Recreation Commission discusses Linda Beach Playfield Restrictions, the progress of the Hampton Park Improvement Project, and progress on the Aquatics Center Design.

    On the evening of February 15, 2017, I attended the monthly meeting of the Piedmont Recreation Commission at the Piedmont City Council Chambers (120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA, 94611), where they discussed the upkeep of the City’s recreational facilities. On this particular night, the commission covered such topics as the Linda Beach Playfield Restrictions, the progress of the Hampton Park Improvement Project, and a price estimate for the Aquatics Master Plan Conceptual Design.

    The meeting began with Tyler Waespi, the Aquatics Director at the Piedmont Pool, giving a presentation about the the programs and opportunities that the pool would be offering in the coming months. Waespi covered information regarding the seasons of Fall, Spring, and Summer, and what each season would offer. Swim lessons would be available on Monday thru Thursday during all three seasons for anyone interested with the exception of Spring Break. During which time the pool will be offering the Spring Break Aqua-Camp for any youth that are interested.

    Following the presentation on the Piedmont Pool, Recreation Director Sara Lillevand discussed the success of the restrictions on the Linda Beach playfield that were implemented during the Hampton Park construction to address noise complaints from the surrounding residents. Due to the success of the restrictions, Lillevand proposed making these restrictions permanent with a motion made by Commissioner Steve Roland and passed unanimously by the commissioners.

    Lillevand then updated the commission on the progress of the Hampton Park Improvement Project in light of recent weather related setbacks. The final steps in the completion of the field, the pouring of the concrete, may need to be postponed due to the weather in order to ensure that the concrete is able to set properly. The extreme wind also caused four of the trees towards the back of the park to fall, which must be removed by a cleanup team before construction can continue. At the time of the meeting, construction was a week behind but estimated to improve due to the weather forecast over the next few weeks.

    Finally, Lillevand concluded the meeting with an update on the Aquatics Master Plan Conceptual Design. Since no members of the audience were prepared to speak about the topic, the details of the plan were not repeated from last meeting.  An “operational cost analysis” will be acquired and presented to the Council at their second meeting in March or first meeting in April according to Lillevand.  The commission could then continue with the implementation of the plan.

    After the meeting came to a close, I approached Director Sara Lillevand to ask her a few questions about her time as Director of Recreation. For Ms. Lillevand, “working on projects such as Hampton Park allows [her] to have a direct positive impact on the community”, something that few other jobs can offer. When asked about her reaction to the meeting that just took place, she responded saying that she enjoyed the meeting like she does with the majority of her Recreation Commission meetings. Lillevand stated, “It is always exciting when a project is nearing completion,” and for a project such as the the Hampton Park Improvement Project where weather has caused some unpredictable issues, it is important to stay in the right state of mind and not let the issues go without acting on them. Overall, she is happy to be working with a group of people that are so involved with the betterment of the community, and cannot wait to see the finished Hampton Park project.

by Geoffrey Burge, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. 

The League of Women Voters, Piedmont is holding a FUNDRAISER ON SUNDAY, MARCH 12TH FROM 3-5:00 PM

The League of Women Voters annual fundraiser event is open to the public. Keynote speaker will be Berkeley Professor Steven Raphael discussing “Crime and Punishment in California: Recent Trends and Reforms”Dr. Raphael is an adjunct fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California and professor of public policy at UC, Berkeley. His research focuses on the economics of low-wage labor markets, housing, and the economics of crime and corrections.

He is the author of The New Scarlet Letter? Negotiating the U.S. Labor Market with a Criminal Record and Why Are So Many Americans in Prison? He is editor in chief of Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society and a research fellow at the University of Michigan National Poverty Center, the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Germany. He holds a PhD in economics from the UC Berkeley.

Date: Sunday, March 12, 2016

Time: 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. Refreshments from 3-3:30pm

Location: Piedmont Community Center, Highland Avenue

Tickets for the event are $25.00 per person in advance and $30.00 at the door. To purchase tickets in advance go to >

 

or send your check payable to LWVP in care of Ward Lindenmayer, 40 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

_________________________________

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) and the League of Women Voters, Piedmont are separate, non- affiliated organizations. 

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

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

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

Dear Mayor Wieler and Council,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Rick Schiller

Cc: Paul Benoit

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student report on a City Hall gathering on the evening of the Tree Lighting ceremony. Although the Park Commission had cancelled its December meeting, Commissioners were encouraged to attend the December 7 Tree Lighting ceremony at the Community Hall. (read November 2 minutes of the Park Commission.)

On Wednesday, December 7, I attended the Park Commission gathering at the Piedmont City Hall. This commission meets once a month, but typically takes a recess during the Holiday season, so this meeting manifested itself as a casual event that involved people from all City Commissions and City Council members. I took this time to socialize with people who both held leadership positions in government and others who were simply curious about the meeting.

A major topic of conversation was the renovation of Hampton Park. This ongoing project was celebrated, as it is both on schedule and on budget. In response to the rain influencing construction of this project, I was informed that the new drainage system was working well avoiding any holdups for the project.

The recently completed Linda Triangle was another achievement spoken of at this event. People expressed their excitement for this addition to Piedmont, while some hoped to see some improvement, such as lighting fixes.

Upon arriving at the event, I spoke to a number of people, including the Mayor, the Vice Mayor, and the Public Works Director. Mayor Jeff Weiler said that he is particularly pushing for lighting improvement on the Oakland Avenue Bridge, in order to “make it safer for pedestrians.” Speaking from personal experience, it can often be unnerving walking on the Oakland Avenue Bridge, especially when people are driving fast and come right up next to the walkway, so I feel that lights would be a much needed addition.

Students spoke about our concern on the drought, but Mr. Weiler assured students that the California drought was not currently posing much of an issue to Piedmont parks, as the recent rains and the water used for firefighter training help keep the greens watered.

Halley Wolin, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. 

 I placed my laptop on the floor as quietly as possible and scooted to the front of my chair, preparing myself to speak in front of Piedmont’s Recreation Commission. “Thank you,” the Commission Chair smiled, and I quickly raised my hand. For the past 30 minutes or so, middle school boys and their moms had been rotating through the stand to bring to light the dangers and potential fixes of Piedmont’s skate park, one of the issues being the park’s minimal hours.

Stepping up to the podium, the Commissioner’s faces gazed back at me expectantly. After stating my name, I inquired, “How big an effect on the budget does the monitor at the skate park have? Is the budget for the monitor the main issue?” A commission member responded that yes, the budget has a heavy influence, as well as the lack of staffing to supply monitors, so I followed, “What is the purpose the monitor serves? Is it absolutely essential to have a monitor there at all times?”, to which another member answered that the monitor serves myriad purposes, from safety to noise control. With the issues cleared up, I smiled a thank you, and walked back to my seat.

 According to their website, Piedmont’s Recreation Commission meets monthly on the third Wednesday to “[make] regarding field allocation at city parks and [advise] the city council regarding the creation or renovation of park properties,” and they fulfilled their purpose completely at this meeting. Though the commission reviewed Hampton Field’s renovation (going well) and gave an update on the new aquatics instructor (also going well), the most heated topic was the Skate Park.

The commission patiently listened to each middle schooler and parent describe the problems with the park and followed through, questioning how they would set the hours, who could remodel a skate park, or if there was an improvement they could make without a complete remodel.

I agree with the commission that a remodel would be extremely costly, and is not pressing enough an issue that the whole community would fundraise for it. I commend Sara Lillevand, Recreation Director, for creating a compromise, ending in a decision to possibly fill the dangerous bowl with the dangerous transitions the middle schoolers and moms had exposed and by adding better street skating obstacles on it. Expanding the park’s hours without a monitor also seems like a good solution the commission could follow up on. To address the safety issue, they could clearly advertise days and hours when a monitor is or is not present, so parents and guardians can always feel safe with their children skating.

Moving to the final issue, the committee chair introduced the annual Haunted House. Due to recent violent clown incidents, the theme had to be changed from Fun House extremely last minute, but was still, as always, a success. One member reminded the group that they tend to lose revenue on the Haunted House, as they have never changed the entrance fee to $5. The commission ponders this, as they know some Piedmonters would be up in arms if they increased the longstanding fee.

Though I hadn’t planned on speaking again, I raised my hand and returned to the podium, explaining that I’m the President of the Piedmont Community Service Crew (PCSC), and reminding them that PCSC has helped the Recreation Department out before, taking over this year’s July 4th Pancake Breakfast, and collaborated with them by running a lemonade stand at the Harvest Festival.

To increase the revenue, I suggested that near the exit of the Haunted House, they set up an area where families can mingle after their exciting experience and buy food and drinks. PCSC members could run the stand, tracking money and selling food, so no staff would have to be paid, and in addition could cook food earlier in the day, as PCSC has lots of cooking experience through making and serving dinner to the homeless at Hot Meals, cooking lunch for low-income seniors at St. Mary’s Center, and more. A commission member’s face lit up, as he agreed that this could increase a few thousand dollars in revenue. Sara Lillevand noted that she’ll keep in contact with me, and affirmed the crew’s work with the pancake breakfast this summer, serving around 2,000 people.

Once the meeting adjourned, I approached Commissioner Steve Roland to ask him a few questions. When I asked him why he joined the Recreation Commission, Roland explained that he wanted to do something civic for the town. He had already been involved in sports through coaching, but he wanted to make an active difference. No specific problem motivated him to join the commission, just the general desire to improve the parks.

Now that he’s joined the committee, Roland still aims for general park improvement throughout Piedmont. Roland revealed his main strategy for taking action: time tables. Much of the commission meetings include discussions and hearing the community’s voice, but the key is to immediately create goals and action plans. Roland wants to expedite the processes to give the community what it wants without being sloppy. He adds that this is a continual progression, and learns more as each issue arises on how to better pick apart the problems and take action on them.

As a high school student learning about government in Civics, meeting an adult with a desire to be involved purely to make a positive impact on the community is inspiring, and sadly, a contrast to some of the political leaders I’ve learned about in previous history and government studies. Because families primarily move to Piedmont for the excellent education, the parents generally are passionate about their children’s Piedmont experience, leading to the inspiring political leaders who serve double time as a parent or guardian.

Nina Adarkar, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

    The Park Commission did not have an official meeting on December 7th.  Instead, there was a social gathering as a Holiday break that segued into the tree lighting ceremony at 7:30 p.m.  While there were no official issues to be addressed or discussed, it was the perfect time for a high school senior interested in the inner-workings of government to bump elbows and inquire upon many Piedmont government officials.

I got the opportunity to simultaneously interview the Mayor, Jeff Wieler and the Director of Public Works, Chester Nakahara as he stood behind the bar – eager to serve his community both beverages and hours of hard work.  I learned a lot more about general park information through direct conversation than I would have attempting to participate in a busy Park Commission’s docket.

  As a high school student, I admittedly had both a specific and limited view of what the Park Commission and the Public Works Department do.  I wanted a different perspective of my main connection to the Piedmont Parks -an inside scoop on the daily announcements pleading my peers to stop littering during their off-campus lunch privileges.  I was shocked to discover that it takes a full man day of work to clean all the litter after every Piedmont High School off-campus lunch break.  Despite trash and recycling bins within arms reach, the worst offending areas are Piedmont Main Park and outside the Veterans Building and City Hall.

The tone of both Wieler’s and Nakahara’s voices were mixtures between exasperation and jokes about the laziness of the litterers.  There was no obvious solution towards solving this problem that they have not already tried.  There are sufficient waste disposal containers, plus the quality of education at the school should justify a level of awareness to negate the problem.

I could not come up with answers or suggestions that have not already been attempted, I could only do my best to reassert that it seems to be an excessive and ongoing issue that the City needs to have a different stance on.  20-30% of the Publics Works budget of $4 million is dedicated strictly towards maintenance and cleaning.  That can make it harder to achieve some of Mayor Jeff Wieler’s park and public works goals: to finish the Linda Triangle, continue beautification, and to fully illuminate the Oakland Avenue Bridge for safety purposes.

    Additionally, I learned that the California drought has minimally affected parks in Piedmont because the Piedmont Fire Department efficiently directs their mandated engine tests while spraying water onto Coaches Field.  The only evident aspect of our communities water shortage is the large brown spot on upper Dracena Park, a park that recently had a more controversial decision of whether a certain stretch of the dog park allowed dogs to be off leash.  The dogs must remain on leash, as the Park Commission recently decided, but additional and clearer signage is needed around that park.

  Jeff Wieler, Chester Nakahara, and every other person I met (like Park Commission staff liaison Nancy Kent!) work tirelessly in their various positions to help improve Piedmont.  They were all incredibly knowledgeable – Wieler was occasionally frustrated at himself for not having a certain exact budget or figure on the tip of his tongue – and even just a more light-hearted social Holiday celebration can bring up important local issues that everyone is clearly passionate about attempting to solve.

Josef Crombie Presberg, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

On December 14th, 2016, I attended a Piedmont Unified School District Board meeting at Piedmont City Hall. These meetings occur once or twice a month during the school year and their purpose is to discuss and propose changes to the Piedmont school system.

This meeting was focused on the Single Plan for Student Achievement which asked every Piedmont school principal to review their last year’s goals and create new goals for the coming year. There were also quick notes on school activities going on which were presented by the Associated Student Body President Alisha Lewis and each board member gave a quick list of the school related events they had recently attended. However, during the two hours I was at the meeting, the majority of the time was spent on each Principal’s plan for their school. Elementary school principals presentations weren’t until much later.

Principals Brent Daniels, Sati Shah, and Ryan Fletcher shared similar goals which included: improving communication between students and teachers, efficiency of time spent outside of school (eg. necessity of homework, sleep), and taking care of emotional and physical wellness for their students. Though a few times the Board may have had questions for the Principals, they seemed very happy with last year’s results and next year’s goals.

I got a chance to speak with Sati Shah, the Principal at Millennium High School, before the meeting began and asked him a few questions about his upcoming presentation.  He said that on average he gives about three or four presentations to the Board and that helps “set [a] collaborative direction for [the] school to follow”. He seemed confident with his presentation and after he finished, he was greeted with a few notes of praise by the Board towards the educational decisions made by Millennium High School.

This was a long meeting and after Ryan Fletcher’s goals for the year, I found that the similarities were growing and there would be little change between the elementary schools in terms of goals.

Finally, there was an election for a new president, vice president and secretary of the board which went to Sarah Pearson, Amal Smith, and Randall Booker.

Cato Leist, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~~

    I attended a School Board meeting on December 14, 2016. The purpose of the meeting was to make sure everyone is in agreement on how the schools are running and how they are progressing toward their goals.

    Because it was the last meeting of the year, the principals from all the schools in the Piedmont Unified School District came to talk about their assessment of last year’s goals and how they will improve them this year or new goals.

    Principal Brent Daniels, of Piedmont High School (PHS), was the first principal to speak on his goals. He noted all the efforts he and all the staff made to reduce student stress and give students a greater opportunity to sleep; tutorial and staff meetings in the morning, conflict calendars, and the five day block scheduling. Also, his new goals for this topic; implement a curfew for any school related activities, including sports, a testing center open 8a.m. to 3p.m., therefore students can make-up tests on their own time, and continuing to make sure homework has Meaning, Value, and Practice (MVP.)

    Every Board member agreed that Principal Daniels had outstanding achievements and futures goals, however one Board member, Amal Smith, pointed out that we want to help the students as much as possible, without taking away from learning life skills. For example, the conflict calendar is an immense help, but on the contrary, students need to be taught how to juggle and delegate multiple projects or assignments at a time, because that is what is expected of people in the real world. Also, Board member Doug Ireland questioned if students were actually receiving more sleep. Principal Daniels stated that based on the survey, they are getting slightly more sleep, though they are mostly benefiting from the later start, thus they are more alert during class. Other than those two comments, every Board member expressed their support and positivity.

    Principal Daniels spoke about their efforts in improving the message of Consent. This past year, they chose to implement a new speaker and a debriefing. I spoke to the debriefing. I was lucky to have Ms.Taylor, the acting teacher and a leader in the Consent Assembly, lead my classes debriefing. I expressed that Ms.Taylor should lead the teachers in a class on how to talk to students because she created a warm and open environment where it was easy to speak my opinions. Also, about thirty student are in my English class, the class we debriefed with, and less than ten showed up. Teachers and faculty should stress the importance on the debriefing because many chose not to attend. I got an immense amount more from this assembly than freshman year’s Consent Assembly due to the discussion afterwards.

I had the chance to speak to Principal Sati Shaw, of Millennium High School (MHS). This was his second year as principal of MHS, thus his second year reviewing and expressing his goals, the Single Student Achievement Plan. He fully supports the Board meetings as, “they are a great opportunity for teachers, parents, and community members to express their ideas and feelings,”  said Shaw.

Then, he continued to explain the process of the goals. The goals are tirelessly attempted to be met, while new ones are arising. They are all important, but as Principal Shaw stated, “it is about prioritizing them and where the School Board and I want the center of discussion to be. The main goal is to create a collaborative space where students feel comfortable to excel on a personal level. We get lost in grades and getting into college, we really try to create well rounded people as well.”

Daniela Siu, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.