Apr 16 2016

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  (herestates 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

Apr 16 2016

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.

IMG_4250Demolition 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.

Apr 11 2016

Piedmont’s NEW AC Alert emergency sign-up program has been a big success receiving the highest percentage of participants of any city in the system, according to City Administrator Paul Benoit.

 The sign-up period is on-going; however the sooner residents sign-up the sooner they will benefit from the city service.

To sign-up NOW click below:

https://member.everbridge.net/index/453003085612570#/signup

Any resident having difficulties with the sign-up is advised to call:

420-3000 – Police Department

or:

Lisa Douglas
Support Services Manager
Piedmont Police Department
403 Highland Ave. Piedmont , CA 94611
Office/510-420-3014 
ldouglas@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Apr 11 2016

The Piedmont League of Women Voters, in conjunction with the Piedmont Historical Society, is hosting round two of Historic Piedmont “Then and Now Walks” on Thursday, April 21  at 10 a.m. and repeated on Saturday, April 23.  Each walk lasts approximately two hours.

The walks will cover the development of what is now central Piedmont in the late 1800’s. As more homes were built during this period (some of which are still standing), Piedmonters saw the construction of the celebrated Piedmont Springs Hotel, (which burned down in 1898),  as well as the popular Sulphur Springs, which drew many to “take the waters.”

The first part of the walks is largely on level ground. The second part includes a steep descent to the bottom of Piedmont’s Main Park (site of the Sulphur Springs), and ascent back up to Highland Avenue. The walks will then continue onto Magnolia and Hillside Avenues.

Then and Now Walks” are open to all, but are limited to the first 30 who sign up. To RSVP, email marjb@sbcglobal.net by April 18 for either date.

Details of the walks and where to meet will be sent to those who sign up. Participants will be notified of cancellation due to rain by or before the morning of the walks. Piedmont maps and historic information will be available for sale at the walks.

Apr 11 2016

Join the Piedmont Unified School District for a Transitional Kindergarten and Kindergarten Information Night –

April 20th from 7:00-8:30 pm

at Havens Elementary School

on Highland Avenue

The District will be sharing information about a typical kindergarten day, key dates, as well as other pertinent information. Presentations will be made by the Parent Clubs and Schoolmates, Piedmont’s Recreation Department student daycare program. 

Following the presentations, presenters will answer questions from the audience.

Apr 9 2016

Extensive changes to Piedmont building requirements and zone uses proposed-

  • Should public property be rezoned to allow for-profit uses?
  • Should variances be easier to obtain?
  • Should parking requirements be reduced?
  • Should lot size requirements be reduced?
  • Should zoning code be changed to allow a local newspaper to occupy a City building as noted in the March staff report?

Staff proposals offer leniency and reduced restrictions for variances and other building standards. 

The Planning Commission will discuss significant revisions to the City’s Chapter 17 “parking space dimensions, secondary structures, setback measurements, for-profit enterprises in Zone B, and other topics.

Piedmonters who want to participate in changes to Piedmont’s Chapter 17 will need to wait until an undetermined time on Monday night, April 11 for the “public hearing” that follows the Planning Commission’s regular business on Design Review and variance applications.  Regular business starts at 5:00 p.m. 

Planning Commission Agenda item 11 at the end of the evening is the “public hearing” on revisions to the City’s Zoning Code (Chapter 17) and Residential Design Review Guidelines. The agenda item to consider the changes is listed as a “public hearing,” however if history repeats, few, if any public individuals will be present when proposed changes are reviewed. Publicity on the proposed changes has been limited.

The Planning Department staff typically does not make outright recommendations; however, as in this instance and for many matters that come before the Planning Commission, only one alternative is provided and pros and cons are rarely presented. 

Regarding For-Profit Enterprises in Zone B the staff report states:

“Currently only public agencies and nonprofit enterprises are permitted in City Buildings in Zone B. The Commission may want to consider allowing for-profit enterprises that provide a valuable service to City residents to be located in Zone B as a conditional use. A local newspaper or child care center might fit this criteria.”                                 

March 16, 2016 staff report

Some revisions to Chapter 17 are mandatory in order to comply with the Council and State approved General Plan and Housing Element. Other revisions are voluntary. The proposed  Code amendments are “extensive and complicated” according to the City’s Interim Planning Director, Kevin Jackson.

Read the proposed revisions to be considered  Monday night here and here.

Revisions focusing on second units include:

Incentives to support development of new second units; monitor opportunities for units in homes that do not yet have them; collecting information on occupancy and rents charged; monitor vacant units; reduce off-street parking requirement; and maintain an inventory of available units for extremely low income families.

Parking Requirements:

An off-street parking place is currently required for a second unit. Changing laws regarding parking requirements may impact neighborhoods where quality of life and safety are concerns.  Parking is an issue in many areas for homes, businesses, schools, parks, and public uses.

Setback requirements, lot size and frontage requirements, and other long standing standards are proposed to be changed.  The proposed changes are in the staff report. 

AirBnB :

In September 2015, the City Council determined that house swaps should not be regulated, but short term rentals (including online peer to peer such as AirBnB) should be prohibited in second units and apartments.  In November 2015, the Planning Commission recommended prohibition of all short term rentals in Piedmont.

At the public hearing the Commission will take testimony from members of the public on the revisions under consideration. The Commission may then provide comments or direction to the staff on updates and revisions to the City’s Zoning Code  and Residential Design Review Guidelines.

“The purpose of the hearing is to take public testimony on the subject. Citizens are encouraged to submit comments to Interim Planning Director Kevin Jackson, City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or via email @ kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us.”

The Planning Commission meeting starts at 5:00 p.m. with a dinner break around 6:30 p.m. The entire meeting will be broadcast via Cable Channel 27 and also streamed live on the City website under videos.

All actions by the Commission are recommendations to the City Council, who will make the final decisions on the matter.

No stand-alone public hearings have been proposed as of this writing.

Listed below are City links to various documents related to this project:

Staff Reports, in chronological order:

Follow this link to find the Minutes for the above Planning Commission meetings.

Apr 7 2016

City Parcel Tax Measure F awaits Piedmont voters’ decision.

Piedmont will hold a Special Election on June 7, 2016, at the California Primary Election.  Statements in support and opposition are printed below. Prior to the election, this information can also be found in the Voter’s Information Pamphlet sent to every voter’s home address.

Support for Measure F:

Measure F provides funding to maintain Piedmont’s excellent public services.  This is not a new tax.   For the past 36 years, Piedmont voters have approved the Municipal Services Tax (“the Parcel Tax’).  The Parcel Tax is indispensable to maintaining the quality services Piedmont residents appreciate.    These services include responsive police and fire, attractive parks and robust recreational programs.  Our City looks and works as well as it does because of the Parcel Tax.   The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (“BAFPC”) recommends that the Parcel Tax be renewed and increased by approximately $150 per parcel.   The BAFPC said, “The continuation of the Parcel Tax at least at its current level is critical for the City to continue to provide the services that Piedmont residents enjoy today.”    The BAFPC added, “The committee believes the City is still significantly underfunding its facilities maintenance and replacements needs.”  To meet these needs, the Parcel Tax should be increased.  The Parcel Tax was last increased in 2004. Piedmont needs to address long‐standing deferred maintenance of its facilities and update the City’s aging infrastructure. The City must take on projects like replacing old wiring in the police and fire stations.   Our technology infrastructure is antiquated, unreliable and insufficient for the 21st century.   This isn’t about new facilities.  This isn’t about increasing staff or benefits.  This is about plumbing, roofs, safety and electrical.  This is about the nuts and bolts of the City.  We must act  now to make repairs and improvements to ensure the City can support its residents. Many recommendations of the 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee were implemented that strengthened City’s finances, controlled costs and addressed long‐term liabilities.    Now we need to follow the BAFPC recommendations and invest in Piedmont’s facilities.  Unanimously approved by the Piedmont City Council.  Vote Yes on F.     

Signed by:

John Y. Chiang, Former Mayor

Bill Hosler, Chair, Budget and Financial Planning Committee

Valerie Matzger, Former Mayor

Andrea Swenson, President, PUSD Board of Education

Jeff Wieler, Vice Mayor

Opposition to Measure F:

This proposition not simply a renewal of Piedmont’s Municipal Services Special Tax, it adds a 30% increase. The need for such a dramatic increase has not been substantiated by the City Council nor by the Budget Advisory Financial Planning Committee’s report. That report severely underestimates expected revenue from property transfer taxes and the post-transfer reassessments which will continue to increase property tax revenue. Piedmont’s rising property values assure rising tax revenues. There is no need to raise taxes at this time. The report actually admits that it discounted the facts that (1) retirement of the City pension “side fund” debt in FY 2020 will free up additional cash resources to cover projected increased expenses, and (2) the significantly over-funded Police and Fire Pension Fund can be rededicated to Other Post-Employment Benefits expenses. Raising our parcel tax is unjustified. Even if the unlikely pessimistic revenue estimates turn out to be true, Piedmont’s Reserve Fund, currently funded near its legal limit, can make up the difference until a truly justified parcel tax measure goes before the voters. This proposition implies that without passage, municipal services would be reduced. Yet, it fails to detail how much new tax revenue would go to facility maintenance, how much to pension liabilities, and how much to unspecified services, compared to the current budget. Piedmont has one of the highest tax rates in the state. The current tax continues until June, 2017. At this time, there is no need to scare Piedmonters with service reduction. Vote against this proposition now, so that a more reasonable and justified parcel tax measure can be considered next time.

Signed by:

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Support for Measure F Rebuttal:

The Parcel Tax opponents are wrong and miss the point. The 7 year projections show property tax revenue growing at the same pace as the last 10 years. Transfer tax has always been volatile. The 2011 MTRC recommended against projecting a growing transfer tax and this year transfer taxes are running 30% behind last year through February. Opponents are betting that real estate prices will continue to increase and that large numbers of homes continue to sell. This is unsupportable given history and an irresponsible way to plan for the future. The City Council took important steps to improve the City’s financial condition: refinancing the sidefund, establishing prudent reserves and managing expenses. The opponents misrepresent the BAFPC report, arguing that sufficient funds are available to maintain services and make needed investments in the City’s infrastructure. This isn’t true. The shortfall is significant and growing. The BAFPC, and prior tax committees, strongly recommended the City reduce this shortfall and take immediate steps to address the City’s aged infrastructure in a planned and affordable manner. BART’s recent problems show the impact of deferred maintenance, obsolescence and making patch work fixes. Piedmont must avoid those problems. City services will be degraded and unreliable without renewed investment in the city’s infrastructure. These aren’t scare tactics. This is just about basic arithmetic and what it takes to repair and maintain Piedmont. And the 30%: that’s about $150 per parcel. This is an investment in your City and its future. 

Signed by: 

John Y. Chiang, Former Mayor

Bill Hosler, Chair, Budget and Financial Planning Committee

Teddy King, Councilmember

Andrea Swenson, President, PUSD Board of Education

Tim Rood, Councilmember

Opposition to Measure F Rebuttal:

An honest proposition would inform the voter of a tax increase. Measure F masquerades as a simple renewal, but contains a 30% increase. To justify this tax increase the City underestimates new revenue coming into Piedmont from ever increasing tax reassessments. And growth rates in the transfer tax are well above what the BAFPC projects. The BAFPC estimates the transfer tax at $2.8M but the last two years are $3.9M and $4M. And this spring the average Piedmont sale price is $2.75M indicating a record revenue season is again likely. This healthy revenue stream is back-stopped by a City $4.5M reserve, Pension funds with a $10M surplus, and the Facilities Maintenance Fund at $1.94M. In 2010 reserves were 13%. In 2015 they are 21%. The 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee recommended the city undertake long-term financial planning and facilities maintenance, streamline city services, and cap employee and retiree benefit levels. Instead Measure F increases taxes and spending on facilities without having the other goals in place. Rather than asking for a tax, the City should continue to press for increased cost sharing and capping of employee benefits costs in this summer’s contract negotiations. We support improving Piedmont’s facilities but Piedmont’s taxes are among the State’s highest. Let’s not add an unneeded increase to the tax burden of young families and seniors. Vote NO on Measure F.

Signed by:

Garrett Keating, Former City Councilman

Kathleen Quenneville, Piedmont Resident

Jim McCrea, Piedmont Resident

Impartial Analysis of Measure F

by City Attorney 

Measure F proposes to adopt an Ordinance that amends Chapter 20B of the Piedmont Municipal Code authorizing the collection of a Municipal Services Tax (“Tax”), which has been collected in the City of Piedmont since 1981. Revenue from the Tax goes to the City’s General Fund and is used to finance Municipal Services such as police and fire protection, street maintenance, building regulations, library services, recreation, parks maintenance, planning, and public works. The current Tax will expire on June 30, 2017. Measure F authorizes the continuation of the Tax until June 30, 2021, and proposes to increase the maximum Tax rate in accordance with the rate schedule set forth in Section 20B.4 of the proposed Ordinance. The maximum Tax rate will vary by parcel depending on parcel size and the nature of use (i.e., residential/commercial). Measure F would correspondingly increase the appropriations limit under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. Pursuant to Measure F, the City can only levy the Tax if in any fiscal year the City Council determines that municipal services are necessary for the public good, and that the cost of providing such services will exceed the amount of funds generated from revenue sources other than the Tax. The Tax collected during that tax year, if any, may not exceed the maximum Tax rate established in the Ordinance. Under Measure F the maximum Tax rate will be adjusted on an annual basis by an amount equal to the percentage increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, California area, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Measure F authorizes the Tax to be collected by the Tax Collector of the County of Alameda.

A “Yes” vote on Measure F means the voter is in favor of continuing the existing tax with the proposed increase.

A “No” vote on Measure F means the voter is opposed and the tax would no longer be collected.

Two-thirds (66%) of the qualified voters casting a vote must vote “yes” for Measure F to pass. Measure F, or any provision thereof, may only be amended or repealed by approval of a two-thirds majority of the voters voting on the proposition at any initiative or referendum election. The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure F. The full text of Measure F is printed in the Voter’s Information Pamphlet and is also available on the City of Piedmont’s website at: http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us.

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

Additional Measure F information from the City can be found here.

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

Apr 7 2016

Piedmonters: Do you have your “Grab & Go” bag ready?

The Piedmont Public Safety Committee (PSC) encourages each home in Piedmont to have an easily accessible “Grab & Go” bag prepared for a major earthquake or other disaster. The Piedmont neighborhood groups that have recently attended a disaster preparedness meeting hosted by the PSC and the Fire Department should already be familiar with this recommendation. The PSC have partnered with Ace Hardware on Grand Avenue to make assembling these items as easy as possible.

Grand Lake Ace Hardware is currently offering the recommended essential items at 20% off.

This Grab & Go bag should be small enough to grab in the middle the night, as your family exits out of the residence. It is recommended that you store the bag in your bedroom in an easily accessible spot. The PSC recommends that the bag include the following items:

  • Hard hat or other head protection

  • Sturdy shoes

  • Heavy gloves

  • Safety goggles

  • Respiratory mask

  • Flashlight or other lighting items

  •  A utility wrench

  • Portable radio

  • Pry bar

Why not take advantage of the discount offer at ACE and pick up these pre-selected items? This coordinated effort takes the guesswork out of what to buy and have on hand.

If you are interested in organizing your neighborhood and hosting a meeting, please contact Public Safety Committee Chairman Lyman Shaffer at 510 780-6996 or lhshaffer@comcast.net.

Apr 7 2016

City to pave portions of Moraga Avenue and Highland Avenue April 11, 2016 through April 19th

Between April 11th and April 19th, the City of Piedmont will pave portions of Moraga and Highland Avenues between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. each day. The project was timed to coincide as much as possible to the Piedmont Unified School District’s Spring Break. During the project one way traffic control will be in place at some times. Please use alternate routes if possible.

The project area will be Moraga Avenue between the eastern City limit and Pala Avenue as well as between Monticello Avenue and the western City limit. On Highland Avenue, the paving will take place between Sheridan Avenue and Highland Way.

The planned work schedule is:

  •  April 11th and 12th, grinding operations on Moraga Avenue.
  •  April 13th, 14th, and 15th grinding and paving operations on Highland Avenue.
  •  April 18th and 19th, paving operations on Moraga Avenue.

Work locations may be changed if conditions necessitate. Parking restrictions will be enforced in the work areas.

Residents with questions regarding the project should contact Public Works Supervisor Dave Frankel at (510) 207-2114.

Apr 2 2016

Information from Piedmont Unified School District Superintendent Randall Booker – 

What is “Facilities Master Planning”?

Piedmont Unified School District is assessing whether its facilities support changing educational programs and goals, and making plans to ensure that facilities enhance educational programs now and in the future. This process, called “facilities master planning,” is intended to further the District’s fundamental goal of educational excellence.

Why is Facilities Master Planning needed?

Educational programs and objectives must keep pace with the changing needs of the world outside the classroom. Readiness for higher education and future careers requires different types of knowledge, different educational experiences, and a different set of skills than in the past. To serve the needs of students, it is essential to offer students a broad range of educational opportunities. For example, students must have the opportunity to: learn through project-based exploration, collaboration, and presentation;; investigate the connections among the sciences, and develop and test hypotheses;; work individually, in small groups, and in large groups;; complete service projects;; and take full advantage of modern educational technologies.

The purpose of the Facilities Master Plan is to address current and future educational needs of students and ensure that facilities provide both the functionality and capacity to support educational excellence.

Haven’t the schools been modernized?

Yes and no. Piedmont Unified recently completed seismic safety and technology modernization programs. The elementary schools were renovated or rebuilt to better withstand earthquakes, and all facilities have new technology infrastructure. Nonetheless, the middle and high schools have not been modernized, and many of their building systems have reached the end of their useful life and must be replaced. Also, educational needs have changed since these schools were constructed, and both additional and different kinds of facilities are needed.

How have educational needs changed?

Since the middle and high school buildings were constructed, course offerings have become more varied and some courses require specialized classrooms and labs – particularly in the fields of science, technology and engineering. Course work now incorporates collaboration in small groups and presentations, but undersized classrooms and heavy, inflexible furnishings make it difficult to reconfigure classrooms to support these activities. Lab work requires safe and suitable space for group projects and project storage, and inadequate labs, in fact, constrain teaching and learning opportunities. Additional specialized facilities are needed to offer or expand courses in film, web design, theater arts (including set and lighting design), graphic arts, culinary arts, and sports medicine, among others.

Why fix something that isn’t broken?

Piedmont Unified provides an excellent education, so some have asked whether facilities upgrades are really needed. There are significant reasons for investing in facilities improvements:

  • ●  Investment in facilities at the middle and high schools is now overdue and unavoidable. These schools have antiquated mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems that have reached the end of their useful life. These systems are inefficient and expensive to operate, and require either overhaul or replacement.
  • ●  The middle and high schools do not have a sufficient number of classrooms to support current and projected enrollment. The middle school needs at least three additional classrooms, and the high school needs at least two additional classrooms and one additional science lab.
  • ●  The District has identified a range of vital educational needs — from the need to provide extended-day kindergarten to the need for modern science labs and maker spaces — that can be addressed only through facilities improvements.
  • ●  Serious deficiencies that distract from and undermine the learning environment include poor sound insulation, poor ventilation, poor climate control, and insufficient restrooms. At the middle and high schools, noise transfers among rooms, making it difficult for students and teachers to hear each other. At all schools, climate control measures and improved ventilation are needed to prevent classrooms from overheating in warmer months.

● Modernization of antiquated facilities is needed to keep pace with surrounding public and private schools, which are investing millions of dollars in STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) facilities. These schools include: Miramonte High School (Orinda);; Campolindo High School (Moraga);; Skyline High School (Oakland);; Monte Vista High School (Danville);; San Mateo Union High School (San Mateo);; Bishop O’Dowd (Oakland);; Head Royce (Oakland);; Bentley (Lafayette);; College Preparatory School (Oakland);; Redwood Day School (Oakland);; and De La Salle High School (Concord). The project costs are not available for all of these, although Cahill Construction reported that De La Salle’s new STEAM building cost $18.5 million to construct, Head Royce invested $33 million in capital improvements, and Oakland Unified School District recently invested $55 million in new science and classroom facilities.

How was the Facilities Master Plan developed?

❏ Assessment of whether Facilities Support Educational Goals

During the fall of 2015, nearly 30 District educators and administrators met four times to discuss the educational programs and goals, and the educational appropriateness of the existing facilities.1 The group discussed: current and future educational needs of students;; classroom functionality and capacity;; whether the school sites provide an environment that is appropriate, comfortable and conducive to learning, including classroom size, acoustics, air quality, ventilation, and climate control;; student safety and security;; and current and future facilities use by the broader Piedmont community. The group consulted with the Piedmont Police Department, Piedmont Recreation Department, and school security professionals.

This team included: Randall Booker, Superintendent;; Song Chin-Bendib, Chief Business Officer;; Pete Palmer, Director of Maintenance, Operations & Facilities;; Dr. Cheryl Wozniak, Director of Curriculum & Instruction;; Stephanie Griffin, Director of Instructional Technology;; Michael Brady, Director of Alternative & Adult Education;; Julie Valdez, Director of Special Education;; Brent Daniels, Principal of PHS;; Ken Taylor, Elementary Admin Rep;; Sati Shah, Principal of MHS;; Ryan Fletcher, Principal of PMS;; Courtney Goen, Virginia Leskowksi, Marna Chamberlain, PHS Teacher Reps;; Ken Brown, MHS Teacher Rep;; Amy Savage, Carolyn White, Logan Medina, PMS Teacher Reps;; Ras Medura, PUSD Custodian;; Mike Wong, PMS Classified Rep;; Lydia Adams, Kelly Wallis, Havens Teacher Reps;; Lianne Morrison, Kathleen Schneider, Wildwood Teacher Reps;; Anne Valva, Raul Jorcino, Beach Teacher Reps.

❏ Assessment of Physical Condition of Facilities

During the same time period, a team of architects and engineers assessed the condition of each school facility including: educational appropriateness;; mechanical and plumbing systems;; safety and security;; energy efficiency;; and fire/life/safety and accessibility code compliance. This team consulted with the Piedmont Police Department, Recreation Department, Department of Public Works, and school security professionals concerning site security and community use. The team also developed a “solar master plan” with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to generate enough solar power to offset all of Piedmont Unified’s energy use.

This assessment was informed by California Department of Education (CDE) standards and guidelines concerning classroom size and features.2 The project team also consulted with the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), a non-profit organization that specializes in school design that is versatile, energy-efficient, and provides a healthy educational environment. For example, CHPS has developed models for: maximizing flexibility of classrooms so they can be easily reconfigured for project-based learning and other purposes;; integrating outdoor space for educational purposes;; and incorporating natural light and energy-efficient materials. The team also reviewed school specifications promulgated by Makers groups.

❏ Community Meetings at each School Site

Piedmont Unified hosted a series of facilities tours and public meetings at each school site to gather community input concerning the adequacy of school facilities.3 Educators, students, families, and the broader Piedmont community were encouraged to participate.

For example, CDE recommends at least 960 square feet of classroom space for a class of 25-30 students, and at least 1350 square feet for a kindergarten class. For a science classroom, CDE recommends at least 1400 square feet but prefers at least 1600 square feet.

The recommended ventilation for classrooms is eight “outside air changes” per hour. Without adequate air changes, air becomes stagnant and carbon dioxide accumulates. At the high school and middle school, there are classrooms with zero air exchanges per hour. In some of these classrooms, the only ventilation is to open a window, but cold temperatures preclude this for part of the year.

The recommended acoustics (or “sound transmission”) rating for classrooms is at least 50, but at the middle school and parts of the high school this rating is zero. This means that measurable background noise, which is supposed to be at or below 25 decibels, is typically above 35 decibels.

The school site meetings were held as follows: PHS (10/26/15);; PMS (11/2/15);; MHS (11/5/15);; Havens (11/12/15);; Wildwood (11/19/15);; Beach (11/30/15);; and PHS/MHS (12/1/15).

❏ Board of Education Meetings

In addition to receiving progress reports at its regular meetings, the Board of Education held a special meeting on December 14, 2015 to review all input received at the school site meetings. As with the site meetings, the December 14 meeting was publicized in the school bulletins, school newspaper, and local newspapers, and all members of the public were encouraged to participate.

Following this meeting, the District created a draft Facilities Master Plan that combined (1) the assessment of the educational appropriateness of facilities with (2) the assessment of the physical condition of facilities and (3) community input received. The project team also developed two illustrations — for purposes of discussion and soliciting further community input — demonstrating different approaches to implementing the Plan. The draft Plan was presented at three public meetings (to date), on January 12, January 19, and February 10.

The Board of Education will hold additional meetings on the draft Plan in the coming months, and will likely finalize and adopt the Plan in April 2016.

What needs are identified in the Facilities Master Plan?

❏ Piedmont Middle and High Schools

● To accommodate current and projected enrollment, the middle school needs at least three additional classrooms and the high school needs at least two additional classrooms and one additional science lab.

● To support STEAM education, labs must be configured with sufficient preparation, collaboration, project, presentation, and storage space.

Piedmont Unified has two high schools and one middle school, clustered together at 740-800 Magnolia Avenue. Piedmont High School has 39 classrooms, roughly 110,000 square feet of building space, and 871 students enrolled for 2015-16. PHS consists of several separate facilities that were constructed in the 1920s, 1930s, 1960s, and 1970s, and includes classroom buildings, the Student Services building, Binks Gym, Alan Harvey Theater, and the Witter Field complex. Millennium High School is an alternative high school that shares space with PHS and the District’s administrative offices. MHS has 4 classrooms (1 that is shared with PHS) and 80 students. Piedmont Middle School has 33 classrooms, roughly 85,000 square feet of building space, and 683 students enrolled for 2015-16. PMS buildings were constructed in the 1970s and 1990s and include the Science Building and Morrison and Redford Gyms.

  • ●  To provide an educationally appropriate, comfortable and secure learning environment, sound insulation, ventilation, climate control, and additional restrooms are needed.
  • ●  To support a range of teaching strategies — including quiet study, research, small-group collaboration, project work and exploration, presentations, and formal instruction — classrooms must be modernized and furnished for maximum versatility.
  • ●  Antiquated mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems must be replaced.
  • ●  To sustain, improve and expand course offerings, specialized facilities are needed:
    • ➢  The high school cafeteria, Piper Cafe, is used as the culinary arts classroom and for conferences, presentations, professional development programs for educators, and parent education programs. Nonetheless, use of the Cafe kitchen for career technical education programs in culinary arts means that the kitchen is not available for its original cafeteria purposes during class time. For this reason, the Cafe kitchen can support one section only of the culinary arts class. Also, the cafeteria is not well-suited for conferences and presentations due to poor acoustics. Additional teaching, conference, and presentation space is needed.
    • ➢  Alan Harvey Theater is used daily as a classroom, as well as for assemblies, rehearsals, performances, and community events. The Theater lobby is also used on a regular basis for small group meetings and rehearsals. The Theater is undersized for the current school population, does not adequately support the performing arts programs and needs for performance space, does not support Community needs for presentation and performance space, and does not comply with current fire/life/safety and accessibility codes. Additional seating capacity and additional teaching, rehearsal, and ancillary backstage spaces are needed.
    • ➢  Course offerings in sports medicine and related fields require dedicated space and equipment that support instruction in physiology, athletic training, nutrition, preventative care, and rehabilitation techniques. This space differs from typical classrooms, in part because training tables and equipment storage is needed.
  • ●  The turf on Witter Field has reached the end of its useful life and must be replaced. In addition, underground drainage is inadequate and must be improved to protect the new turf from stretching and tearing due to the pooling of water from Bushy Dell Creek under the surface. These improvements are critical to preserve and enhance student athletics.
  • ●  To support the social and emotional health of students, additional, private meeting space is needed at the middle school for Wellness Center programs.
  • ●  To the extent feasible, parking and traffic issues should be mitigated. The District has been working with the City of Piedmont to reduce traffic congestion along Magnolia Avenue during drop-off and pick-up times with new parking zones, permits, and signage. Off-street, paved parking is desirable for faculty, staff and visitors although the constrained area around the middle and high school campuses makes this difficult. The District and the City are continuing to explore possible solutions for Magnolia Avenue.

❏ Piedmont Elementary Schools

  • ●  Extended-day kindergarten is needed to better serve students. The District currently offers half-day kindergarten due to space constraints. Nonetheless, a growing body of research suggests that extended-day kindergarten produces greater learning gains than half-day programs. Furthermore, elementary school curriculum is developed based on the assumption that kindergarten is a full day, so offering half-day-only kindergarten necessarily means that students are not covering all recommended curriculum. For these reasons, additional kindergarten classrooms are needed.
  • ●  Climate control measures are needed to prevent classrooms from overheating and provide a comfortable learning environment. Ambient classroom temperatures exceed 80 degrees at least 30 school days per year.65 Piedmont Unified School District has three elementary schools. Beach Elementary (100 Lake Avenue) has 18 classrooms, roughly 35,000 square feet of building space, and 334 students enrolled for 2015-16. Beach was modernized and seismically strengthened in 2011 and 2012. Havens Elementary (323 Highland Avenue) has 23 classrooms, roughly 51,000 square feet of building space, and 498 students enrolled for 2015-16. Havens was built in 2009. Wildwood Elementary (301 Wildwood Avenue) has 15​ ​classrooms, roughly 20,000 square feet of building space, and 311 students enrolled for 2015-16. Wildwood was modernized and seismically strengthened in 2010.All elementary classrooms were supposed to get air conditioning and climate control features when they were renovated as part of the seismic safety program. However, in order to ensure completion of the seismic work, the installation of air conditioning units was deferred for budgetary reasons.

● All three elementary schools need additional shade for the outdoor recreational areas.

❏ All School Sites

  • ●  Additional support spaces and meeting rooms are needed to meet current teachingneeds.
  • ●  To the extent feasible, each campus should have a secure perimeter and administrative oversight over the access points to enhance safety and security. At the same time, facilities such as fields and playgrounds should be unlocked and open for community use and enjoyment during non-school hours.How will the Facilities Master Plan be used?The Facilities Master Plan is a long-range planning document that will guide short-term and long-term facilities improvements. Piedmont Unified cannot afford to address everything in the Plan ​at one time​, and that is not the intent. Instead, the District will have to prioritize the work and propose a series of bond measures over time, seeking voter approval to make these improvements in phases.How will the District prioritize the work?Piedmont Unified’s Board of Education will prioritize improvements based on educational needs and goals, considering input from the school community, broader Piedmont community, and City of Piedmont. The Board is soliciting public input on the priorities and will conduct a public opinion poll in the next month. Additional public meetings concerning priorities for near-term facilities improvements will be held throughout the remainder of this school year. These meetings include Board of Education meetings on March 23, May 11 and 25, and June 8 and 22, and a community town hall meeting in April or May (date to be determined).In addition, the District’s Facilities Steering Committee is meeting regularly to develop options for the Board to consider when setting priorities for implementation.

What will it cost to implement the Facilities Master Plan?

District staff worked with architects, engineers, and three general contractors, each with extensive experience in public school construction, to develop detailed cost estimates for implementing the Plan. I​f all work identified in the Facilities Master Plan were to be addressed in a single (multi-year) phase, the estimated cost is $137 million​. This includes hard costs (cost of construction), soft costs (architectural and engineering fees, state design review fees, inspection and permit fees, utilities fees, estimated price escalation over the next few years, and furnishings, fixtures, and equipment), and contingency funds. Nonetheless, Piedmont Unified cannot afford to address everything in a single phase. Instead, the Plan will be implemented in phases and actual cost will depend on the scope and sequence of each phase, which have yet to be determined.

How will these improvements be funded?

In California, school districts typically finance capital improvements by issuing bonds. To issue bonds, approval by 55% of local voters is required. In addition, aggregate debt issued by the district (or “bonding capacity”) may not exceed 2.5% of assessed value of the district’s taxable property. Also, bonds may be issued only if the estimated t​ax rate ​levied to repay the bonds does not exceed $60 per year per $100,000 of assessed value of the taxable property.7

Piedmont Unified’s bond financing consultant, KNN Public Finance, recently reported that the District’s bonding capacity is now roughly $66 million, and this number will increase over the next few years as previously-issued school bonds are retired. To see KNN’s presentation to the Board of Education on January 13, 2016, click here: http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2015_16/Piedmont_2016_Bond_Mea sure_Presentation_1_13_2016.pdf

The District will likely propose a series of bond measures over time to make these improvements in phases.

California Education Code section 15270 imposes these limits on the sale of school construction bonds.

Is the District eligible to receive State funding for these projects?

The District is likely eligible for state matching funds to help pay for modernization of the middle and high school facilities. Eligibility is based on the age of buildings, student population, and past receipt of state modernization funds. The District estimates that it is eligible to receive between $4.8 million and $6.47 million in state funds, provided that Piedmont Unified offers a 40% match.

The actual amount of the state modernization grant would depend, in part, on the extent of accessibility and fire life/safety code compliance work that is required by California’s Division of State Architect (DSA) in the final project scope. In addition to State ​modernization​ funds, Piedmont Unified is eligible to receive state grants for water and energy conservation projects. The District will receive a $650,000 DROPS (Drought Response Outreach Program for Schools) grant for water conservation enhancements on the high school campus, and $420,000 over five years for energy efficiency and conservation improvements across the District.

After the Facilities Master Plan is adopted, will there be continuing community involvement in implementation of the Plan?

Yes. To be most effective, facilities projects require ongoing community involvement and oversight. Piedmont Unified has long relied on a steering committee to oversee both the Seismic Safety Bond Program (SSBP) and the Modernization Program (MP), and both programs were completed on time and on budget. Specifically, the SSBP Steering Committee and the MP Steering Committee met regularly with District staff, architects, and construction managers to oversee planning and management of individual projects and program financing. Members of these committees contributed significant professional expertise and helped guide these programs to successful completion.

In the next few months, the Steering Committee will study the Facilities Master Plan, and help prioritize and phase the work in anticipation of one or more facilities bond measures. The Steering Committee will also oversee implementation.

The community members currently serving on the Steering Committee are: Grier Graff;; Brad Hebert;; Robert Hendrickson;; John Gibbs;; Sally Aldridge;; Angel Fierro;; and Bernard Pech. District staff who serve on the Committee include: Superintendent Randall Booker;; Assistant Superintendent Song Chin-Bendib;; Director of Facilities Pete Palmer;; and Board of Education Members Rick Raushenbush and Doug Ireland.

When the Facilities Master Plan is implemented, would students have to be relocated during construction? If so, would the relocation site be outside of Piedmont?

Whether temporary relocation of ​middle and high school s​tudents will be needed would depend on the scope and sequence of campus improvements, and these have yet to be determined. The work identified at the ​elementary​ campuses could be completed over summers, when no students are on campus, so there would be no relocation issue.

The District hopes to avoid relocation of middle and high school students to a temporary school site for several reasons. Relocation adds considerable expense to construction projects and can be disruptive for students and staff. Also, as a practical matter, there are few, if any, appropriate relocation options within or close to Piedmont. The District hopes to avoid relocation through careful sequencing of the implementation plan. For example, the Facilities Master Plan calls for additional middle and high school classrooms and labs to ease overcrowding and meet program needs. If new classrooms and labs are constructed first, the new facilities could then be used as “temporary housing” while older buildings are modernized. If phased properly, students could be cycled through the new facilities throughout the renovation, so all students would remain on the Magnolia campus.

A few years ago the District proposed a bond measure to renovate Alan Harvey Theater and voters did not approve the measure. Will improvements to the Theater be included in the Facilities Master Plan?

Yes. Alan Harvey Theater is undersized for the current school population, does not adequately support Piedmont Unified’s performing and theater arts programs, and does not comply with current fire/life/safety and accessibility codes, so the Facilities Master Plan includes these improvements.

The District received a range of feedback about why voters did not support the Alan Harvey Theater measure. Many voters questioned how the proposed theater improvements fit within an overall plan for facilities, particularly plans for STEAM labs and for modernizing antiquated classrooms at the middle and high schools. Based in part on this feedback, Piedmont Unified has now undertaken this comprehensive Facilities Master Plan.

The City of Piedmont has its own Master Plan. How is Piedmont Unified School District’s Facilities Master Plan related to the City’s Plan?

The City of Piedmont and the Piedmont Unified School District are distinct legal entities, and the regulatory oversight for their capital improvements and funding are separate. For example, all proposed public school construction in California must be reviewed and approved by the Division of State Architect (DSA), which has the authority to require that school projects include accessibility and life safety improvements to bring school facilities into compliance with current building codes. City projects are not subject to this DSA review.

Although the City and the School District capital programs are subject to different rules, procedures, and oversight, there is a commitment to confer and collaborate to the greatest extent possible. Specifically: there are regular liaison meetings between the City Council and School Board, and master planning is a key topic this year;; Pete Palmer, Piedmont Unified’s Director of Facilities, participated in the City’s planning group concerning the aquatic center, and contributed to the City’s pedestrian and traffic safety plans;; Chief of Police Rikki Goede and Recreation Director Sara Lillevand have consulted on the schools’ Facilities Master Plan;; Fire Marshall Dave Swan worked with Piedmont Unified on a comprehensive fire/life/safety assessment and participates in active fire drills at the school sites;; Director of Public Works Chester Nakahara consults on parking and pedestrian safety as well as storm drains, utilities, and other improvements that are coordinated between the City and School District.

What if the community does not support bond measures to improve facilities?

Many of the improvements outlined in the Facilities Master Plan will have to be done eventually, and, in the interim, students will continue to experience sub-standard learning conditions.

● The District would need to spend significant resources to operate inefficient and ineffective mechanical, electrical, plumbing and heating systems, pouring good money into failing equipment that will ultimately have to be replaced. If deferred, the cost of replacement will likely escalate.

● Spending money on failing equipment and systems, such as inefficient boilers and deteriorating sewer lines, would mean diverting money from the District’s general fund that would otherwise be available for educational programs.

● Middle and high school students would remain in overcrowded, undersized classrooms that fail to provide an educationally appropriate, comfortable or secure learning environment. Poor sound insulation, ventilation, and climate control would continue to undermine learning.

  • ●  The District would remain constrained in the range of courses and opportunities it offers students, particularly in STEAM education and career technical pathways.
  • ●  The District would remain unable to offer extended-day kindergarten due to space constraints.
  • ●  Elementary school students would remain in overheated and uncomfortable classrooms.
  • ●  Piedmont Unified would fail to keep pace with surrounding public and private high schools that are investing millions of dollars in STEAM facilities and modernization.What do Piedmont Unified’s teachers say about Facilities Master Planning?Piedmont Unified’s teachers provided numerous specific examples of how the proposed facilities improvements would remove real constraints on teaching and learning, and create new possibilities for 21st Century learning. Some examples from middle school teachers follow:“If the walls were soundproofed, I could have more experiential and collaborative activities in my classroom without worrying about disturbing the classes next to my room. My students would also be able concentrate and learn much better if they were not distracted by noise from other classrooms. If I had more space, students would have room to collaborate, make presentations, or participate in experiential activities without tripping over each other’s backpacks or being hindered by furniture. This would allow them to be more creative and innovative.”If my classroom had adequate space I could use the space to create learning environments for specific purposes. Here are four examples using expanded space which my students could use NOW:
    • ●  “Experts Center. Students teaching students new technology skills. For example, Adam Seville is teaching two students in my social studies class to use Wevideo (think Chromebook “IMovie”). They will produce a “Ken Burns style” presentation that includes selected video clips about the Terra Cotta warriors of the Qin Dynasty. In an “Experts Center” they could teach other students these new skills, and those students could continue passing on these skills throughout the class.”
    • ●  “Conference Center. Students could meet in small discussion groups for literature circles/book clubs or with partners to collaborate on writing. Currently students are writing scripts to demonstrate three ancient Chinese philosophies in a contemporary family setting, and this is very difficult in our crowded setting of table groups.”
    • ●  “Project Center. Students could work on designing and building models and projects that demonstrate their knowledge. If we had this space students could build a 3D model of the lost wax and piece methods of bronze casting. Currently they are limited to 2D presentations due to lack of storage and design space.”

● “Independent Work Center. We need a quiet corner for independent work and reading. There is substantial current research on the need to provide alternatives to group work for students. Our school psychologist has shared this research to encourage us to balance group work and independent classwork.”

“If my classroom were large enough to include shelving and supply cabinets all around the room I could display student work to serve as models and inspiration and store projects in progress. There are multiple classes that use every room, so project based learning is limited. Increasing storage for projects and materials would allow me to integrate more student initiated three dimensional art and design experiences into our daily curriculum.”

“If my classroom had space for ongoing student work, I could dramatically increase opportunities for differentiation, personalized learning, student choice, and “passion based learning” – I need the flexibility to respond to student interests and needs.”

“If my classroom had more space I could use small rolling white boards and table size projection screens for group work. Currently we have no space for maximizing the potential of our current tech resources, so students are limited to doc sharing on individual screens when they collaborate.”

“If the library were modernized to include moveable walls/whiteboards, I could change up the space to accommodate whole classes and small groups, and my students could have a more options for collaborative workplaces. If the library were modernized with better sound-proofing, I could be heard without competing with surrounding classrooms/ 201 meetings/classes, and my students could better focus on the tasks at hand.”

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