Piedmont Police Department is currently investigating four robberies that have occurred in the City of Piedmont during the last three months.  

The first case occurred on the 200 block of Greenbank Avenue.  Two suspects robbed three construction workers in the backyard of a home under construction.  The two suspects were described as Black males, in their late teens, 5’8’’ – 5’10’’.  The suspects fled the scene on foot.

The second case occurred on the 200 block of Hampton Road.  Two suspects robbed two landscape workers along the sidewalk area.  One of the suspects struck one of the victims in the head with a blunt object during the robbery.  The two suspects were described as Black males, in their teens, average height.  The suspects fled on foot to an unknown vehicle which was possibly waiting around the corner.

The third case occurred on the 200 block of Sea View Avenue.  Three suspects robbed three construction workers in the backyard of a home under construction.  One of the suspects struck one of the victims in the head with a blunt object during the robbery.  Two of the suspects were described as Black males, in their teens, average height.  The third suspect was described as possibly mixed race (Black/Hispanic) in his late teens or early twenties, average height.  The suspects fled on foot and are believed to have fled the scene in an older white or cream-colored Mercedes Benz which possibly fled down Sea View Avenue, toward Mandana Boulevard.

The fourth case occurred last night, August 30, 2016, at approximately 8:00 pm.  Three armed suspects entered a residence located in the 200 block of Estates Drive in the City of Piedmont while the residents were home.  The suspects isolated the residents in an area of the home and ransacked the house stealing cash and jewelry.  The suspects fled the scene on foot and possibly got into an unknown vehicle.  None of the residents were injured during the incident.  The three suspects were described as Black males, in their late teens to early twenties, average height and build.

The Piedmont Police Department has communicated these incidents through local media as well as targeted outreach to the contractors and workers who commonly work in the community. Similar robberies have occurred in neighboring jurisdictions, and the Department is communicating and working closely with those agencies.  We are also using all of our technological tools, including the Automated License Plate Readers, to assist in our efforts. Additionally, we have increased our staffing to follow up on existing leads and engage in proactive enforcement activity.

We ask all residents to be cognizant of individuals who appear to be engaged in suspicious activities and immediately report it to the Piedmont Police Department.   Although we are working hard to prevent any more robberies in our City, the reality is that it could happen again.  With that in mind please remember to practice basic crime prevention by:

• Securing the access points to your residence
• Utilize lighting 
• Minimize visual barriers to your property such as overgrown landscaping, as these areas provide cover and concealment for criminals.

You may choose to have a neighborhood watch meeting to discuss these issues. Please feel free to reach out to Mr. Lyman Shaffer, Chair of the City of Piedmont Public Safety Committee, to schedule a meeting.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to contact Chief Rikki Goede at (510) 420-3010 or Captain Jeremy Bowers at jbowers@piedmontpd.org or at (510) 420-3012.  

PIEDMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE  August 31, 2016

                  On August 30, 2016, at approximately 8:00 pm, three armed suspects entered a residence located in the 200 block of Estates Drive in the City of Piedmont while the residents were home.  The suspects isolated the residents in an area of the home and proceeded to ransack ultimately stealing cash and jewelry.  The suspects fled the scene on foot and possibly got into an unknown vehicle.

         None of the residents were injured during the incident.

Suspect Descriptions:

Suspect – 1 was described as a Black male, 18- ­22 years old, 5’7’’­5’9’’, thin build.

Suspect – 2 was described as a Black male, 18­- 22 years old, 5’8’’­5’10’’, medium build

Suspect – 3 was described as a Black male, 21-­25 years old and shorter than suspects #1 &  #2.

Anyone with information and/or inquiries related to this case

 are asked to please contact Detective  Willie Wright at (510) 420­3013.

Are Piedmonters going to be surprised by the new building requirements and zoning changes?  Few residents have participated in the meetings as the Planning Commission has deliberated changes.  Read the staff report  < here for details of  proposed changes.

The Planning Commission will discuss on August 30 revisions to Piedmont’s Building requirements in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code,  the Zoning Code. The Zone D parcels are occupied by commercial or single family residential uses at present.

The new proposals include increasing the height limitation for the Civic Center commercial parcels at Highland Avenue and Vista Avenue next to Havens School across from the Emergency Fire Department Services adjoining City Hall to 40 feet, and for the Grand Avenue parcels to 35 feet, plus eliminating setback requirements for both areas. This would appear to allow further densification. (See the chart of proposed Zone D requirements on page 5 of the staff report.)

Special Session

1. DISCUSSION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 17 MODIFICATIONS

The Planning Commission will continue its discussion of potential amendments to provisions of Chapter 17 (the City’s Zoning Code). This session’s discussion topics include, but are not limited to: the regulations for Zone D regarding building height, setbacks for upper levels, and parking for commercial uses; the regulations of signs; the regulations of wireless communications facilities; projects eligible for expedited design review; various changes to the administrative regulations; definitions and measurements; and the composition of an interim design guidelines. The purpose of the discussion is to take public testimony on the subject, and to provide an opportunity for the Commission to consider the subject matter, make comments and give direction. The Planning Commission may give direction to staff, but no formal action will occur.

Also under discussion are reduced parking requirements, signing regulations, wireless communications facilities, expedited design review, as well as numerous definitions and measurements.

Read the August 30 staff report here.

The August 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting in the Council Chambers, City Hall is open to the public. The meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. and will be broadcast on Channel 27 and from the City website.

Dear Planning Commissioners:

On the top of page 4 of the staff report, staff cites several goals, actions and policies from the 2007 General Plan as rationale for the zoning proposals it has brought before you. In particular the statement is made “The report stressed that the intent behind the General Plan directives is to have regulations and procedures that do not act as barriers to low-density commercial and mixed use development in Zone D.”

As a city councilman involved with the drafting and approval of the General Plan, I can say that Council did not intend such a broad interpretation of the General Plan to accommodate mixed use development. To the contrary, there is specific language in the Plan that new development be in character with Piedmont and in particular with the neighborhood for which is it slated. 

As with all new development in Piedmont, there is direction in the General Plan that NEW development not be impactful on the neighborhood. I provide below the sections from the General Plan that you should consider when evaluating staff’s proposed changes. I think you will find the proposed revisions to Chapter 17 are not in line with the intent of the General Plan.  In particular, I call to your attention that Policy 4.2 says nothing about the constraining of MULTI-FAMILY housing.

That said, I understand that staff is attempting to be responsive to a broad community sentiment expressed in the 2007 General Plan Survey for more pedestrian-friendly commercial services in Piedmont. I think that sentiment can be best addressed by implementing the zoning policies staff proposes for future development in the Civic Center. That is the closest, most walkable pedestrian center for all of Piedmont and a logical place to encourage community gathering.  Such policies for the Grand Avenue commercial district are too impactful on that neighborhood and I encourage you to direct staff to return with different development policies for this section of Zone D.

Staff has attempted to mitigate impacts by proposing to lower the building height in the Grand area however I think that lack of parking is a bigger impact on the neighborhood.  Direct staff to undertake a thorough parking and traffic analysis of the neighborhood before considering additional revisions.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member

L A N D  U S E

Goal 1: Residential Character

Maintain the character of Piedmont as a residential community.

Policies and Actions

Policy 1.1: Encroachment of Non-Residential Uses

Maintain zoning regulations which strictly limit the encroachment of non-residential uses into residential areas, and which support residential uses on private land throughout the City.

Policy 1.2: Neighborhood Conservation

Sustain the balance between homes, private yards, and public space that defines Piedmont’s residential neighborhoods. The essential form of the city’s residential areas—including the scale and appearance of its homes, the mature vegetation, the views and vistas, the appearance of streets and public places, and the street layout—should be maintained for the long-term future.

Policy 1.3: Harmonious Development

Maintain planning and development review procedures which ensure that new development is harmonious with its surroundings and will not conflict with adjacent properties. New development and home alterations should be consistent with established standards for setbacks, height, and bulk, thereby conserving the low-density, pedestrian-friendly character of the city’s neighborhoods.

Goal 2: Commercial and Mixed Use Areas

Provide for a limited range of commercial uses which serve the basic needs of the community.

Policies and Actions

Policy 2.1: Local-Serving Emphasis: On the city’s limited commercial land supply, strongly encourage activities that meet the needs of Piedmont residents rather than region-serving activities. By supporting local-serving businesses in these areas, Piedmont can advance its goals of reducing driving, promoting walking, and creating a more balanced and well-rounded community.

Policy 2.2: Mixed Use Development

Within the Grand Avenue commercial district, encourage mixed use development that combines ground floor commercial uses and upper story residential uses.

Policy 2.3: Office Development

Support limited office development in the city’s commercial districts to accommodate businesses serving Piedmont residents, and to provide rental office space for Piedmont residents with small businesses.

Policy 2.4: Commercial Parking

Resolve parking problems in the city’s two commercial districts in a way that balances the needs of local businesses with those of immediately adjacent residents and the community at large.

Policy 2.5: Off-Site Impacts

Maintain a conditional use permit procedure for commercial uses which ensures that off-site impacts such as traffic, noise, parking, and odor are disclosed and mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Buffering and screening should be required between commercial development and adjacent residential properties to minimize the potential for land use conflicts between the two uses.

Policy 2.6: Commercial Uses as Gathering Places

Recognize the importance of Piedmont’s commercial land uses as community gathering places. Any new commercial projects should be designed in a way that contributes to pedestrian vitality and safety, and provides a clean, attractive, and welcoming environment for the public.

Action 2.A: Allowing Multi-family Residential in Commercial Zones

Amend City regulations so that multi-family housing becomes a conditionally permitted use in the Commercial zone (Zone D). However, such uses should only permitted when they are part of a mixed use project that includes ground floor commercial uses.

Action 2B: Commercial Development Standards

Review the development standards for commercial uses to ensure that they support the goal of promoting pedestrian-oriented development and attractive streetscapes.

HOUSING   ELEMENT

As noted in Program 1.E, the City will be amending its Zoning regulations to permit mixed use and multi-family development in Zone D (the Commercial zoning district). As further noted in Program 4.G, the City will also amend the regulations for Zones C and D to allow fewer parking spaces for smaller multi-family units. Additional steps to incentivize multi-family and mixed use development in Zone D will be established. This should include the following specific zoning changes:

a)     Raising the maximum lot coverage allowed for two story buildings in Zone D for projects which include housing.

The limit is presently 50 percent for one-story buildings and 25 percent for two-story buildings. Given that most multi-family and mixed use buildings are two stories, it would be difficult to do such development in this zone without a Variance for lot coverage. The ordinance should be amended to allow 50 percent lot coverage for mixed use and multi-family buildings in Zone D

Goal 4: Elimination of Housing Constraints

Minimize constraints to the development of additional housing without compromising the high quality of Piedmont’s neighborhoods.

Policies

Policy 4.1: Communicating Planning and Building Information

Encourage public understanding of the planning and building processes in Piedmont to facilitate permit processing and reduce project costs and delays.

Policy 4.2: Planning and Building Standards

Ensure that planning and building standards, development review procedures, and fees do not form a constraint to the development, conservation, and rehabilitation of housing, or add unnecessarily to the cost of building or improving housing.

The Aquatics Master Plan Steering Committee (AMPSC) will meet to discuss the creation of an Aquatics Master Plan.  The Steering Committee was established by the City Council on April 18, 2016 to advise and assist the Aquatics Master Plan consultant Harley, Ellis, Devereaux. (On March 21, 2016 the City Council approved a contract in the amount $35,180.)

Three plans were presented on May 24 by the consulting architect. The public is invited to attend the meeting on Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in the Emergency Operations Center, 403 Highland Avenue.

Read about the establishment of the AMPSC  here

Read the contract with consultant Harley, Ellis, Devereaux here

Read about the progress on the Aquatics planning in the June minutes of the Recreation Commission here

A problematic new legal interpretation of Piedmont’s decades old City Charter makes land uses interchangeable amongst zones and removes Piedmont voter from their right to decide on land use.

According to the Piedmont City Charter both classification and area of a zone must be submitted to the voters for approval prior to a change. Classification and area are separate and distinct terms in the City Charter; however, this is not recognized by the City’s new legal opinion, linked below.

After Planning Commissioners along with residents requested a written legal opinion on how the Council could find authority in the Charter to allow changes in land use without voter approval, the City finally produced a legal opinion on July 27, 2016.

This legal opinion came eight years after a seemingly extra-legal land use change in a zone from Public to Multiple family residential to allow the development of the expensive townhouses on the former site of the PG&E substation. Thc movement of property from one zone to another and changing the use was accomplished through the General Plan without voter approval as noted in the EIR for 408 Linda Avenue:

“The zoning for the project site is Zone C, Multiple Density Residential. The land use designation for the site was converted from Public/Quasi Public to Medium Density Residential with the City Council adoption of the updated City of Piedmont General Plan in April 2009.” pages 1 & 2

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/publicworks/docs/408_is.pdf

According to the City Charter* voters have control of land use. 

The City Charter states: “ The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election.” 

The size and area “reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area,” are separate from the classification/use. The Charter states, “no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election.”  Classification and area are not synonymous.  According to the Charter both, classification and area must be submitted to the voters for approval.

The Charter further defines “classification” by stating: “provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a singlefamily dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.”  This clarifies that classification is specifically the use: “the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.” 

The  words “and” and “use” are pivotal in any discussion of voter rights regarding zone area and classification/land use.  City terminology regarding zones states the classification/ land use assigned to the zone – Single family residential, Commercial, Public, and Multifamily – in the City Code, the General Plan, and zone descriptions. 

Piedmont’s former Deputy City Attorney Linda Roodhouse, who worked closely for years with Piedmont’s long time City Attorney George Peyton wrote:

June 7th, 2012 at 2:13 pm   <Context

“Staff is correct on the general scope of the Council’s legislative authority. I was the deputy City Attorney for Piedmont for many years and advised the planning department. I was also the City Attorney in Orinda for 11 years, until 2006. In both cities, I had a major role in the creation of new zoning codes. In Piedmont, the boundaries of a zone and the general land use within the zone are subject to voter approval. The City Council decides the specific rules and regulations within any zone, but the rules and regulations must be consistent with the charter description of authorized uses in a zone.”  emphasis added

 Linda Roodhouse, Resident

A project has now been proposed for the Shell Station on Grand and Wildwood Avenues. The City changed the land use in this zone, the Commercial zone, to allow multiple family residential, without voter approval.  The City Attorney stated the zone change was allowed because there was single family residential in the Commercial zone, so multiple family residential was permitted and the zone land use was changed without voter approval. There is now yet another proposal by the Planning Department to change land use in Piedmont’s Public zone ( parks, open space, buildings, facilities, etc.) to allow commercial/business land uses without gaining voter approval.

None of the present City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, City Attorneys, City Administrative staff, including Planning were involved when in 1980 the revised City Charter was overwhelmingly approved by voters.  Language in the revised Charter perpetuates long held voter rights in Piedmont.  There was never any intention or mention by voters, attorneys, elected officials, or administrative staff, for voters to  relinquish land use control to the City Council through the City Charter, City Codes, or General Plan, and this fact is repeated in all of these documents.

The Piedmont City Charter provides for enforcement and amendments:    

“SECTION 9.06 CHARTER ENFORCEMENT

The provisions of the Charter shall be enforced, with violations punishable in the manner provided by State law and by City ordinance.

SECTION 9.07 CHARTER AMENDMENT

Amendments to this Charter may be proposed by the City Council or by the initiative process, as prescribed by this Charter and by State law.

All proposed Charter amendments shall be presented to the qualified voters of the City at a general or special election. If a majority of said voters voting upon a proposed amendment vote in favor of it, the amendment shall become effective at the time fixed in the amendment or, if no time is therein fixed, thirty (30) days after its adoption by the voters. ” emphasis added

If the City Council wants to change the language in the City Charter, the City Council must place the change on a Piedmont ballot.  Changes have been made from time to time throughout the years.  However in regard to taking away Piedmont voters right to determine land use decisions in Piedmont, no proposal has ever been placed on a ballot. 

The current attempt to change land use in the Public zone to allow commercial uses and the previous yet not implemented change to the Commercial zone to allow multiple housing without getting approval by Piedmont voters demonstrates how land uses are being considered interchangeable from zone to zone.

A ballot measure specifying zoning changes for both size and land use could potentially receive approval by the voters, but the Piedmont electorate are being excluded from these decisions based on the City attorney’s new opinion.

The City’s new legal opinion apparently did not consider the precise language in the Charter and the extensive documented history of placing zoning changes/reclassifications before Piedmont voters.  The new legal opinion appears rely on external interpretations and non-compliance with the Charter.

The Piedmont City Code states in regard to zoning:

SEC. 17.35 CONFLICTING REGULATIONS To the extent that provisions of this Chapter 17 conflict with or are inconsistent with any other ordinance or rule previously adopted, the terms of this Chapter shall control the construction, alteration or other improvements of property, except as to ordinances and rules which are subject to voter approval pursuant to the terms of the City Charter, which are not intended to be modified or repealed by any such inconsistency. (Ord. 488 N.S., 10/87) 

The City Charter Article on zoning is below: 

ARTICLE IX. General Provisions 

SECTION 9.01 GENERAL PLAN The City Council shall adopt, and may from time to time, modify a general plan setting forth policies to govern the development of the City. Such plan may cover the entire City and all of its functions and services or may consist of a combination of plans governing specific functions and services or specific geographic areas which together cover the entire City and all of its functions and services. The plan shall also serve as a guide to Council action concerning such City planning matters as land use, development regulations and capital improvements. 

SECTION 9.02 ZONING SYSTEM The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgement be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a singlefamily dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.” emphasis added

The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose specific ballot measures.  The Association supports following the Piedmont City Charter.

The Piedmont Civic Association advocates that the Piedmont City Charter, essentially Piedmont’s constitution, be followed and voters’ rights be known and followed.  As to the merits of voter approval of land use proposals being put forward by the Planning and Legal staff, the Piedmont Civic Association supports the Charter and allowing Piedmont voters to decide on what is their right to decide. 

The City has publicly stated the cost to put a ballot measure on a General election is minor. Even so, the City has every obligation to follow the law.  Questions of Charter language intent and definitions, voters must make the determination, and the Council must follow the Charter by putting the matter before the voters in regard to both area and land use in all zones.

The heritage and historic right of voters to determine land use in Piedmont cannot be removed by the new legal opinion.

The City Attorney’s recent legal zoning opinion of the City Charter can be read by clicking the link below:

Piedmont – Memo re Interpretation of Section 9.02 of City Charter

Citizen Opposition to Increased Height of Commercial Development Adjacent to Residences and Other Issues –

Neighbors near the Shell Station at Wildwood and Grand Avenues are circulating a petition to gather support for their proposals to protect Piedmont residents. The pervasive zoning matter, originating in the Planning Department, attempts to increase the height of commercial buildings next to Piedmont homes to 40′, reduce the size and number of parking spaces required, permit eaves and overhangs on all Piedmont buildings to extend to the property line, and require housing on upper levels of new commercial buildings.

The petition does not address the dormant breach per the City Charter precluding Piedmont voters of their right to control land use changes. The breach was proposed in 2012 and later approved by the Council.  No development has occurred while awaiting the controversial 2016 proposed regulations.

The Planning Commission meetings covering consideration of zoning changes has been found by some to thwart community input while proposing consequential negative impacts on residential properties near the commercial zones located on Grand Avenue and in the Civic Center on Highland Avenue, and thus impacting all of Piedmont.

Below is the petition being circulated:

https://www.change.org/p/piedmont-planning-commission-and-piedmont-city-council-maintain-zoning-regulations-that-protect-piedmont-residents    Don Dare and Miguel DeAvila Piedmont Residents

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed in the petition are those of the authors.

Lengthy explanations and community input at the August 10, 2016 School Board meeting –

Superintendent Randall Booker calmly and intricately explained the selection process, funding, and need for a full time Athletic Director (AD) for the high schools.

Speaking in support of the selection, need, responsibilities and funding of the position were parents and Booster Club members: Eric Sullivan, Lisa Reynolds, Allison Elvekrog, Barbara Love, Glyn Burge, Steve Kalmbach and Wendy Fitzgerald.

They provided examples of previously unmet needs and their personal experiences. The selection process was extensively detailed.  The funding contributions by the Booster Club of $50,000 and Education Foundation of $10,000 augment the funding provided by the District for a part-time Athletic Director.  Parents emphasized the complexity of the position and the problematic turnover in the position. The AD is responsible for scheduling facility space both for the schools and external organizations, while overseeing 49 teams and 175 coaches.  A timely filing of the position was a primary consideration.

Speaking against the proposed position and selection process were: Ralph Catalano, UC professor and parent, Neil Rothenberg, former Soccer and Tennis Coach, and Burt Curtin, resident. Concern was expressed on the emphasis on athletics and a potential detrimental impact to the overall academic needs of the District. The specific chosen Athletic Director presented concern to some.  It was noted that the significantly increased compensation for a full time AD had not been announced during the recruitment process.

Questions not discussed were:

• If the position is continued in future years, will the position be partially funded by outside sources or will the funding responsibility be absorbed within the District budget?

• Will payment for retirement benefits be based on the approximate $125,000 compensation for the full time Athletic Director and funded by the District?

Below is  a letter to the Piedmont Unified School District Families from Superintendent Booker and Principal Daniels explaining their choice and rationale:

Dear PUSD Families,

As the new school year approaches, and many high school athletes are already preparing for Fall sports, we’re writing to share some important information about the Piedmont Unified School District’s administration of student athletics.

PUSD is proud of its student-athletes and successful athletic program.  With over 500 athletes (65%+ of PHS and MHS students), 175 coaches, and 49 varsity, junior varsity, and frosh teams, high school athletics in PUSD is a robust and vital component of the student experience.

In past years, PUSD’s Athletics Director position was a part-time position filled by a teacher at PHS.  As discussed below, this model is no longer sustainable or appropriate.  Given the increase in scope and responsibilities of this position, and the administrative nature of the job, PUSD now requires a full-time Director of Athletics with specific administrative experience.

PUSD Requires A Full-Time Director of Athletics
Over the past 12 years, there has been a marked increase in the scope and responsibilities of the Athletics Director position.  This is due in part to the increase in the number of athletes and coaches, and the range of travel opportunities for our teams.  Given these changes, the responsibilities of the Athletics Director can no longer be fulfilled on a part-time basis.

Over this 12-year period, PUSD has had six different teachers serve this role. This turnover, due to both the growing demands and increasingly administrative nature of the job, has led to inconsistency in leadership and had a detrimental effect on our athletic program as reported by coaches, student-athletes, and families.  By recognizing the full-time nature of the position, PUSD can foster steady and consistent leadership of the athletic program.

The Director of Athletics Position is Administrative in Nature
The Director of Athletics position requires administrative duties that include responsibility for: recruiting, hiring, supervising, and evaluating coaches; development and oversight of the Athletic Department budget; monitoring student eligibility; serving as the school representative of the Western Alameda County Conference; partnering with the PHS Athletic Boosters; and coordinating team schedules, transportation, equipment, and supplies.  By recognizing the administrative nature of the position and hiring staff with relevant administrative experience, PUSD can provide a more effective athletics program that is more responsive to student needs.

The Director of Athletics Must Provide Leadership on Core PUSD Principles
PUSD believes that its athletics program can and should instill life lessons concerning sportsmanship, hard work, teamwork, and integrity, among other issues.  Although coaches can play a critical role in this, the reality is that coaches are now more transient than in the past.  Of our 175 coaches, only two serve as PUSD teachers, and many coaches are affiliated with PUSD for only one or two years.  For these reasons, the Director of Athletics must provide leadership for the coaching staff, guiding and cultivating the social and emotional curriculum for high school athletics, and setting expectations for coaches as well as athletes.  By hiring an experienced Director of Athletics, PUSD can more consistently promote these core values across all sports.

Creation of the New Athletics Director Position
Following the resignation of the former part-time Athletics Director in December of 2015, the District advertised the position to recruit an Interim Athletics Director on a contract basis for January through June of 2016.  The District received 22 applications.  An interview committee, consisting of administrators, coaches, and parents, interviewed five candidates.  Mr. Victor Acuña was selected for the interim position due to his extensive experience and positive recommendations.

Throughout the Spring of 2016, the PHS Administrative Team and the Athletic Booster’s continued discussing the need for increased athletic leadership. Recognizing the District’s limited budget, the PHS Athletic Boosters donated $50,000 for the 2016-17 school year to support a full-time Director of Athletics. The Piedmont Education Foundation also contributed $10,000 to help fund this position for the 2016-17 school year.

With this funding secured, and working in close collaboration with the PHS Athletic Boosters, PUSD created the Director of Athletics position for the 2016-17 school year.  The Director of Athletics will be included in the salary schedule of the Association of Piedmont School Administrators (APSA). The position has a base salary range of $74,068 – $103,048 (ranging from 1 to 22 years of experience), plus health and statutory benefits.

Selection of New Athletics Director
After working with Mr. Acuña during the Spring of 2016, Principal Daniels recommended that PUSD hire Mr. Acuña for the new position.  With support from the PHS Administrative Team, Athletic Booster’s leadership, and a variety of coaches, the Superintendent interviewed and appointed Mr. Acuña as the Director of Athletics.

Mr. Acuña is a graduate of Arizona State University with a Bachelor of Science in Justice Studies.  For 12 years, he was a high school Athletics Director in Tucson, Arizona at the Gregory School and the Green Fields Country Day School.  He has extensive experience in coordinating interscholastic athletic programs.  His strengths lie in working collaboratively with principals, teachers, coaches, student-athletes, and parents to create a supportive and successful athletic program.  He is knowledgeable in developing interscholastic schedules, supervising utilization of athletic facilities, coordinating athletic uses of training and weight rooms, monitoring student eligibility, and the recruitment, hiring, and evaluating of coaches.  Mr. Acuña has direct experience developing stable athletic operating budgets and supervising team accounts.  In addition, he was an associate scout for Major League Baseball.

The selection of Mr. Acuña has drawn considerable praise from those who worked closely with him this past Spring.  Principal Daniels said, “I am enthusiastic and excited for Vic and am thrilled with his positive energy, experience, and leadership qualities.  He is focused and driven to ensure that PHS offers an exceptional educational athletics program.”  PHS Athletic Booster’s President Beth Barrett added, “PHS Boosters is proud to partner with PUSD in supporting a full-time Director of Athletics. As interim Director of Athletics, Vic Acuña has proven a very capable leader who cares deeply about youth sports and will help create a healthy, positive and safe experience for all our student athletes.”

Please let us know if you have any questions or comments about the Director of Athletics position, and please don’t hesitate to contact Mr. Acuña directly about high school athletics at vacuna@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Sincerely,

Randall Booker, Superintendent Piedmont Unified School District

Brent Daniels, Principal Piedmont High School

After taking public testimony and considering the staff report, Board members present gave full and enthusiastic support to the ratification of a full time AD compensation, plus the appointment of Mr. Victor Acuna.

Board members expressed concern over the negative comments in the press regarding the applicant and the apparent lack of information on the selection process and District needs. The Board emphasized the important role athletics and other student activities play in benefiting students now and for their futures. The three affirming School Board members voting at the meeting were Doug Ireland, President Andrea Swenson, and Amal Smith. Board members Rick Raushenbush and Sarah Pearson were absent.

The  AD position is approved for one year and will be re-evaluated prior to continuation in the following year.

Paint and signage change the street crossings for 10 intersections in Piedmont.

Pavement with painted crosswalks, the word “STOP” and a stationary stop signs will give pedestrians safer street crossings at minimal cost.  City Administrator Paul Benoit reported the total cost for the 10 intersection improvements ($2,338 each), brings the revised total contract to $26,086, funded by Measure B and BB funds.

Painting “STOP” and  new crosswalk

The Kingston-Linda-Rose Triangle in Oakland and Piedmont is well under construction this summer.

On July 5, the City Council authorized a contract with Ray’s Electric for their “base bid of $207,362” for trench work for the intersection project providing crosswalks on the Oakland and Piedmont border with a large pedestrian island in the middle of Kingston Street. Three ornamental street lamps will be a feature of the Triangle.

Excavation of the new pedestrian triangle