Apr 29 2019

Final Consideration of New Design Guidelines: Planning Commission Monday, May 13

Landscaping and Buildings

Piedmont Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, May 13th – 5:00 p.m.  City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue

The meeting will be broadcast live on cable Channel 27 and from the City’s website under videos/ Planning Commission.

Updating and reformatting the guidelines for single-family residential construction, new guidelines for multi-family residential construction, commercial and mixed-use construction commercial signage, and landscaping are being considered.

At its meetings on May 13th, the Planning Commission will consider updates to the city’s Design Guidelines, which provide a framework for actions of staff and the Planning Commission in making decisions regarding Planning Applications from residents.  At the May 13th meeting, the Commission will take testimony from the public, continue its discussion, and consider a recommendation to the City Council.

Background

This project to update and reformat the City of Piedmont Design Guidelines is the fifth and final phase of policy updates undertaken in response to the adoption of the General Plan in 2009 and the Housing Element in 2011. The first four phases were related to revisions of City Code Chapter 17 (the Zoning Ordinance) and were completed between 2012 and 2017. Specifically, Action 28.E in the Design and Preservation Element of the 2009 General Plan calls for the City’s Design Guidelines to be updated.

Draft updated Design Guidelines

In addition to updating and reformatting the guidelines for single-family residential construction, the draft update includes new guidelines for multi-family residential construction, commercial and mixed-use construction commercial signage, and landscaping.

A chapter that includes design guidelines for wireless communication facilities will be added at a future date. In addition to the links below to the electronic copy of the draft Guidelines, print copies are available for viewing at Piedmont City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.

Draft City of Piedmont Design Guidelines, dated March 2019.

This document is comprised of seven chapters, plus a table of contents and glossary. Copies of each section may be downloaded at the links below:

April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting

Related Documents

City Council to Consider Adoption

The Planning Commission’s recommendation concerning the draft Design Guidelines will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration, as it is the decision making body for this matter. The date of Council consideration will be publicized well in advance of the meeting.

Public Engagement

Public comment is invited throughout the process. Interested members of the public are encouraged to read the draft Design Guidelines and staff report, and attend the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 5:00 p.m. Monday, May 13, 2019 in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue. Written comments and requests to receive email notification of activities related to the Design Guidelines update should be sent to Planning Director Kevin Jackson at kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov. Comments on paper can also be submitted by hand or by mail to the Piedmont Planning Commission or City Council at 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

READ the full agenda here > May 2019 Planning comAgenda

Apr 17 2019

OPINION: A Fair and Legal School Support Tax

Our Piedmont community will soon be asked to renew the School Support Tax that funds roughly 25% of the Piedmont Unified School District’s (PUSD) budget. Because the State does not adequately fund education, the School Support Tax is critical to maintaining the excellence of Piedmont schools.

The current School Support Tax (Measure A), approved by the community in 2013, taxes each taxable parcel the same amount. In recent letters, Mr. Rick Schiller advocates what he terms a “progressive tax” to replace Measure A. Mr. Schiller proposes that the next tax: (1) apply a uniform tax rate to the square feet of buildings on a taxable parcel, rather than a uniform amount to each taxable parcel, thus shifting more of the cost of schools to owners of large homes; (2) impose a lower rate on unimproved lots; (3) include an “income based senior exemption”; and (4) continue to include “compassionate SSI and SSDI exemptions,” which exempt property owners below certain poverty levels.

The next School Support Tax should fairly allocate a community cost and must indisputably comply with the law. Mr. Schiller’s proposal exposes PUSD to litigation risk that I believe would be imprudent to accept. Further, I do not consider Mr. Schiller’s proposed tax to be “progressive.”

I must start with the litigation risk (excuse the detail), which could impose unaffordable costs on PUSD and potentially leave our schools unfunded. Piedmont’s School Support Tax is a “qualified special tax” authorized by California Government Code § 50079, which provides such a tax “means special taxes that apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the school district, except that unimproved property may be taxed at a lower rate than improved property.” (Emphasis added).

In Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District, 214 Cal.App.4th 135 (2013), the Court invalidated Alameda’s school parcel tax (Measure H), which taxed residential and commercial properties, and commercial properties above and below 2000 square feet, differently. The plaintiffs argued that Section 50079 “means all taxpayers and all real property must be treated the same, and school districts are not empowered to treat different kinds of taxpayers, and different kinds of real property, differently.” Id. at 147. The Court agreed, holding that Section 50079 “does not empower school districts to classify taxpayers and property, and impose different tax rates.” Id. at 151. The Court found it could “sever” the invalid parts of Measure H, and upheld a parcel tax of $120 per parcel. Id. at 166-67.

Mr. Schiller, and others before him, have argued that Borikas does not bar a tax under Section 50079 based on a uniform rate per square foot (either of land or buildings). Borikas did not expressly rule on such a tax. However, Borikas found it must follow Section 50079’s text, and the text refers to “special taxes that apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property.” It does not refer to a uniform rate, but to a tax that applies uniformly.

The tax imposed on small vs. large parcels/homes would be different under a “per square foot” tax. Further, looking to Section 50079’s legislative history, Borikas rejected Alameda’s claim that it would be unfair for “all parcels [to] bear the same tax, regardless of size,” noting: “The Legislature was aware, however, that uniform parcel taxes were considered ‘more inequitable’ than ad valorem property taxes because all parcels, regardless of size, are subject to the same tax. … Nevertheless, the Legislature made no adjustments or provisions in this regard.” Id. at 158 (emphasis added); accord id. at fn. 27.

Nothing since Borikas has removed the risk that a Piedmont “per square foot” tax under Section 50079 will be ruled invalid. In 2014, SB 1021 was introduced in the California Legislature to amend Section 50079 to expressly authorize a “per square foot” tax—it did not pass. In 2018, the Legislature adopted AB 2954, which amended Section 50079 to allow school districts to tax unimproved property “at a lower rate than improved property,” but did not authorize a “per square foot” tax.  While the reference to a “rate” rather than an “amount,” provides an argument that uniformity refers to “rate” also, there is no ruling on point.

Mr. Schiller notes that the Alameda Superior Court has twice upheld Alameda School District’s later parcel taxes, which impose a “per square foot” taxes. However, the Alameda Superior Court also upheld Measure H, and the lawsuits against Alameda’s later taxes were settled before the First District Court of Appeals, which issued Borikas, ruled on appeal.

Mr. Schiller also relies on Dondlinger v. Los Angeles County Regional Park, No. B284932 (2019), but that case addressed Pub. Resources Code § 5566, a different statute, which expressly states that a park district may establish a “rate” which “is to be applied uniformly.” Further, Dondlinger is a Second District decision; Piedmont is in the First District, which is governed by the Borikas decision.

Until the First District Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court upholds a “per square foot” school parcel tax, or the Legislature amends Section 50079 to expressly allow such a tax, I do not think it is prudent for PUSD to take the litigation risk of asking Piedmonters to approve such a tax. Litigation could cost $100,00 to $500,000, depending upon motions, trial and appeals. PUSD does not have that to spare. Moreover, to feel secure in spending the tax revenue, PUSD would have to file a validation action, but that simply ensures any litigation starts quickly.

While it is possible that no Piedmont property owner would challenge such a tax, there is no way to remove the risk. (Note that Alameda’s parcel taxes have been challenged three times). PUSD could not spend the tax revenue until any litigation is resolved, as PUSD would have no way to pay back the taxes collected if the tax ultimately were held invalid. Further, because PUSD cannot fund its school budget without a parcel tax, if the tax was challenged, PUSD would have to run another parcel tax election immediately, at additional significant expense. Under Mr. Schiller’s proposal, PUSD (and every Piedmont family with school children) would take this risk so that owners of small homes could pay less than owners of large homes. There are times when accepting litigation risk is necessary. This is not one of them.

I also believe that the School Support Tax must be fair to Piedmont residents. The Piedmont schools benefit every resident. For nearly everyone, our children have gone, are going, or will go to school. Piedmont residents have shared the cost of public education no matter where they are in this cycle. Moreover, the excellence of the Piedmont schools is why Piedmont homes are so valuable. Further, an available and excellent public education is fundamental to civil society, and we all have a civic duty to ensure it. Asking the owner of each taxable parcel to pay the same amount seems fair to me. I include unimproved parcels as the Piedmont schools make those parcels valuable.

A “progressive” tax generally is perceived as taxing wealthy people more by increasing the tax rate at higher levels of wealth or income, and is supported by the notion that those who have more money can afford to pay more tax toward community needs. In claiming his proposed tax is “progressive,” Mr. Schiller equates a building’s “square feet” as equivalent to wealth or income, and assumes that owners with more “square feet” can afford to pay more. That may be true in some cases, but certainly not all.

Square feet alone does not establish the value of a home (consider age, quality or location). Owning a large home does not establish wealth other than the home itself (it may have been bought long ago) or a ready ability to pay higher taxes (a young family may have stretched to buy a home with sufficient bedrooms, or a retiree bought a large home years ago).

I also do not support an “income-based senior exemption.” Age does not determine whether a homeowner has a ready ability to pay the School Support Tax.  Nor is current income a true measure of wealth or ability to pay.

Moreover, per the last census, roughly 20% of Piedmont residents were over 65. Assuming roughly 20% of homeowners also are over 65 (it could be higher), exempting any significant number would either underfund the schools or impose a significant burden on the remaining taxpayers.

Further, under Proposition 13, those of us who have owned a home here longer (and are usually older) pay less property tax than young families who have bought a home more recently.  PUSD’s existing income-based SSI and SSDI exemptions (see Section 50079(b)) provide relief to those who are truly in severe financial distress, regardless of their age. That seems an appropriate balance between a homeowner’s ability to pay and the needs of the community.

I support the current Measure A structure—each taxable parcel paying the same amount to support our schools, with narrow exemptions for those truly in financial distress.

Richard W. Raushenbush, Former Piedmont School Board Member

Apr 10 2019

Cathy Glazier Honored with the 2019 Arthur Hecht Volunteer of the Year Award

Cathy Glazier, former Piedmont Middle School teacher and long-time volunteer in the schools and community who stands out for the remarkable depth, breadth, and longevity of her service, will be honored with this year’s Arthur Hecht Volunteer of the Year Award. The award is presented each year to an individual who has made outstanding contributions to the community and to Piedmont’s youth through volunteer service over a period of many years. The Board of Education will present the award at its meeting on May 8th.

Art Hecht was well known as a volunteer dedicated to serving students in Piedmont and Oakland. He was a member of Piedmont’s Board of Education from 1970 to 1982, and instrumental in developing Millennium High School, Piedmont’s alternative high school. Established in 1998, the Arthur Hecht Award honors both Hecht’s memory and extraordinary individuals who continue his legacy of service.

Ms. Glazier has been passionately dedicated to the students and schools of Piedmont for more than 30 years. She was a much-loved art teacher at Piedmont Middle School for ten years, and with three sons who attended Piedmont schools from K-12, she volunteered and served in various roles on parent club boards and committees for fifteen years straight. Her commitment to the “whole child” philosophy motivated her to the building and supporting of the Wellness Center. She was a founding wellness center board member and continued to serve in that capacity for another 5+/- years.

Ms. Glazier understood before many others the importance of supporting students’ social and emotional needs. Her advocacy for a Wellness Center was forward-thinking and she used her charm and persistence to garner community-wide support for this important resource. The Wellness Center continues to be an integral support to PUSD students because of her efforts.

Ms. Glazier remains actively engaged in Piedmont schools and community by serving on the Piedmont Education Foundation Board and Funding Committee, the Piedmont Beautification Foundation, and the Piedmont Garden Club.

“Cathy continues to be an incredible volunteer and ambassador for the District, staff, and students,” commented Randy Booker, Superintendent. “Over the years she has been a remarkable champion for Piedmont’s values of inclusion, social/emotional health, and academic excellence. I’ve been honored to work alongside of her and have benefited tremendously from her generosity and spirit of service toward all of her students.”

The Board of Education will honor the extraordinary contributions of Ms. Glazier with this award and a gift of student artwork on May 8th.

Mar 30 2019

New Rules Are Proposed for Piedmont Buildings and Properties: Homes, Neighborhoods, City

Planning Commission to Consider Design Guidelines Update

– Public Meetings –

Monday, April 8, 2019 – Introduction and Discussion – 5 pm City Hall

Monday, May 13, 2019 – Discussion and Recommendation – 5 pm City Hall

At its meetings on April 8th and May 13th, the Planning Commission will consider updates to the city’s Design Guidelines, which provide a framework for actions of staff and the Planning Commission in making decisions regarding Planning Applications from residents. The draft Design Guidelines will be introduced at the April 8th meeting, staff will answer questions, the public will have an opportunity to provide feedback, and the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal. At the May 13th meeting, the Commission will take additional testimony from the public, continue its discussion, and consider a recommendation to the City Council.

Background

This project to update and reformat the City of Piedmont Design Guidelines is the fifth and final phase of policy updates undertaken in response to the adoption of the General Plan in 2009 and the Housing Element in 2011. The first four phases were related to revisions of City Code Chapter 17 (the Zoning Ordinance) and were completed between 2012 and 2017. Specifically, Action 28.E in the Design and Preservation Element of the 2009 General Plan calls for the City’s Design Guidelines to be updated.

Draft updated Design Guidelines

In addition to updating and reformatting the guidelines for single-family residential construction, the draft update includes new guidelines for multi-family residential construction, commercial and mixed-use construction commercial signage, and landscaping.

A chapter that includes design guidelines for wireless communication facilities will be added at a future date. In addition to the link below to the electronic copy of the draft Guidelines, print copies are available for viewing at Piedmont City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.

The draft Design Guidelines are available online by clicking below:

Printed copies are available for viewing at the Public Works counter in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

City Council to Consider Adoption

The Planning Commission’s recommendation concerning the draft Design Guidelines will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration, as it is the decision making body for this matter. The date of Council consideration will be publicized well in advance of the meeting.

Public Engagement

Public comment is invited throughout the process. Interested members of the public are encouraged to read the draft Design Guidelines and staff report, and attend the Planning Commission meetings scheduled for 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 8, 2019 and Monday, May 13, 2019 in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.

Written comments and requests to receive email notification of activities related to the Design Guidelines update should be sent to Planning Director Kevin Jackson at kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov. Comments on paper can also be submitted by hand or by mail to the Piedmont Planning Commission, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

All meetings are broadcast and recorded.  Live broadcast can be found on Cable Channel 27 and on the City website under City Council videos/ Planning Commission.    http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/video/

Mar 27 2019

Piedmont Valero and Shell Service Stations Closing ?

Will the properties be converted to multi-family housing?

Piedmonters are shocked and saddened to learn that by April 30th they will lose the Valero gas and service station in the center of Piedmont at Highland Way and Highland Avenue operated by Simon Ho.

Ho has rented the property for over 10 years and gained a highly regarded reputation for his service to the community and its many vehicles. Although negotiations had been occurring, Ho cannot meet the rental increase demands of owner Tarvinder Bains from $8,000 per month to $17,000.  Consequently, Ho has made plans to relocate his automobile repair business to MacArthur Avenue in the Dimond District of Oakland.

Bains has proposed no new plans for the property, however a significant new factor is a potential change of use allowed by Piedmont’s recent zoning change directly impacting the property.

Without voter approval, although required by the Piedmont City Charter, the property was rezoned from Commercial to Commercial and Multi-family housing (Mixed Use). The zoning change allows multi-family housing plus commercial use of the properties in the former Commercial zone. The zoning change allows housing projects with a height of essentially 3 stories to be built in the zone.

The zoning change approved by the Piedmont City Council not only impacts the Valero Station property in the center of Piedmont, but the Shell Station property recently noted “For Sale” at the corner of Wildwood and Grand Avenues.

A subcommittee of the Planning Commission has been meeting regularly to discuss and consider recommendations on Design Guidelines that would impact all zones in Piedmont including the aforementioned properties.  The meetings have not been open to the public.

“[Planning] Commissioner [Tom] Ramsey reported the subcommittee reviewed a complete draft Update of the Design Guidelines and provided comments. The majority of the consultants’ work has been consolidating information from various sections of the Guidelines and receiving feedback from local architects and Commissioners. Planning Director Jackson advised that draft Design Guidelines will be released for public review later in March, and the release will contain the dates for submission of public comments. The draft Design Guidelines will be presented to the Planning Commission on April 8 for discussion. At its May meeting, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Director Jackson thanked Chair Behrens and Commissioner Ramsey for serving on the subcommittee. Chair Behrens remarked that the use of photographs rather than drawings in the draft Design Guidelines gives more reality to accompanying comments.”  Minutes of March 2019 Planning Commission meeting. 

Planning Commission Agenda on Monday, April 8:

RECEIPT AND DISCUSSION OF DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES AND UPDATE – 

Receipt of a draft update of the City of Piedmont Design Guidelines, an informational report from the City’s consultant regarding the draft update, including an opportunity for public comment and Commissioner discussion.

–The meeting is open to the public and will be broadcast live starting at 5:00 p.m. on Channel 27 and on the Piedmont website under videos, Planning Commission. 

Once the Planning Commission reviews the subcommittee, staff and consultants recommendations and approves them, their recommended Design Guidelines will go to the City Council for consideration and potential approval.  These meetings will be open to the public.

Valero and Shell Stations:

When there is a proposed change of use, all proposals must go before the Piedmont Planning Commission and the Piedmont City Council to receive Conditional Use Permit approval.  Public notification to nearby property owners is required when changes are reviewed, but, recently, when important changes were made to uses within the city, the city as a whole was not informed. 

Individuals interested in the development of either properties, Valero or Shell, can inform the Piedmont Planning Department and the Piedmont City Council of their desire to be notified when and if new plans are proposed for the two properties.

Planning Department – kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov

City Council – citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us

For more information, contact Planning Director Kevin Jackson:   kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov

Mar 8 2019

History of Piedmont Women Raising Funds for Schools through Dress Best for Less

In honor of Women’s History Month, Dress Best For Less shares the origins of Dress Best for Less.

In 1982, Wendy [Webster] Willrich, along with Jeanne Clark and other mothers of Havens Elementary School children, started collecting clothing and household items to sell to the community in order to raise money for the schools. This was the genesis of what would later become Dress Best for Less.

The enterprise quickly outgrew the space at the school and decided to open the Dress Best for Less shop at its original location on Piedmont Avenue where the store remained for almost 3 decades until moving to its current location  at 3411 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, CA 94610. 

For 37 years (and counting), DBFL has raised funds for the Piedmont Education Foundation.  DBFL is the single largest contributor to PEF, with donations totaling over $1 million dollars.

In addition, DBFL is proud to contribute to the community at large, regularly donating to community groups in the East Bay and beyond, such as Bay Area schools, St. Vincent de Paul, animal rescue organizations, Oakland Children’s Hospital and more.

To this day, Dress Best for Less remains a woman-run organization. The bulk of the DBFL team are volunteers, most of whom are mothers of current and former Piedmont School children.  DBFL is living proof of what a few dedicated and driven woman can accomplish.

Donations are always needed.

Marking Room:
799 Magnolia Avenue,
Piedmont, CA 94611
Phone – 510-653-0221
Monday – 10:00am – noon
Tuesday – 9am – 4pm
Wednesday – 9am – 4pm
Saturday – 10am – noon

DBFL Store:
3411 Lakeshore Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610

510-658-8525
shopdbfl@gmail.com

Tuesday-Saturday
11:00am – 6:00pm

Information> http://dressbestforless.org/

Mar 8 2019

Free Plants, Recycling, and Resource Sharing at the 2019 Plant Exchange Saturday, March 23rd

The Premier Plant Exchange in California is 100% volunteer run!

Master gardeners answer questions and plant specialists identify donations.

Free to everyone.

Saturday, March 23rd, noon to 4 p.m.

4500 Lincoln Ave. in Oakland

The Plant Exchange is a free community event that began in Oakland, California in October 2007 as a way for our neighbors to get to know each other. It also encourages reuse, recycling, organic living, resource sharing, and information exchange.

This event rapidly grew to include gardeners, landscapers, urban farmers, and outdoor fans from all 9 Bay Area counties.  Now, over 2500 plants change hands.

Questions or volunteer at connect@theplantexchange.com

Read for more information > here.

Mar 6 2019

School Resource Officer Debated at School Board Meeting

Increased drug and alcohol usage among Piedmont students. 

On Wednesday, February 27th, the Piedmont School Board had their bi-monthly meeting to discuss and vote on accepting or rejecting a grant for the implementation of a Student Resource Officer (SRO) at the Piedmont and Millennium High Schools.

Randall Booker, Superintendent, presented the plan for Piedmont’s SRO with a grant that would fund this project for the next three years. Driven by the results of the Healthy Kids Survey which raised alarm regarding increased drug and alcohol usage among students, Booker’s goals for the program were to strengthen transparency and improve the school culture. With more adults with eyes on campus that know the landscape and the students, and a clear MOU, Booker shared that he believed implementation of an SRO would support Piedmont’s principle of being a “district of continual improvement”.

Chief Jeremy Bowers of Piedmont Police Department and partner in the creation of the SRO plan, outlined the department’s current involvement at the secondary Piedmont schools, reporting that 400+ calls have been made to the Police Department from the schools from 2013-2018 – which is 1- 2 calls per week, all in addition to having officers in front of and around campuses patrolling traffic. Bowers believed that an SRO would help improve the learning environment, and be a constructive complement to the Piedmont School District.

Officers from both Los Gatos-Monte Sereno and Atherton Police departments shared their experiences with an SRO, calling it a “very successful program” that has led to the creation of important personal relationships that allow students to feel safe calling the SRO during a crisis. Having someone who understands the culture of the school and knows how to interact with the students has led to a form of educational discipline customized for each student. They also shared some of their other programs, like the juvenile and vaping diversion programs, which have been constructive additions to the school environment.

Booker and Bowers eased some worries by outlining the detailed plan for Piedmont’s SRO, including ways to prevent overcriminalization; however, board members seemed weary over the fact that the SRO would be armed, as did community members.

According to Booker’s survey, 75.3% of parents said they were concerned about the firearm, and 56% saw no benefit in the program. 56% of students also said they saw no benefit in the program, and that it set the wrong tone for students, especially for those who already feel marginalized.

Mr. Kessler, representing the Association of Piedmont Teachers, expressed concern with the implementation of an SRO, stating he was against having an adult filling so many roles on campus.

Thirteen high school students from Piedmont and Millennium High all shared their thoughts agreeing that this program would hinder their school environment. Some gave suggestions for solutions, including implementation of the vaping diversion program to prevent drug use, and active shooter drills to help students feel better prepared in a school crisis.

I was not in support of an SRO, and felt that if the concern was drug and alcohol use, there were much easier and more effective solutions to prevent this usage. Plus, no studies have shown that an SRO has decreased drug and alcohol use, making me think this program is a waste of money and resources.

After voicing their opinions, the Board voted 4-1 against accepting the grant for an SRO with President of the Board, Amal Smith wanting to accept the SRO grant.

Booker continued to suggest modifications to the plan, like having the SRO be located in the Piedmont Police station, but there was little flexibility available in the grant proposal, therefore a revised plan may be futile.

by Julie Huffaker, Piedmont High School Senior

Mar 5 2019

Piedmont Recycling and Waste Reduction Improvements, Report to Park Commission March 6

The Piedmont Park Commission on March 6 will consider  consultants’ work reducing the landfill stream originating from Piedmont public activities.

In 2018, the City hired Abbe and Associates using money from ratepayers waste removal charges to provide outreach and technical assistance for waste reduction, recycling, and composting to reduce the landfill stream.  The consultants have been working with City staff, Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) staff and students to streamline and improve waste reduction, recycling, and composting at City and School facilities.  Purpose of the consultants work is to:

  • To increase the City’s and PUSD’s rate of diversion from landfill to 75% by working with staff and students.
  • To educate about proper sorting habits to reduce contaminants in recycling and organics.

[Read the report Abbe Environ EXHIBIT A piedmont evergreen ]

On Wednesday, March 6, Laura McKaughan of Abbe and Associates will report on the progress achieved from July through December, 2018, the first six months of the program.

Civic events in Piedmont generate significant waste.

Another focus of the consultant work was the challenge to bring large celebrations and civic events –Harvest Festival, Turkey Trot, and Christmas Tree Lighting – into less wasteful patterns.

In 2018, the Harvest Festival achieved an 87% recycling rate (1635 gallons of waste material generated at the Festival was recycled or composted and only 245 gallons went to the landfill).  The 2018 Turkey Trot achieved a 96% recycling rate (548 gallons of waste material generated at the race was recycled or composted and only 24 gallons went to the landfill).  Preferred foodware options were identified for use at other events and even staff meetings.

The consultants work with the Piedmont Unified School District to reduce waste going to landfill.

The consultants worked with Piedmont Unified School District personnel by making site assessments of the High School and Middle School.  New outdoor recycling containers were installed at the High School with additional installations planned at all school campuses.

__________

Piedmont Park Commission Meeting Agenda: Wednesday, March 6, 5:30 p.m., in City Hall:

  1.  Approval of Park Commission Minutes for February 6, 2019
  2.  Update on Olive Ave. Street Tree Replacements
  3.  Report from Abbe and Associates: Piedmont Evergreen Team  Abbe Environ EXHIBIT A piedmont evergreen
  4.  Consideration of New Trash, Recycle and Green Waste Containers for Outdoor Public Spaces
  5.  Update on Heritage Tree Nominations for 2019
  6.  Update on Arbor Day 2019
  7.  Monthly Maintenance Report

The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and on the City website for the Piedmont Park Commission meetings  http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/video/.

For additional information, contact Nancy Kent at NKent@piedmont.ca.gov

Feb 2 2019

AC Transit Local Bus Fare Increase Public Hearing February 13

AC Transit Local Fare Change Public Hearing
Wednesday, February 13, 2019, 2:00 pm — 5:00 pm. 1600 Franklin St, Oakland

The AC Transit Board of Directors will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, February 13, to consider a new local fare schedule for FY2019-20 through FY2023-24.  The first increase would be $0.15 on July 1, 2019, adjusting the current adult fare from $2.35 to $2.50; subsequent $0.25 adjustments would take effect each alternate year through FY2023-24.
  • An option to increase fares based on the rate of operating cost increases.
  • Clipper fare incentives (discounts) of up to $0.50 for adult single fare and up to $0.25 for Youth/Senior/Disabled single fare.
  • The Clipper fare would be used as the basis for setting 31-Day and monthly pass prices.
  • The Senior/Disabled monthly pass and the Youth 31-Day pass would be 30-times the Clipper single fare.
  • Cost of the Day Pass would equal two times the single fare plus $0.50 rounded to the nearest $0.50.
  • A proposed mobile ticketing application would include a 7-Day Pass priced at ten times the single Clipper fare, and fare capping which ensures riders who pay by the trip do not incur further charges once reaching the cost of a Day Pass, 7-Day Pass or 31-Day Pass.

A decision on The proposals will occur at the February 27, 2019, Board of Directors meeting at the earliest. If approved, the first fare increase in the new local fare schedule will take effect July 1, 2019.

Transit to the Hearing Site – AC Transit Headquarters at 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland

All AC Transit bus lines serving downtown Oakland stop within walking distance of the public hearing site. For trip-planning, visit www.actransit.org or call 511 (and say, “AC Transit”).  The site can also be reached via BART to the 19th St. Oakland station.

Please do not wear scented products to the meeting.

« Previous Page | Next Page »