Lorita Avenue Trees and Plantings – 

To begin the regular agenda, Commissioner Totsubo opened up the meeting to the request from Lorita Avenue’s residents. Maggie and Lannie Spencer, the two petitioners for this topic, asked the Commission to plant street trees to replace the Agapanthus growing at the end of the cul de sac.

For this project, five new Ginkgo trees were offered by a developer in 24’’ boxes. The petitioners asked the city to use these new Ginkgos to infill among the existing Ginkgo trees, in addition to replacing the old Agapanthus.

Maggie Spencer elaborated that this was the perfect time for tree replacement and planting because of the large number of homes being remodelled along Lorita. She also informed the Commission that all of her neighbors had signed the request, and that the residents at 28 Lorita Avenue had pledged to water the new trees due to the lack of installed irrigation.

After Mrs. Spencer, several other residents spoke in favor of the new trees. Annie Hall, a neighbor to Lorita Avenue whose fence had previously been damaged by invasive trees, was in favor of the petition as long as the new tree didn’t block sunlight in her yard or have a large root system which could compromise her new fence.

Devan Joseph followed, voicing his support for the aesthetic benefits of newer greenery. He was followed by Andrew Coleman, the resident of 28 Lorita Avenue, who promised to water any new trees.

After hearing all of these comments, Commissioner Totsubo asked for the votes of her fellow commission members regarding the Spencer’s request. Each member ­ Betsy Goodman, Jim Horner, Jonathan Levine, John Lehanan, Brian Mahany, Patty Siskind, and Jamie Totsubo, herself­, were in favor; the motion for new trees on Lorita Avenue passed.

Once the decision was finalized, Chair Totsubo led the meeting through the five remaining agenda topics, including four updates on completed and future parks projects, and the monthly maintenance report.

Piedmont Unified School District School Board Meeting –

On Wednesday April 27th at 7:00 p.m., the Piedmont Unified School District met for a regularly scheduled School Board meeting. The meeting agenda is based on proposals and questions from previous meetings and concerns brought up by the citizens of the Piedmont community about the schools. During the meeting the School Board leaves room for community members, such as the Piedmont High School civics students to voice their concerns about issues at Piedmont High School. In the beginning of the meeting different leaders from community groups such as the Association of Piedmont Teachers and the Student Representative give short updates about things their groups need or are planning to do in the school.

 The meeting covered several different topics but the one that drew the most interest from the community was the reform to the elementary education schedule. Ms. Carol Cramer, Ms. Anne Dolid and Mr. Michael Corritone, the principals of the three elementary schools came to the Board meeting to discuss the changes in scheduling for the elementary school kids over the next couple of years.

One major change that the parental community was worried about was the reduction in art and music time at the elementary level. The traditional once a week art and music time is being replaced with time for technology every week, while art and music will be alternating each week.

The loss of time for the arts was a big concern among the parent community, Ms. Auban Willats was at the meeting because of her concerns about losing time for the arts. She said “ I thought the question of why technology gets 40-50 minutes every week, but vocal music and art have to alternate was an important one. I have spoken to many of my high school students who remember art as one of their favorite times of the day.” Many other parents spoke up at the meeting as well, saying that they were thankful for the work that the principals had done, but they were feeling that the new schedule was pushed on them suddenly and needed more time to be critiqued and looked at by the parent community.

At the meeting, a new AP Computer Science class was approved for the High School. Ms. Munoz and Mr. Mattix presented it to the board, informing them that Piedmont High School would be one of the first high schools in the nation to have this type of class. The class focused on app development and more on the grading of a student portfolio instead of tradition AP style grading. One point highlighted by both presenters were the number of students who were interested in taking this class as well as the significant number of girls who were interested in taking the class. Females in the technological world have long been under represented and everyone on the School Board seemed in favor of supporting a class that would benefit females in technology.

One question brought up by Board member Richard Raushenbush was, if Piedmont High School should be offering more AP classes or any AP classes at all. Mr. Raushenbush brought up how AP classes boost the highest GPA that a student can have at Piedmont that is published to colleges and adds more stress for students, which is something the Board has been trying to decrease. The Board agreed to put that topic on the agenda for the next meeting.

Lastly, the new math classes were brought up in the meeting, Math 2, Math 2B/3, and the Math A bridge summer course. These are the new math classes for the Common Core track that the lower grades have been following since middle and elementary school. The bridge course Math A is a summer course so kids who are behind on the track can advance. Ms. Auban Willats was also in the meeting to show support for the new math program.

Report by Sierra Singer, Piedmont High School Senior

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

New Commissioner urges Recreation Facilities use priority for residents, $55,000 private donation pledged for Hampton Park may show up later or not be needed, Betty C. Howard Award to employee Katrina Morris and volunteer John Morrison –

 On April 20th, 2016, at approximately 7:30 p.m., the Piedmont Recreation Commission called into session its monthly meeting. The Commission works with allocating, regulating, renovating, and creating park properties. According to Director Sara Lillevand, who facilitated the meeting, these tasks actually have a very “large breadth” in the city.

 The meeting, specifically broken down into nine agenda items, began with a warm welcome to three new members of the Commission: Glyn Burge, Jeff Dorman, and Vincent Fisher. Each was given an introduction stating their background. After the meeting, Fisher kindly granted an interview in which he stated that he had previous experience in local government in Connecticut, from where he had just moved. He mentioned that his top priority was dealing with “the space issue” which plagues Piedmont parks and making sure that “Piedmont residents get priority” when it comes to park use. After the members were applauded into their new roles, the Commission voted on the next Chair and Vice-Chair, unanimously electing Elizabeth Smegal Andersen and Brian Cain, respectively.

 After a couple of brief formalities, the Commission unanimously approved their minutes and reviewed the Commission’s duties.  Then the Commission began its main point of discussion, the Hampton Field renovation Master Plan. Since the plan had already been approved the previous Monday by the Council, the discussion turned out to be more of a recap of events rather than a discussion of possibilities and details.

 Director Lillevand led the rearticulation, highlighting her personal investment in the project and noting that the Hampton renovation had been about ten years in the making.  She verbalized her appreciation for the many people who worked painstakingly to see the project come to fruition, as well as the private sponsors whose donations made the project feasible.

 Interestingly, Lillevand stated that of the $254,000 pledged for the Hampton project at a January meeting, only $199,000 was actually handed to the Mayor at the Monday meeting.  While this may seem disconcerting, given the members’ lack of reaction, this drop may have been expected, or the remaining $55,000 may show up later or not be needed at all.

 Lillevand concluded by reiterating just how much this development is needed by the community, as Hampton holds league soccer and baseball games, recreational tennis and basketball, as well as summer camps and general park-usage. When asked whether the tennis and basketball courts would be maintained so they do not reach their current level of wear again, she gladly explained that the courts have been placed on a “facility master plan” that has a rotation for resurfacing Piedmont courts.

 After going over how the City planned to deal with the loss of park space during construction time, which will occur this summer, Lillivand stated that opening up Beach Playfield for longer hours on the weekends would be done.

 The commission began discussing the Aquatics Master Plan. Unlike the Hampton situation, no plan is currently in effect, and so the members were able to share ideas on how they felt the aquatics in Piedmont could be enhanced.

 Director Lillevand explained how various stakeholder groups such as competitive swimmers, passholders, and the general public each would get their own meetings in order to express their desires. Additionally, she mentioned some of the current proposals to get more out of the Piedmont Community Pool, which included building new pools, hosting fitness classes, providing adaptive education, and restructuring pools.

 While increasing recreational use is not a bad ideal to have, currently the pools are in such high demand that doing so would restrict access to many groups. As Andersen said, “no groups feel like they have enough water space,” and so the most beneficial change would be to create more pool space. Once more pool space has opened up, then the Recreation Department can focus on providing more activities without having to cut into the already limited time many groups receive. While no voting occurred on the aquatics plan, most members seemed to agree that, in general, Piedmont should revamp its aquatics.

 To conclude the meeting in a most fitting way, the Commission voted unanimously to give the Betty C. Howard Award to Katrina Morris, an employee, and John Morrison, a volunteer. The annual award is bestowed upon citizens who perform superior service, show programming ability, demonstrate loyalty and dedication, and work many hours in service of the Recreation Department and Piedmont community. Once descriptions of the nominees’ work in service were given, and they were officially put into consideration, they were chosen with a simultaneous “Aye.” With that, the meeting was adjourned.

Report by David Monical, Piedmont High School Senior

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

Monday, April 18 City Council meeting –

At 7:30 p.m. in the evening of Monday, April 18, 2016, I attended a Piedmont City Council meeting. The City Council meets on the first and third Monday of every month, to allocate city funds, and improve and maintain the infrastructure of the city.

There were several issues discussed in this meeting by various members of the Council as well as the community, but the most pressing issues were the option for Piedmont to switch over to Community Choice Energy, the repair and renovation of Hampton Park, the addition of bike lanes to parts of Grand Avenue, the renewal of Piedmont’s contract with Richmond Sanitary Services, and looking into improving Piedmont’s public pool facilities.

To start the meeting, Bruce Jensen from the Alameda County Planning Department, and Tom Kelly gave a presentation on the benefits of Piedmont switching over to Community Choice Energy (CCE) from PG&E. CCE offers the community a choice for clean energy at a competitive rate to that which PG&E offers. The benefit of switching to CCE, is that Piedmont can come closer to its goals of being environmentally friendly, while still providing energy at a reasonable price. CCE is an opt-out program, meaning that everyone is automatically signed up for it, unless they expressly indicate in writing that they would not like to participate in the program. One worry about CCE is that if too many people opt-out, it will not be economically viable, and would end up costing the consumers more. Based on the discussion, I think that Piedmont should switch over to CCE. At the very least, it gives people options and prevents PG&E from having a total monopoly. In the best case, if most people stay in the program, CCE provides cleaner energy for a lower price than what Piedmont currently offers.

The next matter addressed at the City Council meeting was the repair and renovation of Hampton Park. Currently, Hampton Park is shut down every winter due to flooding and water damage from poor drainage. The city has to repair it annually, just for it to be damaged again the following winter, leading to a cycle costing the city $25,000 a year. In 2008, funds were raised to make long term changes to the park, preventing the annual flood damage, but the improvements were delayed due to the recession and more pressing priorities.

It has been so long since the City Council has originally raised the funds for the Hampton Park restoration, that they are now at risk of losing that money, so this has become a major focus of the Council. The Council unanimously agreed to fund the restoration of the park, and went on to discuss the logistics of where activities would be held while Hampton Park is undergoing renovations.

The Council came to the agreement that Beach Field would be able to temporarily take the displaced activities from Hampton Park, and the Council unanimously approved opening Beach Field on Sundays to allow for more activities. City Clerk John Tulloch said that, “he’s glad the park is getting improvement” as he’s seen many people use it and take advantage of the great space.

After that, the repainting of Grand Avenue to add bike lanes was discussed. Oakland is currently trying to add bike lanes to Grand Avenue, and Piedmont would like to “piggy back” on their work and continue the bike lanes on the part of Grand which is in Piedmont. Oakland has generously offered to fund some of the painting of bike lanes on the part of Grand in Piedmont. The council unanimously agreed to fund the rest of the addition of bike lanes to Grand Ave in Piedmont, and Council member Tim Rood commented on how it was ideal timing as it would be repainted before the annual Bay Area Bike to Work Day on May 12th.

The Council then discussed the renewal of Piedmont’s contract with Richmond Sanitary Services (RSS). The Council members all agreed that RSS does a fantastic job of collecting Piedmont’s waste, and unanimously agreed to negotiate a renewal of their contract.

The final issue the Council addressed was the improvement of Piedmont’s public pool facilities. Council members King, and Rood were nominated to look into ways to improve the public pool facilities. Both Council members accepted the task, and a motion was unanimously passed to look into ways of improving the pool facility.

Reported by Stuart Ashford, Piedmont High School Senior

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

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

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

Call for Nominations for the annual Piedmont Civic Volunteer of the Year –

Do you know a Piedmonter who has made significant cultural, political, health, safety, environmental, recreational, and/or social contributions that have enriched the community?

Nomination form <

Submit your nomination by Friday, May 6 to the Office of the City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont or via email to cityclerk@ci.piedmont.ca.us .  Questions: Call 510/420-3040.

“This award provides an excellent opportunity for the City to formally recognize and express appreciation to an individual for his or her contribution to making Piedmont a better place,” said Mayor Margaret Fujioka. “It is my hope that this award will inspire others to volunteer for the greater good of our community now and in the future.”

The 2016 Piedmont Civic Volunteer of the Year Award will be presented at the City of Piedmont Volunteer Recognition Ceremony where those who serve on City Commissions and Committees and the winners of the annual Betty C. Howard Award for services to the Piedmont Recreation Department will be recognized. The Recognition Ceremony will be held at the Piedmont Community Hall in late May.

The Piedmont Civic Volunteer of the Year Awardee will be chosen by the Mayor and a selection committee. Volunteer efforts during the 12-month period commencing January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015, will be considered.

Is on-street parking a problem in your neighborhood?

• Should parking space sizes be reduced?
• Should lot sizes and street frontage requirements be reduced?
• Are Piedmont cars getting smaller?
• Do Piedmonters want smaller garages?

On April 11, 2016, the Planning Commission undertook a “Public Hearing” for consideration of changes to Chapter 17, Piedmont’s Code requirements for construction and zoning. The Planning Commission is charged with recommending Chapter 17  and Design Review regulation changes to the City Council.

Staff reports here and here.

Reduction of Parking Space Dimensions –

Working from the April 11, 2016 staff report (here), the first item considered by the Commission was reduction of parking space size requirements. Parking space dimension requirement is currently set at 9 feet by 20 feet for garages and parking configurations with an exception. After considerable discussion, the Commissioners split their votes.   Whereas Commissioners Behrens, Ode, and Ramsey voted to reduce parking space size, Commissioners Tom Zhang and Tony Theophilos wanted to retain the current size requirements of 9′ X 20′.

David Hobstetter, former Piedmont Planning Commissioner and local architect, spoke extensively, referencing his involvement with the development of the Shell Station site at Wildwood and Grand Avenues. At an unrecorded joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council, proposals were presented.  Hobstetter urged reducing parking space size, explaining that fulfilling parking space requirements had been a problem for the Shell Station development project.  He emphasized the need to encourage smaller cars for the environment and noted some trends to reduce parking space sizes.

The April 11, 2016 Planning staff report states:

“Parking Requirements: The parking requirements of the current Zoning Code, Section 17.16, requires that a conforming parking space be covered, non-tandem, and at least 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep. A compact parking spot must be 7.5 feet wide by 16 feet deep. The Commission approved 31 of the 35 requests [ The chart in the staff report  (here) states there were 37 variance applications with 3 denied.] for a variance from the parking size requirements submitted between 2006 and 2015, recognizing that modern cars are smaller than those that were common when the size regulations were adopted in 1976. The Commission might consider reducing the required size of parking spaces in all zones to be 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet deep for a standard space and 7.5 feet wide by 15 feet deep for a compact space. This would align with the requirements in most other cities in the region.”

COMMISSIONERS’ REASONS TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES:

• Cars are getting smaller.
• People should purchase smaller cars for the environment.
• Development projects are penalized by requirements for large parking spaces.
• Smaller garages will encourage Piedmonters to buy small cars.
• Property should not be taken up with large garages.
• Piedmont’s parking size requirement is larger than surrounding cities.
• Variance application costs would be reduced by the change.
• Variances are frequently approved and should be reserved for extraordinary conditions.
• Staff time is taken up with requests for variances.

COMMISSIONERS’ REASONS FOR NOT REDUCING PARKING SPACE SIZE

• Numerous streets are heavily impacted by cars parked on the street making driving difficult and unsafe.
• Decades old garages are too small for today’s vehicles.
• In Piedmont, large SUVs proliferate.
• The statistical information provided by staff does not state the reasons variances were given in the past.
• The statistical information provided by staff does not state the dimensions of the variances given in the past.
• There is no staff information provided on why some applicants did not receive Planning Commission approval for a variance.
• The hands of future Planning Commissioners should not be tied by a reduced parking space size.
• Planning Commissioners should determine if a space should be smaller rather than have size automatically reduced.
• Piedmont is unlike the cities mentioned as models in the staff report.
• Small garages are a deterrent to use.
• Smaller garages will force more cars onto the street.
• Smaller garages are frequently used for storage rather than for cars.
• Residents purchase a car because they want it, not because of garage size.
• Most applicants comply with the current parking space dimensions.
• Social engineering should not determine the size of the parking space size.

A quick survey of some nearby communities revealed that the City of Orinda sets their parking space dimensions at 9 feet by 19 feet.  The City of Lafayette notes at a minimum: “Parking spaces required to be located in a garage or carport shall not be less than 20 feet in length and 10 feet in width and otherwise meeting the requirements for full sized parking spaces.” Both sample cities require a larger size than the 8.5′ X 18 ‘ proposed.

Staff was directed by the majority on the Commission to return with language to specify a reduced parking space size requirement.

Further, the Commission directed staff to develop language to:

• Keep the currently required number of parking spaces correlated to the number of bedrooms;
• Propose electrical outlets within setbacks for charging electric vehicles;
• Propose a clearer definition of “structure”;
• Reduce setback requirements to allow eaves and other building features to intrude into standard setbacks;
• Further define setbacks;
• Change definition of front, side, and backyards setbacks in relation to alleyways;
• Reduce lot size requirements for Zone A from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet and street frontage requirements from 100 feet to 60 feet;
• Propose changes to Zone E for consistency with Zone A requirements.

The Commissioners started their regular meeting at 5:00 p.m., which included their usual dinner break around 6:30 p.m.. At 7:45 p.m. the Commissioners undertook Chapter 17 matters.   By 9:00 p.m., Commissioner weariness ended the public hearing and further consideration of Chapter 17 revisions.  The Commissioners were requested by staff to return to the May meeting with the April 11, 2016 staff report to continue considerations of changes to Chapter 17.

All revised language will return to the Planning Commission for their consideration prior to submittal of final recommendations to the City Council.  The Council will then hold their own public hearing to consider the proposed changes prior to adopting any ordinances following their two required public meetings.

The current target date to finalize revisions to Chapter 17 is by the end of 2016.

Residents who have comments may submit them to:

Piedmont Planning Commission via Interim Planning Director Kevin Jackson, City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or via email @ kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us

and

Piedmont City Council via City Clerk John Tulloch at 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or email jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Condominium roofs now level with Oakland Avenue Bridge – 

The seven townhouses designed by Jarvis Architects are now rising on the site of the former PG&E substation.  Four of the condominium units front on Linda Avenue, one at the corner of Linda Avenue under the Oakland Avenue bridge over Linda.  Three of the condominiums have views of the bridge support structure, roadbed, future public stairway and/or adjacent multi-family building on Oakland Avenue.

Demolition of the decommissioned Linda Avenue PG&E structure also removed the pathway leading from Linda Avenue up to Oakland Avenue beside the bridge. When construction of the townhouse development at 408 Linda Avenue is completed, a new stairway will be installed on the sliver of City land between the seven townhouses and the bridge, according to Patrick Zimski, Piedmont Station, LLC.

A preliminary design of the replacement pathway was presented to the Piedmont Park Commission on January 7, 2015.  Kevin Leveque, the landscape architect for Piedmont Station LLC explained that due to the 25% slope, it will be necessary to incorporate steps in the new replacement pathway.  The City is expected to install an ADA compliant connection between Oakland and Linda Avenues on the north side of the bridge.