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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sam Williamson, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Report showed an increase of School District revenue by $378,166, or nearly one percent of the total $39,253,395 District Budget revenue taken in during the period.  Tax exempt parcels raised once more as a funding issue.   

The PUSD Budget Advisory Committee met on Thursday, March 2, at the School District offices to review their second Interim Budget Report for the 2016-2017 PUSD budget.  Those in attendance included three PHS students, five district-affiliated persons, not including the presenter, Assistant Superintendent Song Chin Bendib, and one private citizen.

    The purpose of the meeting was to understand the District’s finances, and how they have changed recently, and how they will continue to change over the next few years.  The second interim report showed an increase of District revenue by $378,166, or nearly one percent of the total $39,253,395 Budget revenue taken in during the period.  Of this increase, nearly 60% percent came from fees or donations paid to the District for programs such as sports teams, field trips, PAINTS, CHIME, and other similar groups.  This income can only be reported after it is collected by the District, and, according to Bendib, cannot be used to offset other District costs, or saved in the General Fund.  The remaining 40% percent of revenue increases came from the State of California, in the form of one hundred nine thousand dollars of aid.  Expenditures grew by $369,689 in the same interim period, a smaller amount than the increase due to specialty payment revenue.  This reduced the District’s previous interim deficit of $869,467 to $860,990 in the second interim budget review.

Spending for books and materials increased nearly eight percent, or about $80,000, in the second, or mid school-year, interim.  Maintenance and services costs increased by nearly $200,000 during the period, an increase that Bendib attributed to so-called “discretionary spending” of the income from athletic, arts, and field trip donations.  Bendib indicated that neither the increases in maintenance expenditures, nor those on books and materials reflected long-term growth of expenditures.  The increase in income in the period, however, did not reflect a reliable increase or a growth trend either.

The author wonders why spending increased for books and materials in the middle of the school-year, surmising that most textbooks and materials are purchased at the beginning of the school-year or over the summer.  Additionally, the author believes that the income for special-interest programs like arts and athletics should not be added to the same data used to compute changes in the General Fund, especially if said income cannot be used for general spending, and represents reliable growth in neither revenues nor expenditures.

Further increase in expenditures resulted from PUSD staff that changed health insurance status.  The District, instead of paying a two thousand dollar adjustment to staff who paid for their own health insurance or received insurance through a spouse’s employment, must now pay around $7,000, for an individual, to provide full health insurance.  This puts the District’s health insurance payments on par with the most expensive insurance available in Alameda County, according to “Health Insurance Companies and Plan Rates for 2016,” a report by government-established marketplace, Covered California.

The outlook for the next few years was then presented.  The District is required to have a reserve of 3% of its projected budget every year.  For the 2016-2017 budget, there is a projected reserve of almost 4%, but for the following two years, that is the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 budgets, the projected reserves fall short at 2.7% and 1% respectively.  This is due to a decreased outlook, by $465,000, for state LCFF funding.  This amount of funding has yet to be finalized by the governor in his May revise of California’s budget.

PMS teacher Annie Holland asked a question to make sure that the numbers shown in the meeting did not indicate, or would not be seen to indicate, an increase in teacher salaries.

Private citizen William Blackwell asked that the Committee look into parcel tax exemptions.  He stated the the number of parcels in Piedmont multiplied by the flat parcel tax per parcel amounted to more than the parcel tax revenue reported by the district.  The gap, according to him, is nearly $114,000 dollars per year, and is caused by unlawful exemptions to the tax claimed by some parcel owners.  Blackwell said that several lawyers have looked into this and agree with him, including a former PUSD School Board member.  Bendib responded that the District has looked into the issue and that the District’s lawyers have advised that there is nothing illegal about the exemptions.

When asked if he learned anything from the meeting, he responded that he has attended PUSD Budget Advisory Committee meetings for four years trying to get the District to claim the money that he purports is owed to the District.  He said “I’ve heard almost the same presentation every year,” Blackwell says.  He claims that “there is a discrepancy [of] about forty-four parcels… that should be paying the taxes [and are] not.”

Blackwell also believes that paying for maintenance of current buildings using H1 Bond money will make maintenance more expensive in the long run.  He would like to see “a mandatory set-aside for maintenance every year… [that] would not be kicked down the road.”  Blackwell is disappointed by the District’s lack of action on the issue and plans to meet with Superintendent Randall Booker and other PUSD officials to discuss the issue.

by Grady Wetherbee, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Pension costs continue to place a burden on School District budgets as operating reserves are reduced. School Board will review the budget on March 15, 2017.  

    The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) Budget Advisory Committee meets about five times each fiscal year to examine and discuss PUSD’s budget. On March 2, 2017, at 3:30 PM in the District Conference room, Assistant Superintendent Song Chin-Bendib made a presentation to the committee covering PUSD’s budget and changes during the 2016-2017 fiscal year, as well as the multi-year projection report looking ahead to the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

    In terms of changes since the first interim of the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year, both revenues and expenditures have increased. Revenues increased by $378,166 due to both state and local funding. There was an additional $109,000 from state funding as parts of the College Readiness Block Grant, ROP funding, and special education funding. Local revenues were generated by school athletics, various Piedmont High School ASB funds, and fundraising groups such PAINTS. Expenditures also increased, by $369,689, as a result from shift in certified and classified salaries because of vacancies in the payroll, employee benefits especially healthcare, and services, operating expenses, and capital outlay.

    Moving on to look at the multi-year projection report, we looked at the District reserves which are required to be around 3-4%. We have the required reserves for the 2016-2017 fiscal year, however already in the 2017-2018 fiscal year the budget projects only 2.7% reserve (short $108,602), and by the 2018-2019 fiscal year to only have about 1% reserve (short $796,384). These shortages starting in the 2017-2018 fiscal year result from assumptions provided by the state, and the most recent information projects less increase than was originally expected. Furthermore the multi-year projections show these shortfalls to grow in the 2018-2019 fiscal year. These issues are stemming from increasing School District payment rates for CalPERS and CalSTRS teacher pension programs, as a result of the CalPERS board voting to lower the expected rate of return from their investments.

     Some options to confront the 2017-2018 fiscal year shortfall include waiting until May to confirm if the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) reduction projections are in fact true, expenditure reductions, or revenue enhancements. The Piedmont School Board meeting on March 15, 2017 will review the budget and address deficits.

    After the meeting came to a close, I had the opportunity to speak with Amy Aubrecht, treasurer of the Wildwood Parents Club, to gain some additional insight on the effects of the Piedmont District budget. Aubrecht’s duty as treasurer was to understand the bigger picture of the Piedmont budget so that she is able to wisely and effectively support her local school budget. In regards to the upcoming shortfall in funding, Aubrecht knew and predicted some of the significant problems with the CalPERS pension funds, and now says her priorities are to maintain all the core programming at Wildwood. When delegating money, she plans on being cautious and conservative, but is not too alarmed yet. Aubrecht predicts that much of the parent club money will go to Tier II funding for some of the discretionary spending that might otherwise get cut.

     It is crucial that we as the Piedmont community are well aware and informed so that we can contribute to maintaining and improving our schools and city.

by Kailee Lin, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Off budget revenue from local sources provide an offset to expenditures, however Governor’s Restrictive Budget continues to be an important factor in Piedmont Schools funding future.  

     The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) Budget Advisory Committee held a meeting on March 2, 2017 at the PUSD District Conference Room at 3:30 p.m. to discuss their upcoming budget proposal to the school board. Song Chin Bendib, the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, led the meeting, which covered the changes in the PUSD budget that have occurred between their last meeting before the First Interim, which ended on December 14, 2016, and the Second Interim, which ended on March 8, 2017, as well as changes in the coming three years.

    Between the First and Second Interim Review,  PUSD’s revenue has grown from $38,875,229 to $39,253,375, an increase of $378,166. This revenue is broken down into approximately $109,000 from the State of California, $75,000 from the College Readiness Block Group, $37,000 from the Regional Occupation Program (ROP), $4,000 for Special Education spending. The largest subdivision in revenue is the approximate $252,000 from “local revenue”, which comes from various activities such as field trips, athletics, the Speech and Debate Club among other sources. However, this source of revenue does not count towards the final budget line as this revenue is spent immediately on the supplemental activities they were designated for. Essentially, this fund accounts for any money coming in to pay for supplemental activities; for example, the money collected to pay for the AP European History field trip to Europe would count towards this revenue fund, but would not go to the District, rather would just be used to pay for the field trip.

     However, this was offset by an increase in spending of $369,986. The most notable factor in the increase in spending was an approximate $127,000 increase in employee benefits, which was primarily due to increases in healthcare costs, said Chin Bendib.  This increase is caused by employees upgrading their healthcare plans from single to married, or married to family, which costs the District more.

    In addition to this hurting PUSD’s budget, the California State Government also revised their proposed budget, providing less funding than originally expected in December. Governor Brown implemented a 5.8 billion dollar decline in revenue, resulting in a $465,000 decline in revenue for PUSD alone. This decline in revenue was partially due to CalPERS and CalSTRS being deep in debt, and Governor Brown cutting funding for schools to help remedy this issue.

     After Chin Bendib questioned why Governor Brown would not just dip into his large rainy day fund to help bail out these programs. She argued that this is what the fund is for, and that there is no reason to continue saving when there are issues now. And although I agree that there are issues with the current budget and within the school system, I do not think that the government should dip into its rainy day fund in order to address this issue. The rainy day fund should be reserved for emergencies and catastrophe, not for smaller, systemic issues like the cutting of school funding. This debt that caused the funding cut seems to be systemic and simply bailing it out with the rainy day funding does not appear to be sustainable. Besides, using the money now would justify spending in many other areas and for other smaller issues, thus making it not a rainy day fund, but rather a fund to correct mistakes, which would not be sustainable for very long.

    In looking at projected long term budgets, PUSD also looked to be short of breaking even. The State of California requires school districts to plan out projects budgets for the next three years. The State also requires that school districts have a ‘cushion’ fund equivalent to 3 to 4% of the school’s expenditures. PUSDs budget met this requirement for the 2016-2017 fiscal year, but will fall $108,602 short of the requirement for the 2017-2018 fiscal year and $796,384 short in the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

     During the meeting, I interviewed a member of the audience. Sixth grade teacher at Piedmont Middle School Gabriel Kessler, who also serves as the Vice President of the Teacher’s Union, attended the meeting to better fulfill his positions, but also to be better informed as a citizen. Kessler believed that all people should be involved in civics, and that more people should come to these meetings. “People should go to these government meetings,” Kessler said. “It is important to be involved in government and informed.”As for his reaction to the meeting, Kessler did not have any huge reactions, other than slight concern, stating that, “It’s concerning to see [that the budget is short of requirements], but it will be interesting to see how they [address the issue].” Kessler plans on attending more city governments and continuing to be informed, but has no other plans to take action on the budget.

     He also asked a question and got the paraphrased response.“Is the May revise an event that occurs every year and is required, or is it optional? If so, how often does it occur?”

    Song Chin Bendib responded by saying that the May revise is not required, but it occurs fairly commonly. This year, the proposed budget is expected to pass through the California state budget, thus not necessitating a May revise. The May revise is essentially intended to allow the Governor one final chance to change the budget before it becomes final for the remainder of the fiscal year. This year’s May revise is of particular importance to the District because the Governor unexpectedly slashed funding to the schools to pay off other debts. The May revise represented the last chance for Governor Brown to back off those funding cuts and thus help PUSD balance their budget, but Chin Bendib was doubtful that the change would occur. I asked a question in order to clarify the board on the history of the May revise and whether it was a rare occurrence or an annual tradition. However, despite its common occurrence, a May revise does not seem likely for this fiscal year.

by Maxwell Lee, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. 

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.

Numerous changes to Piedmont building laws are proposed for Chapter 17 of the City Code. Piedmonters generally are not aware of the significance of Chapter 17 on their property and lives until they, their neighbors, or the City considers changes to property, such as: building a fence, remodeling a house, excavating, changing property lines, or adding an additional living space.

The City Council will consider proposed changes and a possible first reading of the ordinance on Monday, March 6, 2017 during their regular Council meeting, starting at 7:30 p.m., 120 Vista Avenue.  The meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 27 and from the City website for remote viewing. 

Lack of public involvement and engagement

Much has been made of the lack of information and interactive opportunities provided to Piedmonters and how proposed construction laws might impact them and their community. Some familiar with the City Charter’s intent and language have found the zone use proposals inconsistent with the Charter’s requirement of voter approvals.

Many items proposed are an improvement; others modifications change the meaning of the original code language and that of the City Charter.  Some items typically found in other cities’ ordinances appear to be missing in the “comprehensive” proposal.  There are two parts to the proposal – the ordinance (Chapter 17) and the “Interim Design Review” proposal.  It is unclear on why some items are being repealed prior to replacement.

Following is an abbreviated, partial overview of some matters of consideration:

1. Omission of a standard for public safety in regard to traffic impacts and parking needs
2. Misinterpretation of City Charter in regard to voter rights to determine uses allowed in zones and size of zones
3. New cost to neighbors or applicants to have matters considered by the Planning Commission
4. Reduction in notices publicizing what is being considered by the City Planning Director and new policies
5. Apartments on top of commercial buildings such as Mulberry’s to 3 floors in height adjacent to Havens School and across from Piedmont Emergency facilities
6. Reduction in the required size and frontage of parcels in Lower Piedmont
7. No setback or building height restrictions on City property
8. Lack of clear definition of Accessory Structure
9. Disparate division of residential zones with different requirements
10. Reduced requirements for parking space size and number of spaces
11. Increased development in Piedmont Civic Center near schools, civic activities, and emergency services
12. Unclear as to which fences require design review
13. Corner property obstruction limits established
14. Existing accessory residential units grandfathered 
15. No rentals less than 30 days allowed (airbnb style)
16. Appeal process timing does not allow for Planning Commission verification of their decision before scheduling a Council appeal.
17. Traffic and safety requirement omitted from Planning Commission consideration for certain variances
18. Ten year period for low income accessory housing rentals  where  parking requirements are forgiven
19. No requirement for longer term low income housing rentals
20. No time limit for applicants to withdraw Planning Commission consideration of application prior to the hearing
21. No provision to request architects to allow copies of their plans during public review
22. Reclassification, a City Charter provision, is misinterpreted in the ordinance language. 
23. Safety is not emphasized in Design Review Guidelines
24. Title of “Director”(unclear to whom this refers) determines what is a “significant change” or a “minor modification” to Planning Commission approved plans without clear definitions.
25. Planning Staff approves plans up to $125,000 (annually adjusted for inflation) unless there is an expensive fee paid for an appeal to the Planning Commission.
26. New language on zoning appears to conflict with the City Charter.
27. No language regarding overseeing the true cost of projects in relation to a building permit is included. 
28. Code language fails to acknowledge the right of voters to control zoning uses (classifications) and boundaries.
29. Reference to the City Charter in zoning regulations does not provide the reader with actual Charter language.
30. The right of a Planning Commissioner, Council Member, or City Administrator to call for a review of a planning decision is unclear and does not specify the planning decision origin.
31. Caveat added to the right of the above noted individuals to require a review of planning decisions has been hampered by new non-disclosure language of the requester’s opinion to one other participant could be against the Constitution. 
32. Designated views are limited to distant views.
33. Preservation of historic public buildings is missing.
34. Traffic, congestion, pedestrian access, bicycle routes, parking, and right of way impacts are not fully identified in design review.
35. Unclear if items noted for repeal are being replaced within the ordinance.
36. Height of accessory structures limited to 7 feet measured from unclear point
37. Definitions and terms within the “Interim Design Review” proposal are inconsistent with proposed code language.
38. Information sheet is inconsistent with proposed code.
39. Parking, driveway, disabled access, vehicle turnarounds: key elements to traffic and public safety – are insufficiently specified.
40. Inconsistent use of language, example: Director – Planning Director or Public Works Director ?       
41. Setbacks for residences or other buildings to be measured from the building wall rather than any eave overhangs potentially making building structures closer together.
42. Commercial uses allowed on public property
43. No parking requirements for public uses
44. Greater control over planning matters by the Planning Director
45. Fewer responsibilities for Planning Commissioners

Numerous other issues of interest to Piedmonters are available in the 500+ page documents. Readers are referred to prior PCA articles here and City sources here.

Editors Note: Attempts have been made to present to the public some of the issues related to the Chapter 17 proposal. Any incorrect statements were legitimately made in attempting to explain to the public some proposal aspects. Corrections and comments are always welcomed on this website. See below or email editors@piedmontcivic.org

Residents are left out of important planning processes – 

Little known to the general public are big proposed changes to zoning and the building code agendized for consideration by the City Council, Monday, March 6, 7:30 p.m. City Hall.

Some of the proposed changes to the zoning and building code include allowing:

• Apartments on top of Mulberry’s and the three Piedmont banks to a height of 40 feet with no setbacks unless next to a residence
• Reduction in the size and number of parking spaces required for construction projects
• New smaller lots with reduced street frontage in lower Piedmont
• Commercial businesses on public property
• Elimination of  height restrictions and setback requirements on public property
• Land use changes within zones.
• Safety omitted in the intent of Design Review
• Structures built up to the property line in Piedmont’s lower residential zone
• Transfer of certain authority from the Planning Commission to the Planning Director
• Eliminating notice to neighbors or neighborhoods under various circumstances
• No provision for driveways widths, lengths, and turnaround requirements within the ordinance
• Reduction in setback requirements between houses
• Reliance on the Council approved General Plan Document rather than the voter approved City Charter

These bullet points are only some of the proposed changes.        _________________

Council and public questions at the Study Session –

The Council appeared ready to accept recommendations with few questions or concerns making some observers recall a similar attitude preceding taxpayer incurred obligation of the $2 + million private underground utility debacle and the Blair Park proposal and unrepaid “gift” to the City.

Some observers of the January 23, 2017 Council “Study Session” on zoning changes and building requirements were left without answers and without sufficient opportunities to be heard.

Removing the matter from public view and engagement, residents were asked to write their questions or concerns to the Council on the 500 + page voluminous proposals. 

No open interactive approach offered by the City-

A powerpoint explanation at the January 23, 2017 Council Study Session provided an overview of the proposals.   The public participants interested in the proposals were limited to 3 minutes per person to make comments or inquiry on the lengthy and complex document.  Some participants had more than one point or inquiry, but could not make them to the Council. The Council pressed ahead often without asking questions or involving the public during their “Study Session.”

In stark contrast to efforts to solicit input on garbage/solid waste services that will not change until 2018, the Planning Department and City Council have an expedited schedule to adopt far reaching and impactful long term changes to Piedmont laws governing what can be built on Piedmont property.

Some of the Council members seemed overwhelmed by the 535 pages of documents and somewhat ill-informed on important aspects of the proposal. There were basic issues such as variances.  Preparation, reading and understanding of the documents was not obvious to many observers of the meeting. One or more Council members appeared intimidated by the process.

Current Chairman of the Planning Commission, Eric Behrens spoke of the 16 meetings held by the Planning Commission to discuss the proposals and their recommendations (some of which began 10 years ago.)  Many of these meetings included prior commissioners no longer on the commission. The vast majority of the “public meetings” were held at an indeterminate time at the end of very long Planning Commission meetings.  The Commissioners were often visibly weary and ready to accept the staff proposals.  Exceedingly few residents had the time or fortitude to wait through an entire Planning Commission meeting for an indefinite time to speak for 3 minutes. Some speakers felt they were ignored and had insufficient time to make explanations of issues to the Commission.

Mayor Jeff Wieler stated at the January 23, 2017 Study Session that various aspects of the proposal could be considered individually. Later, he raised issues regarding short term home rentals, home occupation permits and commercial zone laws. The staff, legal consultant and Council member Tim Rood discouraged waiting to resolve individual issues prior to adoption.  The advising legal counselor informed Wieler the proposal could not be broken apart to the wonderment of many who recognized that the Design Review Section was considered “Interim” and incomplete. Inconsistencies in language between the Interim and Proposed documents did not deter pressing ahead.

Planning Director Kevin Jackson frequently used the terms “recommended by the Planning Commission” and “mandated by the General Plan” when introducing the changes to Piedmont laws.

Vice Mayor Bob McBain pushed to have the enormous package of changes approved noting it could be amended if appropriate.

New Council member Jen Cavenaugh initially raised a number of questions in the meeting, but soon appeared to hold back on inquiry as Council member Rood stepped in to defend interpretations and intent of the proposed changes.

Council member Teddy King showed concern for short term rentals, proposed to prohibit rentals under 30 days.  The Planning Commission has recommended short term rentals be prohibited.

There have been NO surveys since 2007 and NO community workshops for idea exchanges. 

Many points presented by the public have not been fully explored or responded to in the meetings. Parking requirements have been key to many resident speakers, yet the proposal continues to reduce both the size and number of parking spaces in future developments.

Standards for measuring congestion, traffic, parking needs, and safety are not defined in the ordinance.  Standards are lacking in many of the decision areas.

Rather than an interactive process, public input was closed and the public was not provided an opportunity to respond to what the Council discussed at the meeting. By the end of the over 3 hour meeting and despite Planning Director Kevin Jackson’s public notice stating no action would be taken, Jackson inquired as to any direction the Council wanted to give him. None was given.

Significant land use changes between zones without voter approval:

Previous Councils defined “classification as the use”. –

An example of the established definition of “classification” as “use,” was in 1987 when the Council voted to create two separate single family residential zones, one for single family residential parcels with a minimum 10,000 square feet (Zone A) and another zone for single family residential parcels with a minimum 20,000 square feet (Zone E – Estate).   This was done by the Council without voter approval on the basis that there was no change of use. The Council stated that the use within the zone was not changing, consequently it was not a new zone, even though one zone was reduced, Zone A,  and Zone E, the Estate Zone was created out of Zone A.  In Chapter 17 of the City Code, there are two separate single family residential zones, Single Family Residential (Zone A) and Single Family Residential Estate (Zone E), approved by the Council because the use did not change.  

The current proposal relates to land use changes without voter approval. This questionable process goes against the wording in the City Charter.

The Council is scheduled on March 6, 2017 to consider the first reading of the important ordinance changes and Interim proposals.

City Council Agenda– March 6, 2017 

Click here to view Staff Reports.  (There is an error with the City posting.  The staff report on item 6. states Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 728 N.S. Adopting Revisions to the City Code Including Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use; and Consideration of a Resolution Adopting Interim Design Guidelines and the Repeals of Policies Incorporated into the City Code and Guidelines 0705, 0795 7.  Information can be found at http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/zoning-code-update/) 

In a unanimous decision on Thursday, March 2, the California Supreme Court ruled that texts and emails sent by public employees on their personal devices or accounts are a matter of public record if they deal with official business.

“A city employee’s communications related to the conduct of public business do not cease to be public records just because they were sent or received using a personal account,” Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote for the court.

Read the court decision here.

Read more.

“Unity in Community Rally”

Community members feeling a need to express inclusiveness have organized a Piedmont event for this Saturday, March 4, between 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. in Piedmont Main Park at 711  Highland Avenue.

For more information on the event go to:

Piedmont Appreciating Diversity Committee http://www.padc.info/ 

and http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/01/piedmont-rally-set-saturday-to-promote-inclusivity-for-all/

Television viewers will often see commentators and reporters broadcasting from the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The following message can be found on a wall at the Newseum.

_________________________________________

THE FREE PRESS IS A CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRACY

_________________________________________

People have a need to know.  Journalists have a right to tell.

Finding the facts can be difficult.  Reporting the story can be dangerous.

Freedom includes the right to be outrageous.  Responsibility includes the duty to be fair.

News is history in the making.  Journalist provide the first draft of history.

___________________________________________

A FREE PRESS, AT ITS BEST, REVEALS THE TRUTH.

___________________________________________