The following letter was sent to the Piedmont City Council on January 15, 2017.

Mayor Jeff Wieler
Piedmont City Council
c/o John Tulloch, City of Piedmont

January 17 Agenda Item 7: R3 Presentation on Waste Collection Services

Dear Mayor Wieler and Council,

The current Piedmont 32 gallon service which includes 1 each refuse, green waste and recycling is $54.80 for curbside service. The equivalent 32 gallon Oakland service is $36.82. In Tiburon this same service is $39.02 for flat areas and $46.47 for hill areas; in Mill Valley the rates are $41.61 and $47.73.  Small affluent bedroom community San Marino with its excellent school system has been used as a comparable City to Piedmont. Their rate is $42.05 monthly and is backyard service only, plus 2 cans each for refuse, recycling and green waste (source: 10/26/2016 Irene in S.M. City Clerk’s Office).

Piedmont’s rate is then 15% more than the similar topography hills of Mill Valley to 49% higher than surrounding Oakland.

The Piedmont service includes unlimited green waste and recycling, others may not. Piedmont has 4 bulk pickups annually. Tiburon and Mill Valley are serviced by Mill Valley Refuse Service (“MVRS”) which serves nine Marin County cities. No City MVRS serves has less than two annual bulk pickups. There may be other inconsistencies in the services provided; comparing Waste Collection contracts is sometimes like comparing rotted apples to moldy oranges.

While the current package of services is appropriate for Piedmont, perhaps limiting to two annual bulky pickups from four will keep costs down. Regardless, the current Piedmont contract was neither researched nor negotiated as vigorously as the renewal contract is apparently being done. Piedmont is no longer an “Easy Mark” by service providers; the mainline sewer work and excellent bids received by J. Howard Engineering being one example.
The current Republic Services contract excludes Ivy. In Ivy infested Piedmont it is difficult to understand how this was allowed.

For Seniors 70+, disabled and blind all nine cities served by MVRS have a curbside rate for backyard pickup. Normally backyard pickup by MVRS is charged either an additional $5 monthly for “on premise” service or $15 monthly for “on premise plus.” Seniors receive no financial consideration in Piedmont by City Hall or the School Board. The MVRS model of backyard service at curbside rate for seniors & disabled should be incorporated into the new contract RFP.

I propose homes in Zone E pay a slightly higher overall fee. All lots are over 20,000 square feet and generate larger and more frequent green waste pickup; additionally all backyard services in Zone E require more work by the refuse company. This Zone E slight increase would easily cover any small subsidy for a reduced backyard service fee for seniors, blind and disabled.

Sincerely,

Rick Schiller

Cc: Paul Benoit

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Unexpectedly, High School Principal Brent Daniels is resigning his position mid-year for an administrative position in the Berkeley Unified School District.  Daniels last day in the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) will be January 27, 2017. At the January 24, 2017  School Board meeting, Assistant Principals Eric Mapes, and Irma Muñoz are expected to be appointed by the Board of Education as Co-Interim Principals of Piedmont High School (January 30th – June 30th) for the remainder of the 2nd semester of the 2016 – 2017 school year.

The recruitment process to fill the position of Piedmont High School (PHS) principal is noted below. 

The District will publish the position posting on February 1st on Edjoin.org. Below is a link to the position brochure that will be sent to colleges, universities, county offices of education, and school districts across the state.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-vdk-LUzFEkY1pzcjRKY0pfYTg

Due date for applications: March 10, 2017. This allows for our position advertisement to occur in the Ed-Cal on the following dates: February 6, 13, 27, & March 6.

Community Engagement
It is important that our community of educators, students, and families have an opportunity to provide the District with input as to the desired traits and educational vision of the next PHS Principal.

The Superintendent will meet with administrators, staff, parents, and students during the month of February to gather their input as to the desired traits and educational vision of the next PHS Principal.

Recognizing that not all families, staff, and students can/will attend the input meetings, the District will also develop an online survey/feedback tool for all constituents to be able to provide input as to the traits and educational vision desired in our next PHS Principal.

The input gathered from these meetings and the online survey/feedback tool will be provided to the PUSD Board of Education and the Interview Committee.

Interview Process
The first round of interviews will include representatives from teachers, classified staff, administrators, students, parents, and 2 Board Members:

(1) Superintendent
(5) PHS Teachers
(2) PHS Classified Staff
(2) PHS Students
(1) Director
(2) School Site Administrators (5) PHS Parents
(2) Board Members
___
20 Members

The District will work with the PHS Parents’ Club President to determine which parents serve on the committee. The District will also work with union leadership to determine which teachers and classified staff serve on the committee. Lastly, we will collaborate with the PHS Associated Student Body (ASB) Leadership Class to determine which 2 students serve on the committee.

This first interview will occur on March 21st.

At the end of the 1st round of interviews, the committee will make a recommendation to the Superintendent of their top candidates.

Piedmont tradition of honoring Martin Luther King, junior continues to grow.

All are welcome to attend and participate.

Monday, Jan. 16th – 1:00 – 3:30 p.m.

Veterans Hall on Highland Avenue above the Police Department.

Climate Change

Volunteers will be needed if Council approves plans to appoint a committee to advise on Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan for 2030.  The matter will be considered at the Tuesday, January 17, 2017, Council meeting. The full staff report can be read here.

Public Notice ______________________

Piedmont City Council will be considering two climate-related items at their regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall’s Council Chambers. Council will receive a report on Piedmont’s 2015 Greenhouse Gas Inventory and will vote to establish a temporary, advisory task force to assist staff in the development of a 2030 Climate Action Plan. We invite you to attend the hearing to express support for either of these items. You may view the City Council agenda for Tuesday’s meeting here http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/agendas/2017-01-17.pdf. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Emily – Emily Alvarez, LEED AP BD+C
Assistant Planner | City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue | Piedmont, CA 94611
T: (510) 420-3094 | F: (320) 223-0537
E: ealvarez@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Do residents have an appropriate opportunity to be heard during Planning Commission and City Council hearings?

For weeks Piedmonters have noticed the story poles that seem to double the height of a house on Moraga opposite the Mountain View Cemetery.  This proposed enlargement has struck some as controversial.  However, it was approved by Piedmont’s Planning Commission and the neighbors’ appeal was denied by the City Council. Council found no procedural error and denied the appeal of neighbors objecting to building an additional story on top of a house.  The construction will more than double the size of the house.  The Planning Commission action was upheld on the basis that no error had occurred in the process when considering the house extension application.

The objecting neighbors thought their view was supposed to be protected but were told that Piedmont only protects views which are “panoramic”, not the ridgeline view from the Ronada house.  Most Piedmonters do not have “panoramic” views, but value their views of hills, parks, or the Olmsted landscape of the cemetery, etc. Since few Piedmont homes have “panoramic” views, this limited view protection  is a benefit for only a minority of Piedmont property owners. Chapter 17 requires consideration of any proposed constructions effect on “… neighboring properties’ existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect light …” but does not  limit consideration to “panoramic” views.

17.2.79: View. “View” means an existing significant view involving more than the immediately surrounding properties, including, but not limited to, any of the following: city skylines, bridges, distant cities, geologic features, hillside terrains and wooded canyons or ridges. (Ord. 656 N.S. 8/05)

Piedmont has a narrow appeal process that eliminates an evaluation by the City Council of the full merits of an application.  The appeal ordinance has been publicly challenged for an inability of the Council to fully consider various aspects of the Planning Commission actions. If there was an error during the consideration process by the Planning Commission or the City Planners, the responsibility of identifying any such errors falls on an objecting appellant who is required to pay approximately $700 to seek justice and right the error.

Reimbursement by the City to appellants for their expenses including the City fee or their legal costs because of an error or omission by the Planning Commission is unknown and has not been announced.

Appellants face a difficult task when presenting their case to the City Council. The judgement of the Planning Commission in applying Piedmont laws and the actual judgement of the decision cannot be considered.  Time limits imposed, although not found in Piedmont law, further restrict the public or opposing party, typically neighbors, to present their concerns.

At the December 19 appeal, Planning Commission Chair Eric Behrens and Planning Director Kevin Jackson explained to the Council that the applicant had made some adjustments in their plans, but the applicant indicated they could not lower the second story by 4 feet. The vote by the Planning Commission was unanimous as was the City Council’s vote.

To read the full staff report on the appeal click below:

12/19/16 – PUBLIC HEARING Regarding an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve with Conditions an Application for Variance & Design Review at 108 Moraga Avenue

Given the significant responsibility and credibility bestowed upon the Planning Commission by the City Council, every detail, fact, and public point becomes vital to any decision.

The City is currently looking at changes to the ordinance known as Chapter 17 governing construction in Piedmont.  Some proposed changes are controversial, but the major complaint heard in the City revolves around no knowledge and no timely engaging community meetings to discuss changes or gain adequate input from the residents.

Under proposed changes governing construction in Piedmont, a greater number of applications will fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning staff rather than the Planning Commission further removing the public from open hearing processes.

Should the City seek a new solid waste collection and disposal services provider beginning July 1, 2018?

WORKSHOPS

Friday, January 20^th, 7:00 pm – 8:00 pm, Community Hall, 711 Highland Avenue

Thursday, February 2^nd, 7:00 pm – 8:00 pm, Veteran’s Hall, 401 Highland Avenue

TAKE ONLINE SURVEY HERE

The City of Piedmont is seeking resident input at community workshops and via an online survey on a new waste collection and disposal agreement, which would come into force on July 1, 2018.

The current solid waste collection and disposal agreement with Republic Services ends on June 30, 2018 and the City of Piedmont has begun the process of selecting the next solid waste services provider. Community members are invited to participate in two workshops to help assist the City in securing quality garbage, recycling, and composting services. Community input is sought to assess the community’s opinion of the current solid waste service offerings, and to determine the most appropriate garbage and recycling services for Piedmont customers for the next ten years. The goal of this effort is to reduce waste sent to the landfill while continuing to provide quality services to the Piedmont community.

To learn more about solid waste services in Piedmont visit: www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/recycling-waste.shtml

For more information on the current procurement effort and to add your name to an email notification list for the solid waste services procurement process, please contact Jennifer Gavin at jgavin@ci.piedmont.ca.us or 510-420-3054.

Background

On November 7, 2016 the City Council approved a consulting services agreement with R3 Consulting Group (R3) in the amount not to exceed $87,240 to help the City with the request for proposals for a new solid waste services agreement. R3 will conduct the two workshops, educating the public on the procurement process and soliciting community input.

The deadline for participating in the survey is February 20, 2017.

   I went to the City Council meeting on Monday, November 21 at 7:30 p.m. in Piedmont’s City Hall.  The City Council meets every first and third Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m.  The members of the Council and various citizens meet to discuss and solve prominent issues within the community.

    Throughout the course of this meeting six major issues were discussed, the first of which was a report by the Chief of Police regarding recent crimes in the neighborhood.  The Chief of Police highlight a recent series of break-ins, robberies, a pig’s head being left at the doorstep of a resident, and remarks about deportations written in chalk on Linda Avenue. In response to the series of break-ins and robberies the Chief of Police assured the citizens that they review their patrolling patterns and devise a cohesive plan.  After a short investigation, the police discovered that the pig’s head was meant for another former resident as a joke.  The police have no further leads on the remarks written on Linda Avenue, though this leaves troubling thoughts in my mind as a resident of Piedmont living on Linda Avenue.  It deeply troubles me that someone living in what I viewed as an inclusive environment could justify in any way using language regarding deportation.  Even more troubling is its proximity to Beach Elementary School where the language used could show younger children that what was said was socially acceptable.

    The second issue discussed was the consideration of a fee waiver request for the residence of 42 Craig Avenue.  The residents received a design review which lasted for twelve months, after which it would become void.  After twelve months and the review becoming void the claim was submitted by the residents in addition to a request for the payment required for the submission to be waived.  The City Council ruled that the second fee would not be waived as the work done to clear the waiver needed to be paid for even though the work had already been done in the past.

    The next issue discussed was the elimination of the parking restriction of the 700 block of Highland Avenue from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m.  This restriction was initially put into place in 1971 due to complaints of young people convening there and creating noise.  Removal of this restriction would in turn create sixteen parking spots.  The daughter of a current resident spoke out against the removal of this restriction stating that in the short term its removal could increase noise and crime, while in the long term home value could drop.  The City Council ruled to accept the motion, removing the parking restriction from the 700 block of Highland Avenue.

    The fourth topic discussed during the meeting was whether to refute or remain impartial on the subject of Alameda County Waste Management’s new 2016 ordinance that would ban the use of plastic bags in Piedmont stores and restaurants.  Choosing no action would only impact McMullins and Ace Hardware, forcing them to remove plastic bags and charge ten cents for paper bags in an attempt to push for reusable bags.  Piedmont High student Keith Sibal spoke in favor of choosing no action, drawing on his knowledge of the dangers of plastic bags pooling into the environment stating that the small cost of their removal will be outweighed by the protection afforded the environment.  The City Council ruled in favor of no action.

    The subsequent topic was authorizing the implementation of a community choice aggregation program.  The City Council approved the aggregation program, stating that it would give the people of Piedmont more choices and freedom to choose.

   The final topic covered during the City Council meeting was considering the agreements with Computer Courage for IT support services and Client First Technology Consulting for IT management services.  This was primarily to discuss the proper compensation for the work the two companies have done and will do in the future.  The City Council approved a budgeted compensation for the two companies.

   With the scheduled topics coming to a close and the City Council meeting being adjourned I had the opportunity to interview Jen Cavanaugh.  Ms. Cavanaugh stated that her presence was due to a letter she helped write from the School Board revolving around inclusion in schools that the City Council read.  She then explained that her next step is to meet with the School Board in an attempt to get real change going, stating, “There’s talk and then there’s action”.

Jacob Watson, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

On November 14th, 2016, I attended the Piedmont Planning Commission from 5:00 to 7:30 p.m.  The Planning Commission meets once monthly (the second Monday of each month) to discuss and approve the modification and construction of houses and buildings in Piedmont.

During tonight’s meeting, the Commission discussed a variety of proposed modifications and projects, and approved many.  The meeting opened, however, with a Public Forum, during which I (being a newcomer to the realm of local government meetings) was able to “Speak Out” in the form of a question.  I asked the officials just how an application gets to their desk this evening- the steps each project from tonight’s meeting had to go through prior to the fateful moment of approval or rejection. I followed up with a question and comment about variances. I learned more in the first five minutes of the commission than I could have imagined. Additionally, I was comforted by the use of Robert’s Rules of Order, with which I have been familiar due to ASB’s [Associated Student Body] annual Constitutional Convention held in the City Council Chambers. Following the Public Forum, the Commission approved the Minutes of last month’s meeting and also approved the Consent Calendar.

The meeting agenda then moved on to the main discussions, the first of which regarded a home on Littlewood Drive. Mr. Mohazab, the architect of the project spoke first, describing the addition of a second unit and small deck and window modifications as “benign”. After the homeowners spoke, the Commission Chair brought up an anonymous letter that had been sent by a presumed neighbor, complaining about the project impeding parking availability. The letter was soon discarded and the project approved; however, when it was made clear that a construction project down the street was causing temporary parking issues and anonymous letters are not to be considered as seriously as those with names on them. I agreed with the decision to approve the Littlewood Drive project, especially considering that the homeowner plans to retire soon and will no longer own his corporate car.

The next application, 108 Moraga Drive*, was slightly more tricky. This family had virtually nowhere to expand but up. They only had five feet forward of potential room, not enough for a bedroom, and were already pushing backward toward the neighbor’s yard. Erica Benson, a neighbor upset with the proposed project, spoke on behalf of her husband against the homeowners. While there was a slight discussion of adding a basement bottom floor- mostly proposed by the upset neighbor- this was not feasible as a bedroom living space. The homeowners had been to the Commission once before in July, and had made drastic improvements to their plan in an attempt to comply with the needs of their neighbors. One official asked the architect if she was familiar with the fact that Piedmont prefers smaller homes. This was quickly put to rest when it was made clear that 108 Moraga Drive was by no means a mansion, still below the national average size of new homes. While Ms. Benson expressed understandable concerns for her view and the proximity of 108 Moraga to her home, she was unwilling to compromise and the project was approved considering the impressive modifications made since July to address neighbor concerns.

Following this application was a very simple one- 1106 Warfield Avenue. First, a neighbor, the homeowner of 1102 Warfield spoke in favor of the project, elegantly portraying the supportive neighborhood of their street and her full and utter backing of the application. While the homeowner/contractor/designer did not have anything specific to say, he answered a simple question concerning an issue already addressed. The project was quickly approved.

During a quick break, I interviewed the next man on the agenda- Mr. Paki Muthig, a father of two young children currently living just outside of Piedmont on Trestle Glen. An “architect, as well as the owner of the home”, Mr. Muthig had already presented to the commission and had begun some work on his soon to be home, 306 Magnolia Avenue. This time, he “added modifications to the basement and it’s access to the backyard”. While the construction of the project had already begin on site, the specifics of the basement exterior door were waiting to be finalized, pending tonight’s decision. From his description of the project to me prior to its discussion, it seemed relatively simple. The Commission, however, experienced in the art of potential concerns regarding urban planning, voiced some concerns.  Mr. Muthig asked for two variances. After heavy discussion of parking availability (which I, quite frankly, found to be a little too pervasive) the project was approved. I was quite relieved and excited for Mr. Muthig; his young kids were planning on attending my former elementary school and I could tell how hard this architect had worked on his planning.  I also had never noticed a lack of parking on Magnolia (excluding Friday night football games, of course).

Overall, the meeting offered me a unique glimpse into the world of urban planning and government meetings. I feel excited to experience government on a local level, and I look forward to exploring law and government more in civics class and in college.

Natalie Stollman, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. * An appeal of the Commission’s action on 108 Moraga Avenue was appealed to the City Council and the appeal was denied at the Dec. 19, 2016 meeting.  The Council staff report can be read here. 

Volunteers needed for two committees to oversee H1 School Bond expenditures. 

H1 Citizen’s Oversight Committee

[Members to be chosen by the Board of Education]

The Piedmont Unified School District is soliciting applications for the H1 Facilities Bond Citizens’ Oversight Committee (COC).

Measure H1 was passed under the rules of Proposition 39, which directs that the Board of Trustees appoint an independent Citizens Oversight Committee (COC) to monitor bond expenditures. As provided in Education Code Section 15278, the role for the COC is to provide oversight of the District’s use of Measure H1 Bond proceeds and report to the Board and public on their findings.  Specifically, the COC will ensure that all funds are used in support of the projects included in the bond measure and not for unspecified projects or general operating expenses.

The 12-member COC is comprised of individuals from local businesses, senior citizen organizations, organizations involved with schools, a tax payers’ organization, legal, technical, and financial advisors, as well as involved parents of children residing in the Piedmont Unified School District. The COC will meet quarterly at a minimum. Members must be able to serve up to a two-year term.

The COC will also review the annual independent audits that are required of general obligation bond funds, make physical inspections of bond program projects during construction, review related District documents to gather information for the preparation of reports to the community, and report to the Board of Education annually on the activities of the committee.

Application Process:

A Citizen’s Oversight Committee (COC) application may be submitted for consideration using the following link: https://goo.gl/forms/9uTQnDWST465THCE2

The President and Vice President of the PUSD Board of Education will select participants from the pool of applicants.

Applications are due by January 18, 2017.

The application process and selection timeline will be announced at the December 8^th Budget Advisory Committee Meeting, the December 14^th and January 11^th Board of Education meetings, and the school bulletins. It will also be posted on the District Website.

The first COC meeting will occur in early February of 2017.

If the public has any questions, please contact Randall Booker, Superintendent at 510.594.2614 or rbooker@piedmont.k12.ca.us

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

H1 Facilities Steering Committee

[This second committee will be chosen by the Superintendent and Director of Facilities. ]