City Council Meeting: Monday May 15, 2017

by Lane Manalo-LeClair, Piedmont High School Senior – 

    This past Monday I attended a City Council meeting at the Piedmont City Hall. It was a quiet, chilly evening; I kept my jacket on as I took a seat in the back of the small room. The Piedmont City Council meets on the first and third Mondays of the month, in the City Council Chambers located at 120 Vista Avenue.

    At 7:30 p.m., the members of the Council filed into the Chambers, smiling and laughing with each other. The mayor, Jeff Wieler sat in the middle behind the curved wooden table, with a gavel resting by his right hand. Sitting left of him was Robert McBain, Vice Mayor, and Council member Tim Rood. On the right of Wieler was Teddy Gray King, and her fellow Councilwoman Jennifer Cavenaugh. After a brief joke by Jeff Wieler regarding the Chinese takeout they had just consumed, all rose, faced the flag and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. As part of the first generation not to say the pledge of allegiance in school, I mouthed the words and tried to speak along, to no avail.

    The first item on the agenda was to pass a consent calendar. This calendar had previously been discussed in the last meeting, but needed a vote. Teddy G. King moved to approve the calendar, and the Council followed suit, voting unanimously to approve the calendar.

    This was my first taste of local government. I was introduced to the idea that one Council member must move on an issue, and another must second, before a vote can take place. All votes that night were unanimous, but I assume a simple majority is all that is required by the Council.

    Next was a public forum, in which citizens get the opportunity to speak up about issues regarding the city to the Council. At this point, Sarah Pearson, the School Board Vice President gave a speech about the recent anti-semitic and racist behavior occurring within the District. She said that the School Board is all for a respectful and welcoming environment, and that they have “commitment to a learning environment that is safe and secure.”  Mayor Wieler thanked her and expressed his support for the School Board and their efforts in this non-isolated issue.

   The next item on the agenda was called the “Presentation of Proclamation Regarding Elder Abuse Awareness Month”. In this presentation Mayor Wieler spoke amiably, thanking the DA’s office for their continued efforts to prevent elder abuse, and prosecute perpetrators of elder abuse. He also recognized June as Elder Abuse Awareness Month. Making his way around the table, Mayor Wieler personally handed over the certificate to the Deputy District Attorney in the Elder Protections Unit. She accepted the award and spoke to the Council and audience, affirming that “elder abuse and neglect still exists” despite efforts to eliminate it. She encouraged the Council to create more community awareness of the issue.

    It was pointed out to the Council and audience that Adult Protective Services, the District Attorney’s Office, and the police department are all places an individual can go in order to report elder abuse. Signs of abuse include dirty clothes, undernourishment, home in disarray, or a change in home appearance, as well as bedsores. At the end of her speech, the Deputy District Attorney encouraged the Council and the audience to wear a purple ribbon in order to spread awareness about elder abuse. To this, Mayor Wieler immediately pinned his own purple ribbon onto the lapel of his suit jacket. Following the attorney, Police Chief Bowers spoke seconding that the police are available to deal with elder abuse cases.

    Second, East Bay Mud District Director Marguerite Young Spoke about the water situation in the surrounding watershed and EBMUD work going on in the area. She reported that the East Bay watershed is 167% of normal; water should not be a problem this year. She mentioned that EBMUD is working to replace pipes in the Bay Area with the average pipe being seventy five years old. The rate at which they will replace them is forty miles per year, or as Councilwoman Cavenaugh pointed out, 400 years to replace all pipes.

    Lastly, Young spoke about a topic close to Piedmont, the Piedmont reservoir. There are plans underway to replace the currently inoperable reservoir with two water storage tanks, which would be completed by the end of 2018.

    Immediately following the presentation, was discussion about the Sewer Rehabilitation Project. This act proposed apportioning $3,467,994 dollars for the fifth installment of seven, to replace Piedmont’s sewage pipes. When completed 80% of the city’s sewage pipes would be replaced. The group D’Arcy & Harty Construction had the lowest bid, but the Council wanted to counter with a higher amount in order to complete the project. In addition, the Council would vote to set aside more money for the surveillance and inspection of the sites. After an associate from D’Arcy & Hardy Construction spoke briefly (in a notably strong Irish accent), the Director of Public Works Chester Nakahara spoke in greater detail about the financing, construction, and community involvement in the project. After deliberations and questions ended, Robert McBain motioned to approve the project, with Tim Rood seconding. The Council unanimously said aye to the project.

    Last, and perhaps the most heated topic, was the new cameras to be installed at the intersection of Grand and Oakland avenues.  For the last few years Piedmont has been home to automatic license plate readers, or ALPRs. This past spring, a new police video camera was used to monitor the new Hampton Park, but it proved to be an inadequate test of the technology. The Council was deliberating setting aside $10,000 from the Citizens Option for Police Services Fund to install a new surveillance camera at the aforementioned site. It would be a fixed camera that recorded over itself every 90 days. If there was a suspect picked up by the ALPRs or a pursuit of a vehicle, the police and the dispatcher could, in theory, access the camera to see where the suspect was going.

    The funding is to test this device’s usefulness to the police, and work out any quirks. Chief of police, Jeremy Bowers spoke in detail about the planned project, citing its potential use to police officers. He also acknowledged the concern for privacy and 4th Amendment rights, promising to look into blurring out faces of passers by in tape used by police.

    After Bowers spoke, there were many questions from the Council. Vice Mayor Robert McBain asked whether there was any evidence that these cameras deterred crime, in addition to their ability to help solve crime. Many members of the audience spoke on this issue. One citizen endorsed Chief Bowers and cited the recent attempt to abduct a child near Havens Elementary School as a potential scenario in which this technology would be useful. Linda Schaefer agreed, saying that Piedmont needed to “up the game.”

    Morty Glick told the Council that people do not feel safe at night in Piedmont, and talked about some families’ attempts to hire private security. He said, “Piedmont, it’s scary these days.”  Susy Struble took the podium for the whole time allotted to her, saying to the Council, “I am confused by the rush. There is no crisis. As Chief Bowers has pointed out publicly, crime is down in Piedmont, and yes, the research on the efficacy of public surveillance is inconclusive.”  Struble argued strongly for the need for a community conversation before any action taken by the Council. Despite Struble’s efforts and a slight hesitation by Councilwoman King, a half-hour later, the motion was passed unanimously.

    I interviewed Susy Struble about the meeting. When asked why she came to the meeting Struble responded by saying, “ [I came] to work to ensure the Piedmont community would have oversight and insight into public surveillance and to stop the pilot surveillance program until the community was given the opportunity to discuss and approve any surveillance policy or implementation.” After the decision by the Council, Struble said she learned that, “The the Piedmont City Council and Police Chief have no interest in genuinely engaging the community on public surveillance.” Promising to engage the public more, Councilwoman King conceded the vote, perhaps angering Susy Struble.

The swing of the gavel signaled the end to the meeting, and people began to file out of the room and mingle outside in the cool May evening. As I walked back to my car I reflected on my first experience in local government. I realized that local government is a cornerstone of democracy in the United States, dating back to the townships in colonial America. I was glad to spend one night as a part of this rich tradition.

Interview with Susy Struble

-Why did you go to the City Council meeting?

To work to ensure the Piedmont community would have oversight and insight into public surveillance and to stop the pilot surveillance program until the community was given the opportunity to discuss and approve any surveillance policy or implementation.

-What issues brought you there?

Public surveillance and the need for community oversight of public surveillance program.

-What did you learn from the meeting?

The Piedmont City Council and Police Chief have no interest in genuinely engaging the community on public surveillance

-What next step will you take to get your concern about the cameras addressed?

I already have community support and links to the EFF, ACLU, and the Oakland Privacy Group. I will continue to build community support, watch what related state laws are in development (e.g. SB 21), and start a public campaign

-Is there anything else you would like to add?

I’m happy to send you my statement if that would help

Statement by Struble: 

I remain deeply concerned for many reasons, topmost of which is the absence of genuine public engagement. Piedmont citizens should have a say in how they and their families, their children, their daily activities, are watched, if at all.

The implementation of broader public surveillance – which the pilot project represents and indicates is the plan – is significantly different from the somewhat more limited implementation of license plate readers. As I recall, many residents raised deep reservations about that program, but it was made palatable to the community by the City’s assurances that no personally identifying photos were being taken. That is not the case here, and the fact that these proposals and the policy were put forth without public engagement is really a betrayal of trust.

Public surveillance cameras cannot be considered in a vacuum – because they don’t operate in a vacuum. There are multiple, complex contexts in which this policy and related proposals must be considered. There will be more surveillance tools available and more opportunity for data to be combined, shared, stolen, and misused – and to be used for evidence-based public policy reasons. But we need to have this community conversation — and have it often, because this is a constantly changing area. This is also why we need a surveillance policy that is independent of the technology platform. There are myriad surveillance technologies available, as Chief Bowers indicated, more than just surveillance cameras, and the community deserves a say in how they are used.

I don’t believe Chief Bowers has presented a case for why public surveillance is the solution that’s better than alternatives available to us.

I am confused by the rush. There is no crisis. As Chief Bowers has pointed out publicly, crime is down in Piedmont, and yes, the research on the efficacy of public surveillance is inconclusive.

 Some examples: A recent review from a Commissioner of Alberta, Canada found the consensus amongst empirical studies to be that video surveillance has little effect on violent crime, and only a small positive effect on property crime. This positive effect on property crime, moreover, was substantially less than the effect of improved lighting.Also unclear is the effect of the extent to which criminal activity was simply displaced to non-surveilled areas. Finally, given the cost of deploying, maintaining, and operating such systems, no data exists to demonstrate that video surveillance is a more effective use of public resources than traditional law enforcement. Even the Oakland police department has stated “there is no conclusive way to establish that the presence of video surveillance cameras resulted in the prevention or reduction of crime.”

The City should embark upon an adequately long process of community education and engagement *before* any implementation of a public surveillance program, pilot or not – and note a “pilot” is still a working surveillance system. I say adequate time because the community needs ample time, particularly working parents with multiple obligations. Public surveillance poses complex legal, technical, and social issues that require a good amount of education and even more robust discussion. There are areas where state and federal law are silent, inconclusive, vague, and/or pose areas of possible conflict. For example: is the community prepared to hand over any and all data to the federal government? Under all circumstances? That’s a pretty interesting question at any time, but perhaps especially now.

I very respectfully encourage the City Council to educate itself on these issues. They aren’t as simple, as hopefully some of Jen’s [Cavenaugh] questions around public records requests brought to light. Oakland’s City Council did a great amount of self-education before it took any action and worked very closely with the community – so did Berkeley, so did BART, so did Providence RI, and the list goes on. I respectfully suggest that Piedmont follow suit.

 Public surveillance might be something the Piedmont community supports, perhaps across the board, or perhaps only in some cases under certain criteria — or perhaps not at all — but we deserve a say in whatever happens.

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.

Planning Commission confronts applications for additional bedrooms without off-street parking and high fences next to sidewalks. 

by Leah Kochendoerfer, Piedmont High School Senior –

 On Monday, May 8th, 2017 at 5:00pm, the Planning Commission met in order to consider approval of projects proposed for property in Piedmont. Between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., the members of the Planning Commission discussed four specific cases: 419 Moraga Avenue, 156 Wildwood Avenue, 139 Lexford Road, and 361 Moraga Avenue. Four projects were conditionally approved; however, each had their own set of adjustments necessary to ensure approval.  

The resident of 419 Moraga Avenue submitted an application seeking the approval of modifications to her windows, as well as the approval of a room conversion into a bedroom without providing the necessary parking ratio. The application had previously been denied under the Small House Policy, in which bedroom count cannot exceed a certain number without simultaneously increasing parking. However, the resident argued that similar construction had taken place in neighboring homes in which bedroom to parking ratios had been consistent with her plans, and thus her construction should be approved. When asked why she could not create more parking in order to make the increase in room count legal, she suggested that her driveway was too steep for a car to park, and a garage could not be added without demolishing the entire house, thus indicating the Variance criteria of unusual physical circumstances. Susan Ode and Eric K. Behrens, members of the Planning Commission, both rejected the resident’s argument by stating that no house should be compared to another, as each is in a unique circumstance. Another commissioner introduced the consideration of traffic on Moraga, noting that creating another unit would only increase car flow down the already busy street. Ultimately reflecting the Planning Commission’s decision, Tom Ramsey noted the importance of being consistent and supported the variance under the condition that the driveway could be modified in order to supply an additional parking spot.

 The subsequent resident submitted an application for the construction of a new six foot wooden fence with two gates on their Wildwood Avenue property. The resident expressed the need of a new fence after having experienced several incidents of stolen property, and also commented on the benefits of adding more room to the property, the convenience of having access to the home through a side yard, and the general aesthetic of a new fence.

Responses from the Planning Commission included Commissioner Eric Behrens who stated that the fence was out of character and not, in fact, aesthetic.  Commissioner Susan Ode noted that the horizontal planks would not match the vertical ones. Additionally, Commissioner Jonathan Levine suggested that neighboring houses along Wildwood Avenue do not have these fences and a fence this tall would look imposing from the street. Similarly, Commissioner Aradhana Jajodia stated that the fence calls attention to itself and takes away the otherwise open feeling. Commissioner Tom Ramsey worried about the precedent this situation would set in allowing people to set up six foot tall fences when desired. Thus, the Planning Commission came to the conclusion that the fence would be approved only if it followed the four foot maximum outlined in the Design Guidelines.

I personally believe that the four foot maximum fence height is a valid code, as the City of Piedmont should be a relatively open space that makes neighbors feel welcome. A tall fence would definitely separate the house from the otherwise community feel, and make surrounding residents less comfortable when walking alongside it.

Next, the Planning Commission discussed the application for a new house and fence design submitted by Paul Simonetti wanted to install a gate and fence along his property.  Simonetti stated his concern about recent break-ins. He was also looking to plant a new maple tree. Commissioner Behrens was  concerned with the sight-lines when exiting the driveway, to which Simonetti ensured that the fence would slowly decrease in height when backing out of the driveway, allowing for an unobstructed view of the street and potential cars.

Commissioner Ramsey brought up the code involving a foot-wide section between the fence and the sidewalk, which the Commission and Simonetti agreed could be used for landscaping plants. Lastly, while Commissioner Levine agreed that the arbor would distinguish the house entrance, it needed to be a more modest size. Therefore, the project was approved under the conditions that the tree would not be planted and that a foot wide landscaped section would be installed between the sidewalk and fence.

The residents of 361 Moraga Avenue, sought approval for the construction of additional office space in order to increase living space for their family of four. After having two storage rooms built, the owners stopped the project in December in order to ensure the project was up to code. The owners gathered signatures from neighbors approving the variance and now only needed permission from the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Levine addressed his concern that the office space could be transformed into a bedroom when sold in the future and advertised as a five-bedroom house with two bedrooms sharing one bathroom. This would go against the Small House Policy, as the property only holds one parking spot currently. When Levine asked the residents about the possibility of increasing the garage size, an owner stated that the garage was surrounded by concrete and any modifications would thus be infeasible.

On the other hand, Commissioner Behrens assured that access to the bathroom was not direct and thus the house could not be advertised as five-bedroom. Additionally, Commissioner Aradhana Jajodia stated that if someone truly wanted to do illegal construction with the intent of increasing the bedroom count in a house, they would not have come to the Planning Commission to seek approval in the first place. The application consideration concluded with the Planning Commission approving the plan with the condition that the framing of the door be removed, confirming that the space is purely office space, not a bedroom.

 Amy Shen, attended the Planning Commission meeting seeking approval for a home remodel as well as a variance on her lot size. Because the City of Piedmont only allows residents to have structures on 40% of one’s lot, plans to exceed this limit require the approval of a variance by the Planning Commission. When asked what she learned through the process of these meetings, she responded that she “learned that design is subjective and that because of the limitations of speaking time, you have to be direct in presenting what you want to say as well as in the documentation you present prior to the meeting.” Because the Planning Commission did not authorize the proposed remodel, she will now have to begin the process again with a new design, addressing the changes advised by the Planning Commission members.

The Planning Commission meets once per month on the second Monday of the month at 5:00 p.m., to discuss the alteration and construction plans of Piedmont homes.

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Information in a declaration was provided by former Piedmont Mayor Alice Creason stating a (change of use) reclassification, such as for the Commercial Zone, without voter approval does not adhere to Piedmont’s City Charter. The declaration was sent to the City Council, Planning Commission, Planning Director, City Administrator, and City Attorney.  Creason noted she was on the City Council when the Charter was drafted and approved by Piedmont voters.  She states the intent and wording of the Charter require Piedmont voter approval prior to changing the use/reclassification of any Piedmont zone. 

~~~~~~~~

Zoning rules – setbacks, building heights, parking, apartment units, etc. –  for the Commercial Zone on Grand Avenue are in the development stage and two meetings are being held for public involvement.   The zoning rules for Piedmont’s Civic Center Commercial Zone have already been approved by the City Council.  

No recordings or broadcasts of the workshops are scheduled, however participants may make their own recordings of the proceedings. 

Read the prior PCA article on zoning changes  >here. 

The City’s recommended revised changes to the Commercial Zone on Grand Avenue can be read here.

~~~~~~~

The Piedmont Planning Department notice is below.

The City of Piedmont will hold two community workshops to consider the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions to the regulations for the thirteen properties along Grand Avenue that are in the City’s commercial/mixed-use zone (Zone D). The regulations under consideration are those related to structure and landscape coverage, building height, setback requirements, and parking. In addition, city staff will introduce a recommended revision to the density of multi-family dwelling units allowed in Zone D.  The second workshop will be a follow-up to the first workshop. The schedule and location for the two community workshops are as follows:

First Community Workshop

Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 6:00 p.m.

Kehilla Community Synagogue, Fireside Room

1300 Grand Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94610

Follow-Up Community Workshop

Wednesday, May 3, 2017, 6:00 p.m.

Kehilla Community Synagogue, Fireside Room

1300 Grand Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94610

One can find more information on the recommended revisions to the regulations for the City’s commercial/mixed-use zone (Zone D) by visiting the City’s webpage on the topic.

You are encouraged to provide your comments by attending the workshop and/or by submitting written comments by Monday, April 17, 2017. You can submit your comments to: kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or on paper to 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

Kevin Jackson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

Tel: (510) 420-3039     Fax: (510) 658-3167

Read the full PCA article on zoning changes and declaration  >here.

~~~~~~~~~

Editors Note:  A quorum of the Planning Commission is not expected at either workshop, as the workshops are not Planning Commission meetings. Planning staff members will be present at both workshops.

For other PCA reader’s information, comments may be submitted below.

FY18 Fare Increases on BART Board Agenda Thursday 9 am

The fare increase proposals presented to the BART Board on Thursday, March 9 would reduce discounts for seniors, youth aged five through 12 and people with disabilities from 62.5 percent to 50 percent. Proposed minimum fare would increase from $1.95 to $2.25 in 2018.  In addition, paper tickets would cost more than digital tickets.

Ridership began declining in 2015. In January 2017, weekday trips declined about 4 percent, and weekend trips declined 2 percent over 2016.

The BART Board will hear the staff’s proposed fare changes for the first time during their meeting on Thursday, March 9. The public is invited to attend the 9 am meeting in the Kaiser Mall, 344 20th Street, Oakland, on the third floor.  The “FY18 Possible Fare Modification Options” will be item 5 on the agenda. This is the best opportunity for the public to offer their recommendations and solutions to decreasing ridership before the Board takes a position or becomes committed to a particular approach

Agenda for March 9, 2017 BART Board meeting

More information here.

    On February 15th, 2017, the Piedmont Recreation Commission held its monthly meeting to discuss the updates and planning for construction projects around the city of Piedmont. The meeting covered construction of Hampton Field, the plan for the Piedmont Pool, Linda Beach Playfield restrictions, and various other proposed projects to improve Piedmont.

    The meeting was called to order and it was announced that the memorial service for Wildwood Elementary School teacher, Andy Weidcamp, would be held on March 8th. Shortly after announcements, a report was given about the Piedmont Community Pool by Aquatics Coordinator Tyler Waespi. The report involved details of activities the pool will be offering throughout the coming year. The medium pool will soon be opening and the Piedmont High School Swim Team will start practice beginning early March, marking the beginning of the pool’s spring season. Additionally, over Spring Break lifeguard training will be held to recruit lifeguards in preparation for the busyness of the pool over summer. Activities such as water polo, water aerobics, and swim lessons will be offered as summer approaches.

    Next, Recreation Director Sara Lillevand brought to discussion the Linda Beach Playfield restrictions, which set limits on when the field could be used by the public. These restrictions were made to allow time for sports programs to use the field that previously used Hampton Field which is currently under construction. It was proposed that public use of the Beach Playfield on Sundays be made permanent and that an additional four hour block of time for public use would also be allowed. Given that there have been no complaints about these changes to the Playfield access, the proposal was passed unanimously by the commissioners.

    The meeting next moved on to an update on Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) given by Commissioner Betsy Smegal Anderson. The CIP is a committee that residents can send ideas to about projects to better the city. It was suggested that the lights along the Piedmont Bridge along Oakland Avenue over Beach Playfield be extended. This project is currently being funded by the CIP and will soon undergo installation.

    Lastly, Director Lillevand gave an update on the construction of Hampton Park and the Aquatics Master Plan Concept. Four to five trees came down behind the basketball courts at Hampton Park during several storms and will delay the target opening date by one week. Hampton Park is set to have its grand opening on March 25th and all are welcome to attend the celebration. The Aquatics Master Plan requires a cost-operative test before a budget can be submitted to the City Council for their consideration.

    After the meeting had come to a close, Recreation Director Sara Lillevand was kind enough to share some of her thoughts about the meeting. She enjoys being a part of these meetings and being able to influence projects that bring positive changes to the city. Having discussed the Hampton Park project on several occasions, she is very excited for its completion and looks forward to the grand opening.

By Ian Dickson, Piedmont High School Senior

Bike lanes to be added to the Oakland Avenue Bridge along with bulbouts.

The Oakland Avenue Bridge designed by architect Albert Farr in 1910 is proposed to undergo changes. – 

Grant funds may be available through “One Bay Area Grants (OBAG2)” supporting focused growth, regional transportation priorities, and the Bay Area’s land-use and housing goals.

OBAG 2 is projected to total about $800 million to fund projects from 2017-18 through 2021-22.  Some $354 million in federal funds will be directed to Congestion Management Agencies.  They are responsible for soliciting, evaluating and selecting eligible projects within their counties.

Piedmont’s OBAG Grant proposal for Cycle  #2 is $169,000 for Oakland Avenue Improvements developed with the help of Coastland Engineers. The Oakland Avenue Bridge construction proposal includes: resurfacing, new bike lanes, relocation of a fire hydrant, a “bulbout” at the corner of Howard and Oakland Avenues.

The Council has heard from public speakers that pedestrians face a perilous walk on the narrow bridge sidewalks, originally 6 feet wide. No proposals have been made to return to the original sidewalk width.  Bike lanes are proposed on the roadway.

Bulbouts often reduce one or two parking slots and are controversial. Some drivers may cut across the bulbout, bumping up over the curb and down as they make a tight turn.

According to the staff report there could be a shortfall of over $200,000 for the project. – 

“The Engineer’s Estimate for the construction cost is $400,000, so the grant will cover approximately 42% of the projected cost. The additional funding will most likely come from Measure B and BB Bike & Pedestrian Funds.

“On a separate but related note, the City is currently working on a pedestrian railing and lighting project across the Oakland Avenue Bridge which was not included in the OBAG2 project application since the goal is to have this installed prior to 2019 when the OBAG2 monies will be available. “

The Alameda County Transportation Commission, which has a Piedmont representation, will announce the projects they select on July 31, 2017.

Read the full report with diagrams of the proposal showing bike lanes and bulbouts  here.

Read agenda for Monday, February 6, 2016 here.

   I went to the City Council meeting on Monday, November 21 at 7:30 p.m. in Piedmont’s City Hall.  The City Council meets every first and third Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m.  The members of the Council and various citizens meet to discuss and solve prominent issues within the community.

    Throughout the course of this meeting six major issues were discussed, the first of which was a report by the Chief of Police regarding recent crimes in the neighborhood.  The Chief of Police highlight a recent series of break-ins, robberies, a pig’s head being left at the doorstep of a resident, and remarks about deportations written in chalk on Linda Avenue. In response to the series of break-ins and robberies the Chief of Police assured the citizens that they review their patrolling patterns and devise a cohesive plan.  After a short investigation, the police discovered that the pig’s head was meant for another former resident as a joke.  The police have no further leads on the remarks written on Linda Avenue, though this leaves troubling thoughts in my mind as a resident of Piedmont living on Linda Avenue.  It deeply troubles me that someone living in what I viewed as an inclusive environment could justify in any way using language regarding deportation.  Even more troubling is its proximity to Beach Elementary School where the language used could show younger children that what was said was socially acceptable.

    The second issue discussed was the consideration of a fee waiver request for the residence of 42 Craig Avenue.  The residents received a design review which lasted for twelve months, after which it would become void.  After twelve months and the review becoming void the claim was submitted by the residents in addition to a request for the payment required for the submission to be waived.  The City Council ruled that the second fee would not be waived as the work done to clear the waiver needed to be paid for even though the work had already been done in the past.

    The next issue discussed was the elimination of the parking restriction of the 700 block of Highland Avenue from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m.  This restriction was initially put into place in 1971 due to complaints of young people convening there and creating noise.  Removal of this restriction would in turn create sixteen parking spots.  The daughter of a current resident spoke out against the removal of this restriction stating that in the short term its removal could increase noise and crime, while in the long term home value could drop.  The City Council ruled to accept the motion, removing the parking restriction from the 700 block of Highland Avenue.

    The fourth topic discussed during the meeting was whether to refute or remain impartial on the subject of Alameda County Waste Management’s new 2016 ordinance that would ban the use of plastic bags in Piedmont stores and restaurants.  Choosing no action would only impact McMullins and Ace Hardware, forcing them to remove plastic bags and charge ten cents for paper bags in an attempt to push for reusable bags.  Piedmont High student Keith Sibal spoke in favor of choosing no action, drawing on his knowledge of the dangers of plastic bags pooling into the environment stating that the small cost of their removal will be outweighed by the protection afforded the environment.  The City Council ruled in favor of no action.

    The subsequent topic was authorizing the implementation of a community choice aggregation program.  The City Council approved the aggregation program, stating that it would give the people of Piedmont more choices and freedom to choose.

   The final topic covered during the City Council meeting was considering the agreements with Computer Courage for IT support services and Client First Technology Consulting for IT management services.  This was primarily to discuss the proper compensation for the work the two companies have done and will do in the future.  The City Council approved a budgeted compensation for the two companies.

   With the scheduled topics coming to a close and the City Council meeting being adjourned I had the opportunity to interview Jen Cavanaugh.  Ms. Cavanaugh stated that her presence was due to a letter she helped write from the School Board revolving around inclusion in schools that the City Council read.  She then explained that her next step is to meet with the School Board in an attempt to get real change going, stating, “There’s talk and then there’s action”.

Jacob Watson, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

I attended the Recreation Commission meeting on Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the Piedmont City Hall. The commissioners meet every third Wednesday of the month to discuss current projects in the city regarding recreational activities, parks and sports.

Chair Betsy Smegal Anderson began the meeting by calling public speakers to the stand to discuss any issues or suggestions that were not on the agenda. PHS students spoke regarding a desire for Triathlons put on by the Piedmont community that would include special ed students, creating more bike lanes and making running trails in various Piedmont parks. Anderson continued with a discussion of the progress of multiple Recreation Department Projects throughout Piedmont. The first project discussed was the Recreation Department Tot Lot play equipment which was approved on November 7th by the City Council. Now that the contract has been approved, the play equipment is looking to be finished by late January.

Next, Recreation Director Sara Lillevand described the progress of the Hampton Park Improvement Project which is working to turn the previous baseball field into a multi-functional park and sports field. She explained that the field is taking shape now that the grading, dugout and bleachers are almost finished and is on track to be finished by mid January. A plaque is also going to be placed on the backstop of the field to memorialize Oakland Police officer John Hege who was well known and loved by the community. The remaining details for the park including the ordering and paying for different sports equipment and storage will be taken care of before the opening.

Piedmont High School student Amelia Eldridge then spoke regarding the use of real grass or turf for the new park, a controversial decision on many fields in Piedmont. Director Lillevand explained that only a small portion of the field would be artificial turf and the remainder would be kept as natural grass and that the markings on the grass would be done seasonally to fit a variety of age groups and sports.

 The next topic discussed was the update on the Recreation Department/Veterans Hall Master Plan to optimize space efficiency for programs in the two buildings. Director Lillevand explained that the spaces in the Recreation Department and Veterans Hall are being assessed based on what is currently offered and what would be most efficient and beneficial to offer in the future. There are no set plans yet, although Public Works Director Chester Nakahara will be making the selection for the renovations using surveys from the public to get a wide range of opinions.

Another issue addressed was the current Kennelly Skate Park hours of operation. The limited park hours of  8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays and 3 p.m. to dusk on weekends are looking to be expanded to increase the availability of the park. Commission members pointed out issues of noise, safety, volunteer availability for monitoring and lack of park use by the public.  Steve Roland stated that the park seems to be used mainly by children and they are in school during the open hours of the park which makes the monitoring pointless. Student Amelia Eldridge confirmed that the park being closed is not necessarily a deterrent from kids entering the park, which poses a safety threat.

Director Lillevand responded to a group of Piedmont Middle School students that explained that the skate park has limited space with dangerous conditions which makes the park less desireable, by suggesting filling in the large bowl in the park to create more space. The Commission established that the purpose of the monitor should be revisited and the City should take a look at the current safety of the park and understand what age groups would be using it.

 I believe that the Recreation Committee should advertise the need for staff help for Skate Park monitoring in order to increase the park’s hours. If the students who attend the park are able to participate in the monitoring after engaging in a short safety training, the lack of staff would no longer be an issue. It is important to make the most use out of the limited park spaces in Piedmont.

Chair Anderson then discussed the new Aquatics Coordinator Tyler Waespi who was hired last June. Tyler earned his position with his impressive interview, intensive training and working success this past summer.

Anderson went on to discuss the Aquatics Master Plan Conceptual Design which is moving forward with pre ideas given by the hired architect. The plan is to create a larger, more attractive and ultimately more functional pool that will attract more use from the public. PHS student Skyler Liu asked a question regarding where the funds for the project will be coming from. Anderson responded by explaining the $15 million budget that would most likely come from private fundraising and a bond fund. After student Kerry O’Connor suggested a new ideas for the placement of the water polo cages, Anderson confirmed that any minor design details for the project have not been decided.

The last topic addressed was a recap of the Piedmont Recreation Department Haunted House that is held in the Recreation Building every Halloween weekend. Director Lillevand proudly reported that this year there were 720 visitors on Friday and over 1,000 total throughout the weekend despite the last minute change of theme. Anderson suggested that the entry fee of $5 should be revisited considering the tremendous amount of time, planning and money that goes into the event. PHS student Nina Adarkar suggested that the Adventure Crew Club could volunteer to sell food at the end of the Haunted House to raise money for the costs of the production.

At the end of the meeting, I was honored to speak with Director Sara Lillevand about her position and reasons for participating. As the Director of the Recreation Department, Sara explained that she was here to create solutions for the community and to hear the needs and desires of the public. She believes that recreation enhances people’s lives and introduces healthy and fun opportunities into people’s lives. Lillevand described recreation as a “huge umbrella” that has a broad impact on the community, from preschool and school mates to PHS Seniors.

Addie MacCracken, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Little Public Involvement in Zone Use Changes

The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation to the City Council on whether voters or the Council can make final changes to land uses within zones.

The Planning Commission has considered the Planning Department’s proposals with little resident participation.  In our City of over 10,600 residents and over 3,800 households, a total of only 17 individuals have participated in Planning Commission meetings to provide input that impacts all Piedmont property, resident lives, and long term uses of land in Piedmont.  Former Planning Commissioners and the public in general have noted they were unaware of the considerations.

 Changes proposed are vast and long reaching.   Too numerous to list here, but some changes include:

• reduced parking requirements
• interchangeable land uses between zones
• extensions to buildings
• intensified use and development in the Civic Center (near emergency services and 3 schools)
• increased staff consideration and approval of proposals
• elimination of all building requirements for the Public Zone (This includes all public properties.)
• changed building standards including elimination of privacy attributes.

Voters Right Eliminated Without a Charter Change –

For decades the application and interpretation of the Piedmont City Charter referred to classification and reclassification as land uses within zones requiring voter ratification. Recent proposals by the Planning Department and opinions by Piedmont’s new City attorney takes away the right of Piedmont voters to approve zone land use changes.

The newly devised legal interpretation allows any use to be in any zone as long as the boundary lines are not moved and the City Council approves the land use change. Required voter approval of land use changes have been dismissed without changing the City Charter.

Unlike recent Recreation Department’s outreach to Piedmont residents, important zoning changes have lacked public input – no round table discussions, well attended public meeting, free exchange of ideas between the Planning Commission and residents, or polls and surveys.

The Planning staff will present an update on proposed changes to Chapter 17 at the City Council meeting September 19, 2016  in City Hall.

The staff report can be read here. 

A PCA article on the questioned legal interpretation of land use changes in Piedmont can be read here.

Project recommendations listed in order of priority with estimated costs:

1. Coaches Field Master Plan $50,000

The goal of the master plan would be to assess the possibility of expanding the playfield area to maximize the use where a larger field would meet more demand; define the technical needs associated with artificial turf; research “dark sky” directional lighting to extend use time; and address the serious parking shortage.

Believing that it is more efficient to work with an existing facility and because this field is heavily used by several sports, expansion to a regulation under 14-sized soccer field would allow concurrent practice by more than one team at a time.

This field does provide some revenue-generation and does have public interest for cooperative private funding. It would also allow for more “home team” use and spirit.

2. Beach Tot Lot/ADA Compliant Howard Ave Entrance and Restroom Facilities Master Plan $30,000

The goal of the master plan would be to review existing facilities, solicit community input and propose a new layout for improved recreational opportunities at the existing Tot Lot area and the unused space around the restroom facilities, and the space between the Oakland Ave Bridge and the Beach Playfield.

The current Tot Lot is used heavily by residents and the City recognizes the need to maintain tot lot facilities for the neighborhood. In its current location and configuration, the tot lot is unsafe with an unguarded retaining wall and outdated play equipment. An overall study of the most efficient use of the space now occupied by the Tot Lot and its situation with the tennis court, playfield and restrooms, plus access to and from each component would improve the flow and maximize the future use of the area.

The Recreation Director has requested that the Tot Lot not be looked at in isolation, but incorporated into an overall, long-range vision for the area, which may include relocation to the other side of the playfield. This would put the play area closer to the existing restrooms and eliminate the sand creep onto the tennis courts.

Additionally, with the completion of the new townhouses at 408 Linda Ave, it would be a great opportunity for the City to improve the use, aesthetics and functionality of the area between the Oakland Ave Bridge and Linda Beach Field.

In the current budget, Public Works is in the planning stage for the ADA access from Howard Ave and the City is currently reviewing all play structures in the City for safety compliance as well as a schedule for play equipment replacement. This is the time for a Master Plan for this area.

3. Piedmont Community Hall – Entry Court Renovation, $200,000 – $300,000

Parking and ADA access are the urgent needs for this facility and a top priority for the Recreation Department. The recommendation is to enhance the entry court for ceremonial and civic events with decorative paving and improved event lighting. The plan would redirect service vehicles to the edge of the turnaround and relocate the trash area, eliminating the need for heavy trucks to cross the entry court. 2

Currently the City Engineer is working on a survey of the parking possibilities and ADA access. If feasible, the committee recommends that the entry court be upgraded sooner rather than later.

4. Piedmont Community Hall – Rear Balcony and Amphitheater Architectural Master Plan $50,000

Because the Community Hall is in full use nearly daily, an architectural master plan would study and propose enhancements that would improve use, circulation and revenue generation.

Expanding the terraces and rear balcony of Community Hall over enlarged space beneath, would greatly improve the rental opportunities and community programs use with the inclusion of indoor/outdoor access.

Relocating the pre-school facilities to a more easily accessible location would free the lower level of the Hall and provide space for concurrent facility use, better storage and increased rental revenues.

The Amphitheater currently is over impacted and underutilized. An upgrade to permeable paving with current water catchment technology would be both environmentally smart and revitalize the overall area. Relocating the bleachers and access from both stories of the Hall to the amphitheater would connect this space to the interior spaces for better flow and function.

Community Hall is a perfect venue for public/private funding.

5. Oakland Avenue Bridge – Complete the String of Lights $40,000

This is a new proposal by William Blackwell who has done extensive research on both the engineering requirements to add two new light standards, suppliers for exact matches to the existing light standards and the infill string of lights. This definitely qualifies as a stand-alone project to revive what was once a stately entrance to the City of Piedmont.

This is a project that would attract private funding from several sources.

Both Mr. Blackwell and the CIP committee independently came to the same conclusion while on site at the bridge. The Oakland Avenue Bridge is in dire need of some safety improvements. Crossing Oakland Avenue at the crosswalks at both ends of the bridge on the way to or from the Beach playfield area is hazardous.

The CIP committee suggests that the safety issues be included in the future implementation of the Bike/Pedestrian Plan or as part of the Master Plan for the Beach Playfield project.

6. Highland Strip $200,000

Because of the recent wet winter, momentum has stalled for a drought tolerant and native garden to replace the lawn at the intersection of Sheridan Avenue and Highland Avenue. There were regional interests to fund parts of this project, however, much more education and outreach appears to be needed.