Groups work to inform District of issues and concerns –

    On Tuesday night, April 18th, I attended the New High School Facilities Meeting in the Student Center. The topic was on the three possible new ways the high school is going to be remodeled in the near future. Every two weeks these meetings occurred; this meeting being the last of the three, but more will come later this month.

    Three options were displayed and described in a short video and then questions were welcomed. I stood and asked why in Option 3 the “PHS Offices” and “Millennium H.S.” were simply being swapped since it didn’t seem logical to me at the time. I got a response from the coordinator of the meeting, that the plan would allow the front offices of the high school to monitor closely who comes in and out of the campus. Today any stranger could walk onto our campus during school hours and no one might notice. After she addressed my question, it made much more sense to me.

    The issues of the overall remodeling of the campus were brought up and seemed extremely realistic, unfortunately. The first issue is a lack of real estate; in other words, there is not much other space than the campus we have to build in. The second issue is the campus being in a hard location with hills and streets to build on and the third issue is that while the school is being remodeled, there seems to be a lack of interim space for classrooms, offices, bathrooms, etc.

    Next on the agenda was group discussions. My group went around the table and each person, including myself, gave their likes and dislikes for each of the three plans. In my opinion, Option 2 is the best plan since it gives students a new STEAM building and also relocates and remodels the theater. Although the most important aspect of it was that unlike options 1 and 3, Option 2 does not intrude on the view students have from the quad, something that everyone at the school can appreciate. Option 1 had a large, 3 story STEAM building and seemed to promote traffic jams during all of the passing periods since a majority of the school’s students would be in one building. Option 3 didn’t appeal to me because it did not show any remodel or renovations to the theater, something that in my opinion should be a priority.

    After the groups discussed their thoughts, a final round of “Aha moments” and further questions began. I spoke out and responded to someone’s comment that even though the STEAM building in Option 3 takes away the view, students can still enjoy it from inside the building. My response was that, similar to Option 1, Option 3 would generate lots of traffic flow of students and teachers especially during lunch and also that realistically, unless its raining, most students at the high school and Millennium enjoy having lunch outside.

    After the meeting ended, I interviewed a former School Board member, Sue Smegal. She said that since she has four grandchildren in the Piedmont schools, it’s her responsibility to make sure the meetings offer good insight and eventually the right school overall. “We can’t lose the feel of the campus. When I walk on it [the campus] I feel happy, we can’t lose that,” she said. As for the future, she plans to go to the upcoming meetings and will always try her best to give her opinions and have her voice heard.

by Sam Watters, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions are those of the author.

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

Town Hall meeting produces new ideas for developing the high school.

    On April 1, there was a Piedmont School District Community Town Hall meeting to discuss the new high school facilities in the Piedmont High School Student Center. The purpose of this meeting was to get feedback on the three proposed options for the new high school facilities under Bond Measure H1. (Further discussions were held on April 6 and April 18.) 

     As the community was seated around tables, the meeting began with Superintendent Randy Booker and two facilitators Gina Bartlett and Julia Golomb introducing the school plans, including the budget and funding. A video was shown (one can find it on measureh1.org) and the key facts about each option were given with handouts showing each design outline, cost, classrooms, etc.

     Next, each table group split up and discussed each option. Beginning with option one, each person went around and said what they liked about it. Then each person spoke again, saying their concerns about the option being discussed. A scribe wrote down a “pros and cons” list on a large poster as the discussion continued and ideas were shared. This was repeated for each option.

     Once the groups completed discussing each option, they agreed on main objectives for the new high school facilities and what we wanted Piedmont High School’s “identity” to be. Next, a speaker from each group said their main insights as a group and what their main priorities for the school were.

     For option one, the main ideas that people were excited about was the new theater, but the group did not like having the new STEAM building so far away from the other classrooms.

     Option two has a new theater as well as a new STEAM building and an entrance and center point in the school.

     In option three, most people seemed to like the placement of the STEAM building, however, the Gym being in the middle of the school brought concerns about giving off the wrong idea of the school, isolating MHS more, and also having PE students running around the school to get down to the field.

    I thought that the theater was a main priority for the school and also a clear entrance and center point were the main objectives for the new facilities making me rule out the third option because it didn’t update the theater. Of course, there are many more positives and negatives about each option and other tradeoffs.

     Then, each group split off again and discussed new ideas and wrote them down on a poster. Some of these new ideas consisted of making the STEAM building two stories instead of three and moving the offices to the forties building. Other ideas were filling in the amphitheater and creating a place to eat or garden, using the space better. Simple ideas like just adding picnic tables or making the quad the center point of the school were also shared. Finally, each group expressed their new ideas and the meeting was wrapped up.

A variety of people showed up including Brad Hebert, who is on Randy Booker’s committee. Brad thought the meeting went very well, and “validated the committee’s hard work.” He is excited for the next steps the committee will take as they revise designs and work with architects to make their vision come to light. This meeting was exciting for PHS’s future and extremely informative. Community members walked away with new ideas and opinions.

By Addie Christensen, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Changes impact Second Units that are now called Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Governor Jerry Brown signed into law changes to Government Code Section 65852.2 (see below) in September 2016 materially limiting parking requirements for the development of Second Units and further enhancing ministerial approval of building permits, bypassing the community and its elected representatives. Piedmont’s ADU code has grown awkwardly with additions in 2003 and 2016 piled on top of the 1983 original language, resulting in numerous contradictions and conflicts.

When Piedmont’s Chapter 17 was recently (March 2017) approved by the City Council and Planning Commission, there was no indication in the volume of documents informing either the Council or Commission that the action they were taking would be impacted by the already in effect (January 2017) State law Government Code Section 65852.2. 

The new staff proposal is to revise the revised April 2017 Chapter 17 zoning laws which relaxed building requirements such as setbacks, lot size, parking requirements facilitating additional housing within existing houses and structures. 

Residents vary in their opinions regarding housing expansion in Piedmont through Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)/ Second Units.  Many like the changes as a way to stay in their homes as they age or add income through rentals plus allowing Piedmont to meet regional housing needs.  Others question the unassessed and unevaluated impact on public services, neighborhood quality, density, parking needs, community support, and traffic impacts. 

65852.2 includes permission for cities:

… a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.

Piedmont’s proposed code states:

Parking. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, any required replacement parking spaces may be located in any configuration on the lot. (Gov’t. Code §65852.2 (a)(1)(D)(xi).)

[No setback is required for an existing garage.]

b. Setbacks. No setback is required for an existing garage that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit. If an accessory dwelling unit is constructed above an existing garage, the minimum setback is five feet from the side and rear lot line. (Gov’t. Code §65852.2 (a)(1)(D)

(7).)3. Owner occupancy. Except for an exempt accessory dwelling unit, the owner of an accessory dwelling unit must occupy either the primary unit or the accessory dwelling unit, if both units are used for habitation. The owner must record with the County Recorder a declaration of restrictions, in a form provided by the city.

 Staff is given authority by state law to make decisions on projects without public input or notification.

QUESTIONS:

• Will the City have to add more staffing to oversee affordable unit compliance?
• Some City’s require affordable units to remain affordable for 20 years rather than Piedmont’s term of 10 years. Why did Piedmont pick a 10 year term for affordability?.
• Once a unit no longer falls into the affordable category will the forgiven parking requirement continue to be forgiven or will existing units have to return for a new permit level?
• Does the City have adequate public services for increased demands – street widths, parking needs, public safety, and city staffing?
• Will Piedmont taxpayers be required to pay more for the increase in public services or will the new units be taxed to cover expenses?
• How many ADU units are projected in Piedmont?
• How will the units be taxed ?
• Why wasn’t the Council and public informed  of the upcoming changes based on State Law 65852.2 before approval of the redoing of Chapter 17  by the Council and Planning Commission that lessened parking requirements for existing properties, such as parking sizes, covered parking requirements, allowing tandem parking, etc.. ?
• If a garage is removed, must the existing house meet their parking requirements?
• Can an accessory structure be built on the property line and then converted to an ADU?
• What measures will the City use to identify traffic or safety when applications are presented?
• If there is no notice procedure, how is a neighbor to know if an application has been filed or how to appeal a decision?
• How will the City know when a neighborhood is overly impacted with additional traffic issues from ADUs?
• What will the application and permit fees be for an ADU?
• What has happened to Piedmont’s covered parking requirements?
• Will ADUs be reappraised for County property tax purposes?
• Since the School District only taxes parcels, does this mean ADUs will not be taxed for School Bond measures and voter approved extra property taxes?
• Did the City Council take a position on State Law 65852.2 when it was being considered by the legislators and governor?

_______________________________________________

City Planning Department announcement:

Planning Commission to Discuss Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE REGULATIONS FORACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN CITY CODE CHAPTER 17

The Commission will hold a hearing to consider an ordinance to revise City Code Chapter 17 regarding the regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The proposed revisions are in response to the changes to Government Code Section 65852.2 resulting from the enactment of Assembly Bill 2299 and Senate Bill 1069. These changes limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as Second Units. The provisions affected by the changes to State law include, but are not limited to, off-street parking requirements, unit size limitations, and application approval timelines. The State laws permit cities to adopt ADU ordinances as long as the ordinance is consistent with the State laws and imposes certain local standards. The Commission may take action to make a recommendation of adoption to the City Council. The proposed amendments do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA, and therefore are exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regulations section 15378.

Mon., Apr. 10th – 5:00PM

[ADU’s will be considered at the beginning of the meeting]  held in the
City Council Chambers – City Hall

The meeting will be broadcast on Cable Channel 27 and from the City website under videos.

Read the full staff report, which includes the proposed ordinance at the end.  Click > here.

_________________________________________

The January 2017 State law controlling second units/ ADUs is below:

65852.2.   (a) (1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance shall do all of the following:

(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.

(B) (i) Impose standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places.

(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction.

(C) Provide that accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot.

(D) Require the accessory dwelling units to comply with all of the following:

(i) The unit is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence and may be rented.

(ii) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use and contains an existing, single-family dwelling.

(iii) The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to the existing dwelling or located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling.

(iv) The increased floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing living area, with a maximum increase in floor area of 1,200 square feet.

(v) The total area of floorspace for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.

(vi) No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.

(vii) No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to a accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage.

(viii) Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate.

(ix) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required.

(x) (I) Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on an existing driveway.

(II) Off­street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction.

(III) This clause shall not apply to a unit that is described in subdivision (d).

(xi) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, and the local agency requires that those off­street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts. This clause shall not apply to a unit that is described in subdivision (d).

(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

(3) When a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits, within 120 days after receiving the application. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it incurs as a result of amendments to this paragraph enacted during the 2001–02 Regular Session of the Legislature, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.

(4) An existing ordinance governing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by a local agency or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency subsequent to the effective date of the act adding this paragraph shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. In the event that a local agency has an existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void upon the effective date of the act adding this paragraph and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of accessory dwelling units, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.

(5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision.

(6) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for residential use that contains an existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.

(7) A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an accessory dwelling unit if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision.

(8) An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

(b) When a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a) receives its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to subdivision (a) within 120 days after receiving the application.

(c) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached accessory dwelling units. No minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.

(d) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a), shall not impose parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances:

(1) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of public transit.

(2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.

(3) The accessory dwelling unit is part of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure.

(4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.

(5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.

(e) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create within a single-family residential zone one accessory dwelling unit per single-family lot if the unit is contained within the existing space of a single-family residence or accessory structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.

(f) (1) Fees charged for the construction of accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012).

(2) Accessory dwelling units shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of calculating local agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service.

(A) For an accessory dwelling unit described in subdivision (e), a local agency shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge.

(B) For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subdivision (e), a local agency may require a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its size or the number of its plumbing fixtures, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.

(g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.

(h) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption.

(i) As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.

(2) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered.

(3) For purposes of this section, “neighborhood” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 65589.5.

(4) “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:

(A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code.

(B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.

(5) “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit.

(j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.

(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 735, Sec. 1.5. Effective January 1, 2017.)

During the town hall meetings the School District will ask the community to consider questions such as:

•  What do you like/dislike about each concept design?
•  Which of these concept designs best meet our educational goals and priorities?

•  Do you have another concept design that fits within the constraints of the budget, site topography, etc.?
  A short video that provides an overview of three concept designs for new high school STEAM facilities can be viewed here > https://youtu.be/lOhWHostJYc  
• More detailed information about each of the three concept designs can be viewed here >https://goo.gl/WkfFfe  
• Additional town hall meetings will be held next year to discuss elementary school classrooms;
• The three upcoming town hall meetings will focus specifically on concept designs for the high school.Those who can’t attend one of the three town hall meetings can go to the Measure H1 website — > www.measureh1.org — to learn about and provide comment on the concept designs.
• Community feedback on the concept designs will also be accepted at the Piedmont School Maker Faire on April 23, 11:00 a.m.- 3:00 p.m. at Piedmont High School.
• “The District’s paramount goal is to provide an extraordinary education that prepares students for higher education and careers, and STEAM education is at the forefront of these efforts.  STEAM courses emphasize critical reasoning, computational thinking, and skills to articulate and defend ideas. These skills are essential for nearly every career in today’s economy and, regardless of future education and careers, these skills are essential for life in the digital age. “With voter approval of Measure H1, the District looks forward to modernizing labs and other infrastructure to support robust STEAM education, now and in the future,” said Superintendent Booker.”
  

  $66 M Bond funds may be used to:

•  Construct new high school facilities to support instruction of Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (“STEAM”).
•  Renovate or replace school facilities to support student learning and upgrade antiquated mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and ventilation systems.
•  Add elementary classrooms for extended-day kindergarten.
•  Implement energy-efficiency measures to reduce operating expenses and mitigate environmental impacts.
•  Enhance campus security across all campuses.

Comments may be sent to the School Board by going to >  http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/board-of-education/members/

 

Mark your calendar for the fun Grand Opening of Piedmont’s own thrift store: April 1st at 3411 Lakeshore Avenue. (between Shakewell and Greetings stores). And feel good shopping as proceeds from store sales support Piedmont’s K-12 schools.  

Opening Day is Saturday, April 1 –  11am – 6pm 

 Dress Best for Less

MAP >3411 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, CA  

 Regular store hours are Wednesday – Sunday, 11am-6pm

Great Items For Sale and Opening Week Raffle Prizes 

“We’ve stocked the racks with some beautiful designer and other high quality pieces for men and women and great kids items: clothes, books and toys… all at a fraction of retail. And through the first week, shoppers will receive a raffle ticket (no purchase necessary) for one of three great prizes: an American Girl bundle, A Stella and Dot clutch and necklace or a Summer tote stocked with a beach toy, books, and a towel to get you set for the sunshine. Winners will be chosen on Saturday April 8th, and need not be present to win.”

Join the Mailing List to Stay Informed

Sign up for Dress Best for Less mailing list to receive more information.

Contact: Dress Best for Less –   510-658-8525    shopdbfl@gmail.com   dressbestforless.org/

~~~~~  Donations  ~~~~~

Donations can be delivered to the Dress Best for Less store on Lakeshore Avenue or to the Carriage House in Piedmont at the corner of Bonita and Magnolia Avenues.  The long standing Carriage House location has a secure bin in which donations can be deposited at anytime. 

Entire DBFL Store on Sale – 75% Off!

Where

Dress Best for Less
3861 Piedmont Ave
Oakland, CA 94610

Shop the Dress Best for Less store on Piedmont Avenue the rest of March for amazing deals. The entire store is now 75% off. Shop for women’s, men’s and children’s clothing, books, CDs, DVDs, home decor and more. Already great prices will be even better.

Proceeds support school programs for the Piedmont K-12 schools.

Spring Cleaning?

Mark Your Calendar:

  Grand Opening of new Dress Best for Less store

Saturday, April 1

at 3411 Lakeshore Avenue

Think of Dress Best for Less for your gently used, high quality donations. Volunteers are hoping to stock the new store at 3411 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland with the best of the best including designer clothing, purses, jewelry and fine home goods. Your quality donations help sales with the proceeds passed on to Piedmont schools.

Donations may be dropped off in Piedmont at the Carriage House (DBFL) next to the pool, across from the Arts Center and High School at Magnolia and Bonita Avenues.  A secure bin is now available for donations at all times.

Student wants community to have more information on District Bond activities along with developing good programs for healthy relationships. 

When Sarah Pearson called the Piedmont School Board meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. on Wednesday, March 8th, there were more people sitting behind the dark wooden semi-circular desk than in the audience. The School Board meets to discuss and shape the future of Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) every other Wednesday evening, unless a special meeting arises or the Wednesday falls over a school break. At this meeting, the three main items on the agenda were updates on the H1 Bond funding measure passed in June of 2016, the Healthy Relationships curriculum at the high school, and suicide prevention measures.

To begin, Max Miller, Millennium High School’s Vice President spoke on behalf of the Piedmont High and Millennium High community, updating the school board on upcoming events. From the annual Falcon fundraising dinner switching the style of catering to the upcoming plays at Piedmont High School (PHS), both campuses were bustling with spring time activities. After Miller spoke, a community member read a speech without telling the audience or school board it’s origins. When he finished the excerpt, he asked everyone if they knew where it was from. Stumping the entire room, he revealed it was written by Pericles over 2,000 years ago, noting it’s parallel to the Gettysburg Address by the 16th President Abraham Lincoln. This non sequitur speech segwayed into the Board updates from all five board members present. Recalling all the meetings they attended, each school-related meeting had anywhere from one to four school board members in attendance. Superintendent Booker talked about the search to find a new PHS principal.

Sam Williamson spoke after the updates about the memorial service for his kindergarten teacher which was held simultaneously in the Veterans Hall. He passed around a picture of himself with his teacher; she will be missed by all her students and the entire Wildwood School community.

The first item on the agenda addressed the budgeting strategy the District will take to build a new building and an update on the lengthy process to find a contractor. Chris Delong spoke on behalf of his firm that was hired by the District to look into the process of getting state funding to help construct the new science building. Delong presented his ideas, hoping to be rehired by the District to continue his work with PUSD. Having worked years in Sacramento, Delong knows first hand the tedious work it takes to tap into the seismic construction fund, and he wants to help Piedmont with that task. The Board unanimously rehired his firm after questions by School Board members Amal Smith and Andrea Swenson.

Michael Brady updated the Board on the successful search for a construction firm. The new firm has outstanding references and consistently showed they can both work with a time limit and budget. However, I think that this H1 funding measure needs more transparency. The Piedmont community deserves more updates about how their money is being spent and what exactly is being done to ensure the building of new science buildings. Whether that’s through the Piedmont Post, or an email, the District should do a better job conveying their progress.

The next item, also presented by Brady, showed the School Board PUSD is following the new laws Governor Brown passed surrounding “Yes means Yes” legislation and Healthy Relationships education. Brady touched on the contents of the law, the Healthy Kids survey to be taken in April throughout middle school and high school, and what work has already been done to address these standards. One facet of the survey that was brought up by both Smith and City Council member Jen Cavanaugh was the decision not to question middle schoolers about their sexual activity. Brady and Booker believed that more thought needed to be put into these questions before throwing them on the survey.

City Council member Cavenaugh took time to speak with me after the meeting about the importance of healthy relationships. She expressed, “I am passionate about creating a community that values healthy relationships.” After the District sent an email out that afternoon reflecting much of what Brady said at the meeting, Cavenaugh sent an email to School Board members that very evening, then brought her notes to the meeting and spoke about the importance of starting the discussion about healthy relationships at a young age. Cavenaugh will continue to work within the Healthy Relationships Committee to ensure Piedmont plays it’s part in educating its students.

I spoke out at this meeting about weaving the healthy relationships discussion into our English classrooms through a diversification of the curriculum.

The next school board meeting will be on March 22nd at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers and is open to the public.

by Danny De Bare, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

    On March 8th the Piedmont Unified School District School Board meeting took place in City Hall.  The meeting takes place every month and this particular meeting started off with a run down of all the recent activities and school related topics that the board members felt needed to be addressed.  The Millennium High School representative, Max Miller, addressed recent and upcoming events for both PHS and MHS.  He talked about the plays coming up (The Clearing and Sense and Sensibility), gave an athletics overview for the spring sports teams, and touched on the annual fundraiser that MHS students organize in March.  The MHS community dinner seemed to be a crowd favorite among all the board members and Max Miller mentioned how they are trying a catering service instead of having the students serve the food.  At least four of the board members raved about the recent musical production, Legally Blonde, put on by Amy Moorhead and claimed it was a community builder.  Other than the updates on high school events there was talk of a speaker series, Provocative Talk for Parents, Math and Information Night for ninth graders, and the Proposed Gated Havens meeting.  The Superintendent, Randall Booker was recognized for his great efforts in organizing a lot of events as well as searching for a new principle in replacement of Brent Daniels

    After the board members introduced different topics, they gave the audience a chance to speak about topics that were not on the agenda.  Dimitri Magganas spoke about his support for International Women’s Day that took place on March 8th.  Chris Dewong and Mr. Brady talked about H1 and how Piedmont was one of the first schools to apply for school funding.  Chris Dewong mentioned different construction programs such as the New construction and Modernization program.  The New construction would take place if a new school needed to be built or portables needed to be replaced by a new building.  Modernization is a project to enhance the educational environment of a preexisting facility.  Lastly, Mr.Brady brought up his Healthy Relationships survey.  Mr.Brady’s survey dealt with students and their relations to other people as well as their comfort with issues like STIs, contraceptives, sex, drugs and etc. The survey seemed very useful and helpful for the school board and parents to get a grasp on how advanced the students at PHS/MHS are and if any actions need to take place to spread awareness about safe sex and protection. This topic sparked lots of audience members, including myself to discuss their feelings on the effectiveness of the survey and if PUSD had done a good job in the past promoting healthy relationships.  While I was speaking, I provided Mr. Brady with a suggestion for his survey.  He earlier mentioned how he was having trouble deciding whether not to give the survey to middle school students and that he had mixed feelings from parents on the subject as well.  I thought it would be a good idea to offer the survey to only high school students the first year and on the survey have a question asking the students if they would have felt comfortable answering these questions when they were in middle school.  I thought this would be a good solution because it gives anonymous advice from students that were very recently in the same shoes as the middle schoolers and are more in touch with what steps the middle schoolers are at.

    I interviewed Dimitri Magganas before the School Board Meeting and he stated that he regularly attends the school board meetings and is a huge supporter of H1.  He mentioned that even though he is in favor of H1, he has many concerns regarding the measure.  The measure requires construction and contractors and Dimitri mentioned how expensive contractors are and the skyrocketing prices for east bay construction costs.  He had a very interesting and unique way to look at the H1 proposal and was very insightful.

by Mia Arthur, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

An underlying goal of the building code changes (Chapter 17) is to increase housing density in lower Piedmont and provide more affordable housing.

On Monday, March 20, 2017, the Council plans to approve an ordinance that will mean more houses, more apartments, and reduced parking requirements in Piedmont. The City Council on March 6, approved the first reading of the massive rewriting and changes to Chapter 17 of the Piedmont City Code.  The second reading is planned at the March 20 Council meeting.

Council members are convinced that Piedmonters have been informed and engaged in the process.

In a cursory survey of Piedmonters, few had any substantive knowledge of the proposed changes with the exception of changes to Grand Avenue and short term rentals.

On March 6, the Council members decided to remove consideration of short term rentals and commercial property regulations on Grand Avenue pending further input from the public.

The Grand Avenue neighbors have been active and organized in attempting to make new regulations compatible with the neighborhood.

Civic Center Apartments

One citizen, Ted Kinch, referred to the 92% of Piedmonters who responded to the heavily relied upon 2007 Survey, who expressed their preference to keep the small town feeling of Piedmont.  Kinch emphasized the potential problems from adding apartments in the Civic Center – above the Wells Fargo Building and Mulberry’s.  He mentioned that watching children walk to school was refreshing and should not be threatened by increased traffic and parking.

Council approved the proposed building code changes for apartments to be permitted in the Civic Center.  There has been no organized opposition from any neighborhood group, school representative, or emergency service person in regard to traffic, safety, or congestion next to emergency services and schools in the Civic Center.

Inquiry

Only a few of the numerous code revisions received inquiry by the Council members.  The exception was Council member Jen Cavenaugh, liaison to the Planning Commission, who questioned reduced off-street parking requirements for residences and businesses, structures allowed to be built up to the property line, and for profit businesses in public buildings, amongst other issues.

Cavenaugh questioned the likelihood Estates Zone residents would want their neighbors building up to the property line, “Not wanting people to be on top of each other in that way.”

There has been no indication that Piedmont residents in lower Piedmont (Zone A) would accept their neighbors building a structure up to the property line. Planning Director Kevin Jackson claimed the intent was to encourage property owners to build garages and structures at the back of the lot to leave more open space.

Mayor Jeff Wieler was concerned about the reduction in Zone A (residential) lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet.  He stated,  “Our lords and masters in Sacramento… we’re suddenly changing our zoning to satisfy some bureaucrat up in Sacramento. I resent it.”

Council members Teddy King and Tim Rood quickly defended the reduction in parcel size in lower Piedmont as an effort by Piedmont to assist in supplying the area with more housing plus more affordable housing.

King stated, “This is actually a component of the entire revision process (Chapter 17) so that we meet the requirements and spirit of the housing needs in the Bay Area. … To the extent that some of the controversial elements in this proposal have caught the attention of Piedmonters, it is important to explain that many of these changes we didn’t dream up. They are tied to other efforts put in place by State and Federal authorities. We don’t conceive of our own housing and density in a vacuum.”

Parking

Although a lack of adequate off-street parking has been a major issue in numerous Planning Commission applications, King and Rood liked reducing the off street parking requirements to encourage a reduction in automobile usage and an increase in transit ridership. Bedroom additions will no longer necessarily trigger the need to provide off-street parking.

The Planning Commission has been responsible in the past for determining if traffic, parking and safety impact applications, yet traffic and parking studies are not required by the process potentially leaving the matter to subjective opinions.

Short term rentals deferred once more.

A short term rental (under 30 days) prohibition was held for further consideration maintaining the status quo of no City enforcement of ongoing short term rentals. According to Piedmont’s existing Home Occupation Ordinance, all home businesses, including airbnb, require homeowners to obtain a business license and Home Occupation Permit. Short term rentals currently do not qualify for a home occupation permit because the home business owner cannot use a residential property addresse in advertisements or for client access. Organized interest by promoters of short term rentals has been active. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to prohibit short term rentals.  Seeking further input, the Council has not acted on the pending short term rental issue during a three year period.

The Council meeting will be held on Monday, March 20, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber to act on the ordinance changes.  Viewing is available on Channel 27 and from the City website.

Staff report for Item #7 on the agenda.

Draft minutes of March 6, 2017 Council meeting when zoning issues were previously considered.

Agenda for March 20, 2017 Council meeting

The School Board meeting held on March 8, 2017 addressed a variety of issues, including the nomination of a contractor to oversee the H1 Bond measure, a recap of the past and upcoming events at the high school, and a presentation regarding the newly proposed specifications of a healthy relationship and healthy student curriculum in the middle and high schools.

    Chris Delong presented to the School Board recapping the state requirements and allocation specifications for schools to receive state funding. Mr. DeLong noted how the newly passed proposition (Prop 51) has three avenues for schools to receive state funding: new construction  ($3 billion in state budget), modernization ($3 billion), and career, technology, and charter schools ($500 million). Mr. deLong also mentioned that in the H1 Bond measure, the state will grant no more than 60% of the proposed renovations, leaving the school responsible for raising the other 40%.

    The recap of high school related events included the recent plays of “Sense and Sensibility” and “The Clearing,” performed on March 9-12 by Piedmont’s advanced acting class. There was also mention of the school’s March Madness 3v3 Basketball Tournament, PHS’ first ever night rally, and a summary of recent sporting events and accomplishments.

    Finally, Mr. Brady, head of the Wellness Center, gave an informative recap of a proposed curriculum the wellness center is trying to initiate at the High School. The curriculum involves a survey called The Healthy Kids Survey, which is given to all high school students every other year. This survey asks students about their drug and alcohol use, as well as their feelings about the safety and security on campus. Using this information, the Wellness Center was able to craft a customized and modern code for its wishes on the well-being of PHS students.

     Another area of concern for the Wellness Center was addressing healthy relationships at both the High School and Middle School. Seeing the term “relationships” as an ambiguous phrase, the Wellness Center is doing its best to come up with a curriculum that best addressed the ever-changing expectations and norms with teenage “relationships.”

How did you end up working at the wellness center?

    Mr. Brady was kind enough to answer some questions following his presentation, and reflected on his desire to pursue a leadership role in the Wellness Center. “l’ve been in the District since 2003, when l was hired as the Millennium High School principal.  Since then, l have held a number of positions in the District, including the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services until 2014.  I have also been in charge of Adult Education Programs in PUSD for as long as I have been here, and since 2014, my “official” title is Director of Alternative/Adult Education (which includes serving as the Director of the Wellness Center).”

   Brady further stated,  “l have also been recently appointed by the Board of Education to serve as the program coordinator for the measure H1 Bond program.  So, in essence, l will be overseeing all of the newly planned renovations for the Piedmont High School campus.  That is why you saw me introduce our state funding consultant and answer questions about the selection of the District’s architect last night.”

Additionally Brady noted, “When l was the Assistant Superintendent, l coordinated the rebuilding of Havens Elementary, seismic strengthening at Beach, Wildwood, and PHS, and the modernization of our technology infrastructure.  I have always been in contact with the Wellness Center (since its inception in 2006), but it was in my role as the District’s Business Manager.  l worked to secure funding for the Wellness Center through grants and through the amazing support of parents who raise funds each year to sustain our program.  In my early days in education, l was a classroom teacher (high school english), high school counselor, and high school administrator.  I believe in the mission of the Wellness Center, and when former director Ting Hsu Engleman resigned, l was happy to step into the role.”

    Mr. Brady’s role in creating a platform for healthy relationships at the High School was noted by audience member Danny DeBarre, who noted that another great tool for the education of healthy relationships is the consent assembly. As a member of the acting class, Danny has had the privilege of performing in the assembly on numerous occasions, and has seen adaptations annually to address the changes in our society on the matter. Danny noted that these adaptations to the assembly are what makes it powerful each and every year, and sets a wonderful precedent for students to know exactly what it means to be in a happy and consensual relationship.

Sarah Pearson, School Board President, mentioned how much she appreciates student input on matters that the School Board may not have known without that student sacrificing his or her own time for the good of the community.

    In terms of healthy relationships, I totally agree that Piedmont must establish a curriculum to address this issue. With the ubiquitous storyline of rapes and title IX violations across college campuses, Piedmont must stop the issue before it infects the students at our very school. One way we can learn ways to implement a curriculum is through a summit called “That’s not cool” in the Presidio each year. In attendance, there were many great ideas presented illustrating the variety of means schools have used to create healthy relationship awareness in their districts.

    The School Board is responsible for collecting community input on the District, managing the budget, and overseeing all academic related events in the dDistrict. The School Board meets on the second and fourth Wednesday of every month at 7 pm in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

by Jordan Marcus, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

    On March 8th, 2017, the School Board had its monthly meeting at City Hall. The School Board meets to talk about issues and events that relate to the Piedmont Unified School District. There were a few major issues discussed at this meeting.

   The beginning of the discussion was a round of announcements about current events by the members of the Board, such as Max Miller (Millennium High School representative), Superintendent Randall Booker, School Board President Sarah Pearson, and others. Much of the discussion was about the H1 Bond (School Facilities), which was voted on by Piedmont and passed recently. A man came up to the podium to talk about bonds for the H1 funding, talking about state grants and programs such as the Career Technical Education program. Board member Cory Smegal also talked about interviewing architects for the building at the high school which is partially what H1 does.

    Aside from H1, a variety of other things were touched upon. Many members of the Board praised Piedmont High School plays, and said that they brought the community together.

    The Wellness Center was also mentioned multiple times, and was also praised by the Board members.

    Towards the end of the meeting a man came up and gave a powerpoint about sexual assault prevention and healthy relationships. There is a plan to give surveys to students about sex, rape, contraceptives, pornography, STI’s, etc. There was a debate on if the survey should be given to middle schoolers or just high schoolers. Personally, I think that it should be given to middle schoolers because despite our youth at that time, we are more knowledgeable than adults seem to realize about those topics.

    Before the meeting, I was able to interview Mr. Dimitri Magganas. Mr. Magganas is a regular at city meetings, citing an interest in dealing with city issues. He is mostly interested in H1, which he is in favor of. Despite being in favor of it,  we talked for a long time about the difficulty of finding a contractor, and how the time and cost of building is rising in the east bay.

    In the meeting however, Mr. Magganas went to the podium to talk about International Women’s Day and not H1, as he said in my interview, he was not worried about getting involved with H1 until later on in the process.

    During the middle of the meeting, my kindergarten teacher’s death was mentioned, as there was a memorial service that night. I had gone to the service before the meeting, and decided to speak about her. I was nervous to speak, but was glad I was able to talk about her as she had a big impact on me as a little kid.

By Sam Williamson, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.