New Information on Havens Provided.

As an employee of the Piedmont Unified School District familiar with the rebuilding of Havens Elementary School, it was with great interest that I read the comments of E Boyer, who wrote the following as part of an opinion piece in The Piedmont Post (“Just Kidding…But Seriously – The Jackass Category”) dated May 21, 2014:

“With Havens, we were all told, an epic collapse crushing all of the children inside was surely just ahead.”

Infact, the Division of the State Architect (DSA), the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), and the State Allocation Board (SAB) all concurred in 2013 that the most appropriate word to describe the collapse hazard posed by two kindergarten wings (that actually housed over fifty percent of the Havens student population) was, in fact, catastrophic. Not “epic.” Not “shenanigans.” Not “fear mongering.” Not “a slow and painful death ‘neath the rubble of the collapsed one-story, wood framed building as it came down in apocalyptic fury!” (to quote E Boyer’s blog). No, the word they all agreed upon to describe the collapse hazard at Havens was “catastrophic.” Furthermore, the SAB identified these very same wings as an example of the “Most Vulnerable Category 2 Building…determined by the department to pose an unacceptable risk of injury to its occupants in the event of a seismic event.”

The SAB was definitive in its corroboration of engineering reports calculating “the building’s structural system [as] greatly overstressed and likely to fail.” The risk of injury associated with the Havens wings, according to every agency involved with public school construction in the State of California, was deemed to be unacceptable. Not just an unacceptable risk of injury for children, but an unacceptable risk for everyone: children, teachers, staff, parents, volunteers, visitors, and satirists.

But wait, there’s more. The kindergarten wings at Havens were designed by a prominent architecture firm in the 1950’s, and were replicated many times over throughout California. In other words, these same hazardous buildings exist today in other school districts. Prior to 2012 (two years after Havens was rebuilt), the Division of the State Architect refused to publicly acknowledge the tension rod-bracing system found in these type of buildings is insufficient to withstand a significant earthquake. What changed DSA’s mind? Piedmonters.

Two years after Havens was rebuilt, Piedmonters testified in statewide hearings before Senator Ellen Corbett to address lax oversight of seismic inspections, safety certifications, and restrictive funding rules. Two years after Havens was rebuilt, Piedmonters worked with Senator Loni Hancock to assist other school districts in breaking through draconian restrictions defining seismic vulnerability, amending Proposition 1D as originally written into law in 2006.

My purpose in sharing this is twofold: first, that no matter how inconvenient the truth, the removal of students, teachers, and staff (and the subsequent demolition of the Havens wings) was essential to the safety of its occupants; second, to offer thanks to so many in this community for their willingness to think (and act) beyond the borders of Piedmont.

Through the efforts of Piedmont residents in their roles as school board members, architects, structural engineers, financial advisors, construction law attorneys, accountants, designers, builders, Citizens’ Oversight Committee members, and community activists, there have been profound changes at the State level in assessing and addressing seismic safety in public schools.

If working with conscientious Piedmont residents for the betterment of all children in California (you can add SB1404 and “Educate Our State” to the list of Piedmonter-led initiatives – just to name two) is what defines being a jackass, I am all for it. Call me a jackass. Seriously. I’m not just kidding.

Michael Brady, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services for the Piedmont Unified School District

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  Comments are welcomed below.

– Extended terms of office or appointed positions? Date to choose Board officers? – 

The date for Piedmont’s election of the School Board and City Council is set by the Piedmont City Charter for the first Tuesday in February of even number years.  The City Council and School Board have been considering ways to increase voter participation and reduce costs associated with Piedmont elections. Changing the date of Piedmont elections requires changing the Charter by approval of a majority of the voters voting on the change.

In November 2012, Piedmont consolidated with the General Election for a City ballot measure. Great savings were achieved, as the cost per registered voter was $1.10. Piedmont’s current stand alone election in February 2014 cost $9.89 per registered voter.

Twelve of Alameda County’s thirteen cities hold their elections at the November General Election of even numbered year.  Piedmont is the only city with a stand alone election.

The Charter also prescribes when the reorganization of the Board’s officers occurs. The current date is out of step with the Board election by months creating a potentially awkward period for the Board.

A report to the Board prepared by Board President Rick Raushenbush and Superintendent Constance Hubbard states in part:

The City Council found that consolidating the City Charter election date for Council members and Board members with the State’s November general election date would provide the greatest cost savings and the most voter participation. Moving the election date to November would require existing Council and Board members to extend their terms to the new November election date rather than the current February election date.

If the Board supports the change of the election date, the Superintendent will work with the City Clerk to submit wording that will delineate reorganization requirements in keeping with Education Code requirements. It will also add flexibility if the Board does not need to have a meeting in July.

Term extensions for an additional period from March to December or appointments to vacancies are also mentioned in the report:

The alternative to extending the terms of current officials is that a Board Member could resign their position and the Board would go through the process outlined in Board Bylaws 9110 (4) which state, “A vacancy on the Board shall be filled by appointment by a majority vote of said Board, with the appointee holding office for the remainder of the unexpired term or until the general municipal election. If a vacancy in the Board continues for thirty days, the vacancy shall be filled by an appointment made by the President of the Board.”

If the appointed person serves more than eighteen months of an unexpired term, such person shall be considered to have served a full term.

Historically, appointments to vacant seats on elected boards or councils provide an advantage to the appointed incumbent at the upcoming election. “Self-perpetuating” is a term that has been used when elected bodies fill a vacancy with their personal choice immediately prior to an upcoming election.

At their Wednesday, May  28 meeting in the Council Chambers, the Board will be asked to give direction to the Superintendent on the following items or provide other alternatives:

(a) Change of date of election for School Board Members to November

(b) Extension of term of current members from March to November

(c) Request change in City Charter to change reorganization requirements for

Read the documents on the election date item pages 3-10 of the Board packet.

Full agenda of May 28 Board meeting.

“The Budget Advisory Committee meeting on the calendar for May 22 will not be held. The final meeting of the BAC for the year will be held on Thursday, June 5, 2014 from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. in the District Office conference room.

In preparation for the meeting, please review any information that comes your way regarding the LCAP (Local Control & Advisory Plan) as it relates to the school budget.”

                                                            Notice provided by the School District

The following letter was sent to PCA:

As an actively involved member of the community for the past 24 years, I am dismayed at the tactics employed by the opponents of remodeling Piedmont High’s Alan Harvey Theater.

A small band of Measure H opponents has brought public discourse in Piedmont to a new low.

This group’s latest salvo is to misappropriate a quotation by a school board member – who is in fact a strong proponent of the measure – and, taking her words out of context, they have used the attributed quotation on their “No on Measure H” printed materials and website.  This tactic has the effect of suggesting that the school board member in question opposes Measure H, when in fact the opposite is true.  These Measure H opponents have also ignored the school board member’s request that her quotation and name not be used in their material.  Further, the graphic this group is using on their printed materials, website and in an email campaign is crude and offensive.  These folks seem desperate.

Piedmonters, please do not allow yourselves to be manipulated.  Vote FOR Measure H.  Piedmont’s arts are the centerpiece of a public education of which we can all be proud.  That education ensures your property values remain strong.  The aging theater needs to be renovated – both because it is in tatters (the stuffing and springs are popping out of the front row seats!), and because disabled folks cannot reach the seats or use the bathrooms.  If you don’t believe me, check it out yourselves.

But whatever you do, vote YES on Measure H.

Sincerely,

Anne-Marie Lamarche, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Comments are welcomed below. 

The following opinion was sent to PCA:

Dear Editor:

Measure H is a critically important local measure to repair and renovate our 40 year old Piedmont High School theater.

I am deeply dismayed by the recent advertisements and flyers from certain opponents of Measure H. While people may have differing opinions regarding the measure, deliberate dissemination of false information is unacceptable.

School Board Vice President Andrea Swenson is being quoted in the opponent’s political campaign communications and made to appear an opponent of the measure. She is not. She has asked for her quote and name to be removed from the opposition material.  As of May 15th, this has not been done.

Whenever any one has asked to use my name for any reason, they have asked my permission. Any citizen of Piedmont would expect the same.

As a former elected official and long-standing member of our community, I find it sad that the opposition is playing politics to defeat Measure H. We don’t need mean spirited campaigns in Piedmont.

As a community, we deserve better.

Sincerely,

Sue Smegal, Former School Board Member and Middle School Teacher

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Comments are welcomed below. 

Renovation plans significantly reduce audience capacity.

The bird calling contest.  Musicals.  Drama.  A Capella.  Dance.  Band and orchestra. Community theater.  The Alan Harvey Theater is home to all of these, often with sell-out crowds or standing room only.  Which is why I have serious concerns over the proposed renovation of the theater that substantially reduces its capacity and why I believe we need to take an intermission and reconsider what’s being proposed.

Currently the Alan Harvey theater has 500 seats.  Yet the proposed renovated theater would have only 365 seats, a decrease of 27% in the theater’s capacity.  I’ve never attended a performance at the Alan Harvey Theater where 27% of the seats were empty.  There simply won’t be enough room to accommodate parents and friends who want to attend these performances.  And there won’t even be enough room for school assemblies, which, according to the design program, require a minimum of 400 seats.

One of the main reasons being given in support the current plan is that Piedmont High School would focus on becoming a performing arts school, and there’s no arguing that the proposed renovations would create a very attractive venue with ancillary spaces, but it’s not the only solution.  Why are we considering reducing the size of the theater rather than maintaining its current size or enlarging it?  Are we going to be satisfied, after spending at least $14.5 million, that our theater will be 27% smaller than it is now, meaning fewer people will be able to attend those performances?  In addition, because of this, box office revenues would plummet because of fewer ticket sales, decreasing revenues unless ticket prices skyrocket.

We all want to support Piedmont High School’s performing arts students.  So let’s not short-change them and our community by turning away fans and substantially shrinking audiences by building a theater that is way too small.  Think about the effect of removing 135 seats before the upcoming spring drama festival, dance showcase, a capella review, and orchestra and band concerts.  The 135 people turned away won’t be happy, and there will be much less applause in the theater.

Other design solutions exist where at least 500 seats can be maintained.  Let’s get it right and come back from our intermission with a new approach for renovating the Alan Harvey Theater.

Melanie Robertson, AIA, Former Chair of the Piedmont Planning Commission

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Vote-by-mail ballots for the June 3, 2014 election must be posted in time to be received by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters by 8:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 3.   Post marks are not relevant.

 The three cards comprising the ballots are so heavy they require postage of  91 cents.  

Alan Harvey Theater:  Costs and Alternatives

With approximately two weeks left before the June 3 election on Piedmont ballot Measure H, preferences are heating up.

After the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) approved $100,000 of Modernization Funds  for conceptual design and planning of safety and accessibility improvements of the Alan Harvey Theater (AHT), a contract was signed with Quattrocchi Kwok Architects (QKA), the selected finalist. A preliminary construction budget of $5 million was established by PUSD in 2012,  anticipating providing safety and accessibility improvements, the PUSD May 23, 2012 stated goal. The cost of the  improvements escalated to the currently proposed $14.5 million after conceptual drawings led to further improvements and expansion. (The bond issue is for $13.5 million.) Originally the AHT was included in the Seismic Safety Bond, but was removed when engineers assured PUSD that structurally it met “life safety” seismic standards.

The Yes on H campaign has garnered solid support from the school community and performing arts enthusiasts, engendering a comprehensive campaign including signage, phone calls, and glossy literature. The No on H campaign has attracted individuals concerned about the high costs of the “renovation” and the need for further evaluation prior to approving the bond measure.

Yes on H – pro:

• “All Measure H funds will stay in our community to benefit Piedmont students.”
• “State modernization funds and private donations will reduce the cost to homeowners.”
• “An independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee will ensure funds are properly spent.”

No on H – con:

• Piedmont should not go to the legal limit of  borrowing prior to evaluating District wide needs: all funds from Piedmont school bonds stay in Piedmont.
• Taxpayers will be responsible for repaying $13.5 million in bond funds plus interest.
• All bond instruments require compliance with bond issuance specifications.

As with most Bay Area communities, Piedmont property values have risen and exceed their prior economic downturn values.  New buyers of Piedmont homes have well established credit, assets or job security.  The additional amount on their property tax bill to pay for theater renovations will be minor when added to their parcel tax obligation of $10,000 to $20,000 plus per year.  The following information on tax amounts was provided by the School District:

“What impact will Measure H have on my taxes?

……the actual tax rate will not be determined until the bonds are sold. Based on current projections, and a 13-year repayment schedule, the District estimates an increase of $17 per $100,000 of assessed value in the first six years. After existing bonds are paid off in 2020-21, the estimated tax rate would be $50 per $100,000 of assessed value in the remaining seven years.”

Calculations indicate a property valued at $1 million would pay $500 per year in the final 7 years of the bond.

Long time Piedmonters, tax conscious residents, retirees, and others view the additional burden of the bonds as not reasonable or appropriate. Piedmonters currently pay over $2,400 per parcel per year for school operations alone and hundreds more for the interest and principle on existing school bonds used for prior rebuilds and renovations.  Piedmont school parcel taxes are currently the highest in the Bay Area. Opponents of Measure H want the School District’s evaluation of alternatives and priorities to occur before a bond is approved by voters.

Accessibility issues have been a primary driver of the theater renovation because of antiquated restrooms, steps prohibiting wheelchair movements, seating problems, and stage configuration limiting performers.  Those involved with the schools and theater arts have pointed out the desirability of an enhanced theater for both students and the community.

Architects differ on correcting the problems to achieve an appropriate, high-level theater renovation. Some Piedmont architects have found the plans wanting and deserving of revisions prior to approval of the bond measure. While others approve the plans as presented to the School Board.

Vote by or on Tuesday, June 3. Remind your friends and neighbors to vote.

Most Piedmonters will vote by absentee ballot.  Ballots must be received by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters or your local polling place no later than 8 p.m., June 3, 2014. Post marks are not sufficient.  Postage has increased to $.91 to mail your ballot.

Click for more information on where and how to vote.

Read more from advocates on both sides of Measure H:

Theater usage by “Yes on H”

Improvements by “Yes on H”

Understanding accessibility by “Yes on H”

Why No by “No on H”

Renovation cost by “No on H”

Accessibility requirements by “No on H”

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  Comments are welcomed below.  

I’m writing in support of Measure H to complete the rehabilitation of our school facilities.

I think the District’s track record in funding and managing capital projects speaks for itself, and it’s telling that both proponents and opponents of the measure agree that the current 40 year-old Alan Harvey Theater facility is coming due for a major overhaul. Where they seem to disagree is on whether the proposed theater project is delivering good value compared to other recently build high school theaters. I believe it is.

The $10.5 million estimated construction cost (less contingencies and soft costs) seems to be roughly on par with the other theater projects. As an architect, I know that every building and every construction project is different. While comparisons are helpful for context, there is no set formula for dollars per square foot, per theater seat, or any other measure, because there are so many possible choices of building configuration, construction type, structural systems, finish materials, and theater amenities – not to mention a dynamic bidding environment.

Some opponents seem concerned that the project is an expansion and renovation of the theater, as opposed to a complete teardown. As a LEED-accredited processional, I want to point out that reusing buildings is generally “greener” than tearing them down and starting over.

The most comprehensive analysis to date of the potential environmental benefits associated with building reuse, a 2012 study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Green Lab, examined cumulative life-cycle impacts over a project 75 year period for six different building types, including a school building. For most building types, including schools, adaptive reuse of older buildings was found to yield measurable – and sometimes impressive – green benefits. The study found it can take 10 to 80 years for a new building that is 30 percent more efficient than an average-performing existing building just to overcome the negative climate change impacts related to the construction process. In the words of architect Carl Elefante, “the greenest building is the one that is already built.”

Of course, rehabbing an older building also uses environmental resources. The best way to minimize the impact is to choose materials and building systems carefully. Fortunately, our new state building code incorporates many green features, and the theater architects are also designing to performance criteria set out by the Collaborative for High Performance Schools to conserve energy, water and materials.

I believe renovating and expanding the theater is the right thing to do – for education, for accessibility, and for the environment.

Tim Rood, Piedmont City Councilmember

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA).  We invite various points of view on civic subjects.  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  COMMENTS may be made below.  Longer OPINIONS may be submitted using the link on the upper left side of this page. 

Vote No on Measure H, the $14.5 million Piedmont High School Theater Renovation Dear Neighbors,

If you subscribe to the Piedmont Post, you may have read many articles about the proposed renovation of the Piedmont High School Theater (the Alan Harvey Theater). Many questions have been raised and there is an on-going debate in the community about what to do.

You probably have received two fliers from the “Yes on H” campaign. You hopefully will get from us a postcard which encourages you to visit our website:www.NOOonH.org (note the three Os).

Please take a good look at the issues. Measure H will impact the way future capital projects are conceived by the School Board and the District. In our view, the Board has been blinded by the success of the Havens School rebuild. The Board should have pushed the pause button once it became clear that the initial concept for the theater renovation as proposed by Mr. Becker turned out to be twice as expensive as expected (construction cost rising from $5 million to $10 million).

 We all know that the theater needs work. The Superintendent has set aside a budget of $500,000 for changing the seats, replacing the HVAC, and fixing lighting for safety (such as adding footlights at the edge of the stage). We present our case in the Why No page.

• If you are a performing arts lover, you should vote No as the proposed project will not fix the major issues with the Theater: its low ceiling and its poor acoustics due to the large bay windows. It is also clear that the renovation is overpriced when compared to a new construction.

• If you feel, as I personally do, that the additional educational value for kids performing in public under expensive LED lights and a new control room is not worth the extra expenditure, you should vote No. Why waste money when since 2008 school programs have been cut, class sizes increased, and total instructional days decreased? Yes, capital money and operation money do not mix, but they do come from the same wallets! We need to nurture community goodwill so that taxpayers respond generously to the next State school budget cuts.

• Finally, if you are concerned about all the other needs that are in line for capital expenditure on the High School campus, you should request that the Board set priorities for big capital expenses based on a long term vision rather than letting nuts and bolts issues dominate and through scope creep be turned into big projects.

We also are annoyed by the tactics used by the proponents. Scare tactics distort the public debate, undermine trust, and take Piedmonters for granted. Please take a look at our web page on accessibility. The theater will not be closed due to lack of ADA compliance and it can be made more accessible at a low cost. Let us not have these tactics impair our judgment, as the matter is most important for our students.

Let me know if you want to participate in our No campaign. Whichever position you end up taking, make sure you cast your vote. You can vote using snail mail by registering with the County before May 27, 5 pm by calling  (510) 272-6973 to request a ballot to be mailed to you.

Sincerely yours,

Bernard Pech

Piedmonter since 1983.

Piedmont Citizens Against Measure H – An informal organization for now.  For this campaign, contact me through the email: bjalbums@gmail.com

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA).  We invite various points of view on civic subjects.  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates for public office.  COMMENTS may be made below.  Longer OPINIONS may be submitted using the link on the upper left side of this page.