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

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

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

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

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

Questions not discussed were:

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

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

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

Dear PUSD Families,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Randall Booker, Superintendent Piedmont Unified School District

Brent Daniels, Principal Piedmont High School

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

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

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

Public Safety Committee Meeting, Thursday, July 28, 2016, 5:30 p.m. – City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue. 

Agenda includes:

• Public Forum: an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda.
• Discussion of Distribution of > Get Ready, Piedmont Guides and Checklists
• Discussion of October 15, 2016 Disaster Preparedness Event 
• Discussion of Chief Goede’s Opinion Piece in the July 20th Edition of the Piedmont Post Entitled “Piedmont Police Department and Recent Tragic Events”

____________

Chairman Shaffer reported on his submission of the Committee’s annual report to the City Council on May 16. Committee members had previously reviewed the report and were encouraged to watch the presentation on KCOM.

Chief Goede reported on her presentations on sexual harassment and related matters to the entire student population of Piedmont High School. Unlike prior presentations which were done in assembly format, these were done on a classroom basis which resulted in over 20 sessions. This gave students an opportunity to ask questions and better understand consequences for inappropriate behavior. This was a joint effort with the PUSD management and was well received.

Chairman Shaffer reported that over 500 Get Ready, Piedmont Guides have been distributed, and an additional 500 have been printed. Over 700 of the supporting checklists have been distributed. Distribution was done through neighborhood meetings, promotion to existing neighborhood organizations, and pickup at the Police and Fire Departments. The Committee discussed other distribution ideas with the caveat that distribution should be limited, as much as possible, to Piedmont residents due to the cost involved. The Committee suggested that the Public Works and Recreation Department counters might offer additional distribution venues. Chairman Shaffer agreed to follow up on this.

Chairman Shaffer reported that 10 neighborhood public safety meetings were conducted in 2015. To date in 2016, there have been 6 Map Your Neighborhood (MYN) meetings and two general disaster preparedness meetings with one MYN meeting scheduled for early June. At this time, there are about 10 good possibilities for MYN meetings.

The Committee discussed ways to promote neighborhood meetings. Sue Lin suggested using Piedmont CONNECT as a means to reach out to residents. Garrett Keating agreed to provide the contact information for that group. Chairman Shaffer discussed providing a description of MYN to those seeking block closure permits for the 4th of July. A sample was provided to the Committee as part of the meeting package, and the Committee agreed by consensus that it should be provided to Public Works which Chairman Shaffer agreed to do.

Chief McLaren advised that, as discussed in the March meeting, the event is scheduled for October 15. He was able to reserve the county earthquake/fire trailer for that date. The Fire Department plans to staff the trailer and to also provide fire extinguisher training. They also plan to do “sidewalk CPR” training which is very brief and doesn’t involve certifications. There will also be a jumpy house for kids.

The Committee discussed other options. They agreed that PG&E electric and gas safety exhibits have been very well received in the past. Chairman Shaffer agreed to follow up with PG&E. Lori Elifant advised that she had been involved in a couple of game activities at a similar event in Emeryville and agreed to explore those activities. Garrett Keating offered to contact someone who promotes solar cooking to see if they would participate. Lynne Wright agreed to pursue food options that could support the event.

The Committee also agreed that it would staff a table to distribute the Get Ready, Piedmont Guide and supporting documents as well as promote neighborhood meetings. A subcommittee was appointed to work out the logistics of this event. Chairman Shaffer designated himself, Lori Elifant, Lynne Wright, and Andrea Swenson but later substituted Chief McLaren for Andrea Swenson as he was responsible for most of the activities.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS, PARKING SPACE SIZES, ZONE USE CHANGES, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, SETBACKS, INCREASED STAFF APPROVALS , ETC. –

Monday, July 11, 2016 at the end of the regular Planning Commission meeting, proposed changes to Piedmont’s zoning ordinance Chapter 17 of the City Code will be considered.

In general, the proposals reduce restrictions and requirements for building in Piedmont, easing approvals. Planning Staff is proposed to play a larger role in approving building permit design review and various applications currently determined by the Planning Commission. Reduced parking requirements, accessory structures permitted within setbacks, variances, zone use changes, in ground improvements eliminated as lot coverage, and other permissive changes are being considered.

The Chapter 17 hearings have all been scheduled at an undetermined time at the end of lengthy Commission meetings.  

Each consideration by the Planning Commission has been labeled a “Public Hearing.” Those requesting notice of the hearings have been advised.

“two special [future] sessions of the Planning Commission have been scheduled for the evenings of Tuesday, July 26 and Tuesday, August 30, 2016, both of which will be dedicated to discussions of Chapter 17 revisions.”

The Planning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council, who will determine what changes should be made to Chapter 17.

Below is the Staff report Conclusion prepared for the July 11, 2016 Commission meeting.

CONCLUSION: There are many reasons to make amendments to Chapter 17. Some revisions, such as eliminating barriers to housing and allowing reasonable accommodation for persons with special needs. are mandatory in order to bring the Code into compliance with the General Plan and Housing Element. Other revisions are more discretionary but equally important to better serve the community. In the preparation of this report, staff’s intent was to continue the discussion on topics that may lead to the improvement of the Code, and to seek direction from the Commission on those revisions it would like to see incorporated into the Code.

NEXT STEPS: During Planning Commission meetings in the next few months, staff will return with subsequent reports outlining additional potential revisions to the Code, including but not limited to: changes to the uses and/or regulations for Zone D; refinement of the design review criteria for multistory and upper level additions; and expanded list of projects that would be exempt from design review or that would be subject to Administrative Design Review; modifications to the regulations of wireless communications facilities.

As the Commission provides direction on the revisions it would like to incorporate into the Code staff will create a draft revised Chapter 17. Once all topics have been discussed and directions provided, staff will bring the draft to the Commission for review and request that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council or direct staff to make further refinements to the revisions and return again with the draft.

Once the Planning Commission has made its recommendation, staff will bring the draft revised Chapter 17 and the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council for its consideration.

The discussions related to this project have occurred and will continue to occur at regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings. In addition, two special sessions of the Planning Commission have been scheduled for the evenings of Tuesday, July 26 and Tuesday, August 30, 2016, both of which will be dedicated to discussions of Chapter 17 revisions.

The project may also be discussed at a special joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council before a draft of the ordinance is considered by the Council. During the coming months in which revisions to Chapter 17 will be considered, there will be multiple opportunities for public input, and staff will continue to try to reach out to as many Piedmonters as possible.

Staff has already assembled a list of residents who wish to receive notices and staff reports directly via email. Anybody who wishes to be added to the list may contact the planning office by calling 510-420-3039 or by emailing kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us. This report and other staff reports and minutes of Commission meetings at which this project to revise Chapter 17 was discussed can be found on the City’s website at: http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/planning-commission-to-consider-changes-to-planning-code/

READ the full staff report for the July 11, 2016 meeting here.

See bottom of this article for additional links.

PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS –

City Code Chapter 17 Modifications

DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2016.  Emphasis added.

Interim Planning Director Jackson began the discussion by reviewing the Chapter 17 revisions that the Commission directed Staff to make at the April 11 Planning Commission meeting. He also noted the topics for immediate discussion.

Prior to the discussion on each topic, Interim Planning Director Jackson provided the Commission with context for the comprehensive revisions to the zoning code. He explained that some revisions are proposed to address the goals and policies of the General Plan and other policy documents, but that a host of other revisions are proposed to better serve the public interest. He referred to research on the approval of variances in Piedmont to question whether the public interest is being served with the current code.

Interim Planning Director Jackson reported that 80% of the variances acted upon since 1996 have been approved. He pointed out that this figure required a review of the City’s current code requirements. He also noted that applicants have to pay a fee for variance applications. He explained that during the 2009 General Plan update and the 2015 Housing Element Update, Staff recognized that the public would be served by modifications to the Municipal Code.

Correspondence was received from: Michael Henn, David Hobstetter. Interim Planning Director Jackson led the Commission through the following discussions of various potential changes to the Municipal Code:

Reduce Parking Space Dimensions

At the April 11 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners directed Staff to draft code language for the reduction in the parking space dimensions, but they were not yet ready to choose what those dimensions might be. Upon direction from the Commission, Staff conducted a survey of parking space sizes required by other jurisdictions and collected more information regarding parking variances in Piedmont. Interim Planning Director Jackson reported that the survey of other jurisdictions does not provide a clear indication of what size parking space might be appropriate, but that variance research from Piedmont shows a 90% approval rating in variances for parking space size. He suggested that the Commission might consider reducing the minimum parking space size to 8.5 feet by 18 feet.

The Commission unanimously directed Staff to move forward with the code modifications related to revising the parking space dimensions to 8.5 feet by 18 feet.

Relax the Requirements on the Number of Parking Spaces Required

Interim Planning Director Jackson reported that many jurisdictions simply require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit or allow additional parking spaces to be uncovered or tandem. He also reported that variance research from Piedmont shows an 85% approval rating in variances from the required number of parking spaces. He suggested that the Commission might consider allowing a parking exception for up to four bedrooms, allowing tandem or uncovered parking to comply, or relaxing the parking requirements in other ways.

The Commissioners discussed the topic at length, and questioned whether the parking requirements should be based on the number of bedrooms, the house square footage, the intensity of use, the parking situation in the neighborhood, or other site characteristics. Commissioner Theophilos acknowledged the Commission’s leniency, but was hesitant to make changes to the code for fear that the 15% of projects that are currently not approved would be permitted. He argued that the decision should be subjective and based on the parking situation in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Ramsey suggested that the current regulations are similar to those you would find in a more auto-oriented community, and he warned that strict compliance with these regulations would slowly change the neighborhoods. He expressed concern for the high approval ratings of variances, which he said indicates that the Code is not in line with the built environment. He suggested that innovative solutions, such as tandem parking, would help to keep the historic character of Piedmont while still accommodating the intent of the code.

Commissioner Jajodia questioned whether adding a fourth bedroom was really intensifying the use of a property and argued that the threshold for adding another parking space should be much greater than adding one bedroom. She also suggested that regulations that are too restrictive can sometimes preclude good design.

Ultimately, the Commission came to a consensus and directed Staff to move forward with the following code modifications:

 – Allow a property owner with nonconforming parking to add bedrooms, up to 4 total, if

uncovered and/or tandem spaces exist on site that are not in the 20-foot front (street) setback. The total number of spaces should be that required by code: two.

– Modify Section 17.16.1 to allow consideration of available street parking and existing street width as criteria in determining as to whether to strictly apply the parking requirements. Such a modification would provide flexibility to require covered non-tandem parking if on-street parking is congested and the proposed construction is seen to have an adverse impact on neighborhood congestion.

Allow Accessory Structures within the Side and Rear Setbacks

Interim Planning Director Jackson asked the Commission for direction on whether to allow limited-sized Accessory Structures within the side and rear setbacks. He explained that this change would allow small garages to be located along alleys and rear and side property lines.

The Commission unanimously directed Staff to move forward with the code modifications related to measuring setbacks to Accessory Structures.

Amend Structure Coverage to Not Include Site Features

The following letter was written to the Piedmont Planning Commission opposing a Building Energy Saving Ordinance (BESO). 

June 9, 2016

Piedmont Planning Commission
c/o Asst Planner Emily Alvarez

Re: June 13 Hearing on BESO 

Dear Planning Commission,

The June 13, 2015 Staff report summarizes at page three 72% of residents and 72% of Real Estate professionals are opposed to any form of BESO. Additionally the most onerous form of BESO, the “date-certain” requirement for all homes had a low 1 in 14 approval rating. Considering the overwhelmingly negative community response to BESO, this matter should be tabled.

PG&E provides a wealth of free information. Double paned windows, adequate insulation and other energy conservation issues are easily and readily understood and available; most of us know how to make our homes more energy efficient and have taken steps in that direction as family budget allows. A separate Energy Audit at owner expense is not needed. While the City of Berkeley BESO includes buildings by a certain date, the Berkeley BESO phase-in schedule applies to all “building(s) except houses 1-4 units.”

(http://www.cityofberkeley.info/BESOschedule/).

This is a regressive ordinance that would potentially place considerable increased costs on fixed income seniors in older homes. If required at time of sale, those seniors in older homes will now have a report on home energy efficiency used against the sales price. Another layer of government is not needed in an already complex landscape.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

Polling Place Locations

There will be six polling places in Piedmont on Primary Election Day June 7, 2016.  Polls are open until 8:00 p.m. Vote-By-Mail Ballots may be dropped off at any Alameda County polling location until 8:00 p.m. the day of the election.

 The polling locations are as follows:

YOUR POLLING PLACE LOCATION MAY HAVE CHANGED.

Check your sample ballot or the My Voter Profile page to find out which polling place is yours.

General Information

If you have any questions regarding your voter registration, your sample ballot, or your polling place location, please contact the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office at (510) 272-6933.

The Park Commission heard this request and also heard from adjacent neighbors. Originally in the strip there were American Elm trees planted and residents at 208 Ramona received permission to remove them, but there was significant sucker growth afterwards. The City in managing that created a hedge of elm suckers. Those suckers were damaging properties on Ramona and the City removed the elms and replaced the planting area with low Agapanthus.

In 2012, after review by Commissioners, the end results were that several Commissioners were going to research drought-tolerant shrubs in lieu of planting street trees or possibly a Bay Friendly landscape installation and at that point there was no additional action taken except that the Agapanthus were installed.

Since that time, the fence which residents did not like at the end of Lorita had been replaced and the Agapanthus has been watered by one of the adjacent neighbors. Before the Commission today is a petition to have the City review existing street trees which are Ginkgoes and determine whether they can infill as well as remove the Agapanthus and put street trees in that strip.

Staff was on site talking with neighbors and held an informal meeting with the owner of 36 Monticello who volunteered to pay for 5 new street trees on the Lorita frontage of his property. Even though the petition did not include this address, since it takes up half of that side of Lorita Avenue, the Commission can consider whether it wants to accept the donation of 5 street trees and install them.

Regarding the existing number of trees, Ms. Kent stated on the east side of the street approximately every home could handle 2 trees which is the existing pattern.

Staff has also received additional correspondence, one from a resident at 28 Lorita Avenue with a pledge to water anything that is planted in the non- irrigated replacement strip. Also in the packet are two resident letters whose rear yard borders on the end of Lorita and they sent comments with concerns that if street trees were planted at the end of the street, it would add shade to their rear yard. They asked that plant materials be installed that would only rise to the height of the fence.

Staff suggested a substitution in the packet and said several residents are present to speak.

Public testimony was received from:.

Maggie Spencer, Devan Joseph, Andrew Coleman, and Patricia Makinen voiced their support for the petition. They stated their belief that the addition of new trees and removal of acacia trees to Lorita Avenue will beautify the street and give it more of a neighborhood feeling.

Drop your unstamped Ballot in the new Ballot Drop Box added to the center of Piedmont next to the mailboxes and library book drop box on Highland Way.

Ballot Drop Box on Highland Way in the Center of Piedmont

Ballot Drop Box on Highland Way

June 7, 2016 – Last Day to Vote

Submitting Stamped Ballots Through the US Postal Service:

Vote-by-Mail Ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the Registrar of Voters office no later than 3 days after Election Day.

Submitting Ballots Without Postage:

Vote-by-Mail voters who do not want to mail in their ballot can DROP their voted ballots in the 24-hour outdoor Ballot  drop-off box in Piedmont behind the Wells Fargo Bank on Highland Way.  (Ballot Box is pictured in the photos above.)

Other 24-hour outdoor Ballot  drop-off boxes are in downtown Oakland at the corner of 12th Street and Oak Street or at the ramp at 1225 Fallon Street.  There is also a Ballot drop-off box inside the courthouse next to the Sheriff’s check-in station, Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5:00pm.

Deliver in Person:

On Election Day, June 7, Ballots may be dropped off at any polling place in Piedmont or Alameda County from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 

Vote-by-Mail Ballots may currently be delivered in person to the Registrar of Voters Office 1225 Fallon Street during business hours; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.