experience with Puzzle Parking?
Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident
puzzle parking
Chinese 6 level puzzle parking
I estimate that taxpayer expenditures total $1,806,845 (taxpayer cost estimate updated on Feb. 26, 2016 to $1,640,000 -see comment below) directly related to the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding District (“PHUD”). This is public money for private benefit as Appeal Courts have found in other cases. As litigation is concluded, it seems appropriate to close the undergrounding debacle with transparency and not bury it in bedrock. I base my total on the following direct expenses and credits:
- Nov. 16, 2009, taxpayer cost to repair Crest Road: $275,000
- Dec. 12, 2009, Council gives $1,004,832
- Feb. 6, 2010, Council gives $1,127,013
- Litigation expense up to Sept. 30, 2012 is $118,739
- I estimate additional litigation cost at $298,260 to Feb. 2016.
I put a letter in to City Council asking for the total litigation cost with no response. I speculate the $417,000 Harris settlement covers litigation cost. Credits include $917,000 litigation settlements and PHUD offered to contribute $100,000.
$616,491.50 cost for another private underground district –
Additionally there is $300,000 in City litigation cost plus $316,491.50 settlement cost for $616,491.50 total taxpayer expense for the neighboring Sea View Undergrounding District that fortunately did not go forward. How many millions more would we have spent excavating bedrock next to PHUD had Bert and Deborah Kurtin not brought suit to stop that District?
A Feb. 6, 2010, City Council Resolution states: “WHEREAS, while the City Council requests that any funds expended by the City for completion of the construction project that are not recovered from legal actions against responsible parties be contributed by residents of the District.”
There is no action on or acknowledgement of this resolution.
This June a 30% higher parcel tax will be put before voters.
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
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
