Lets Talk –

In contradiction to what many people may believe, Piedmont is a diverse city. Each person has their own story to tell, and in our busy lives those stories are often left untold.

The Piedmont Appreciating Diversity Committee (PADC) gave Piedmont residents a chance to share some of these stories when they held several interactive group sessions called “Let’s Talk” at the Piedmont Veterans Hall. These meetings took place on three different dates, and PADC hosts other similar events throughout the year.

The speaker,  Sara Wicht, has over 20 years of experience in social justice and anti-bias education. The slogan for the “Let’s Talk” conference was “Building a more inclusive Piedmont through deliberative dialogue.” Since everyone has their own opinions and views, this can be a touchy subject. Sara handled this very effectively by allowing the meetings to function as discussions rather than lessons. All of the people attending were seated among an array of circular tables. Sara would bring up a topic that everyone in the room could speak to, and then each table group would discuss it.

One of the main topics of the meeting was Identity. Everyone was to write down how they identified in response to each item from a list of seven components of identity. The list consisted of: gender, sexual orientation, race, social status, citizenship, language(s), and religion. What these categories shared in common is that we are all born into these things. We have no choice (or are at least heavily influenced by external factors such as parents and the environment we grew up in) in how we identify in these categories. After we had responded to all of the seven prompts, we were asked to cross off an item from our list that we felt was least important to us. This was repeated until only one category was left. The most fascinating thing about this exercise is that everyone felt differently about what was most important. Some people who had attended multiple meetings said that the most important item on their list had changed since the previous meeting. A woman at my table even said that her most important item changed based on what the most prevalent political issue at the time was.

I was active in the conversation at my table throughout the three hour meeting. At first, I was rather shy because I did not really know any of the people at my table, but I quickly realized that they were at the meeting specifically to hear what other people had to say. My favorite contribution to the group was when we were discussing how we reacted towards people expressing specific emotions. If someone came to me and told me that they felt guilty about something, I said that “I would react by saying it wasn’t their fault even if it was to make them feel better about it.” This was my favorite contribution because everyone at my group strongly agreed even though my response was pretty far from the recommended strategy.

The other main topic covered during my time at “Let’s Talk” was Implicit Bias. Sara gave several hypothetical scenarios and asked the audience whether there was implicit bias going on, and if so, what was it? The most thoroughly discussed example was as follows: A black woman in Piedmont who is standing in front of her house is asked if she needs directions. I believed that there was implicit bias because the person assumes the woman doesn’t live in Piedmont because of her race. I was surprised to hear another member of the audience say that there was no implicit bias at all. He argued that the person asking if the woman needed directions was simply being nice and trying to be helpful. There was no definite resolution to the argument, but there was a chance for people to hear sides of the story that they may have otherwise not heard.

Attending “Let’s Talk” was an eye-opening experience for me. I heard many stories and opinions that I may never have otherwise been exposed to. The environment was a place where I felt safe and comfortable to talk about myself, and I fulfilled my initial goal of learning about how Piedmont perceives diversity. I highly recommend attending one of the PADC’s events because everyone will get something different out of the experience and it is pretty fun hearing stories from all sorts of people you otherwise may not have met..

 Xavier Talwatte, Student from Piedmont Unified School District

The Piedmont Unified School District Board will meet on February 28, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Piedmont Council Chambers, City Hall 120 Vista Avenue. The Board will consider policies concerning emergencies and school safety. 

To view the staff reports, readers must first click on the various items noted below and then download the information to their computers.  The School District staff reports cannot be accessed directly, as found in our typical format. 

Let’s Talk About It

On February 5th, 10th, and 11th, Piedmont chose to broaden the dialogue.  As member of Piedmont Appreciating Diversity Committee member and Council member Jen Cavenaugh affirmed at the beginning of the first ever series of Let’s Talk workshops — which were a series of meetings to address diversity, acceptance, and inclusive dialogue within Piedmont — “all great things start with people showing up to the table.”  Among the scattered coffee cups and Cuties oranges, members of the Piedmont community certainly did show up.

The event started with a mirroring activity, led by Sara Wicht, a consultant who often engages audiences in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance program.  Encouraged to find a partner who each of us had not previously known, we took turns leading or following.  Staying connected in our physical actions took consistent eye contact, focus, and consideration to each others’ physical ability.

The activity set the tone for the entire meeting.  We were asked to relate the activity — and the focus it required — to the ways we go about engaging in vulnerable dialogue.  Truly engaging in a dialogue requires empathy and trust — an ability to navigate their sensitivities and abilities — as well as an awareness of oneself as an individual.

The rest of the meeting largely functioned off of this foundation of exploring trust.  We related the community of Piedmont as a whole to our own individual identities, feelings, and experiences.  As Piedmont is an affluent city — the median income is $202,000 per year according to the 2016 Census Data and 60% of the population is over 40 years old while 28% of the population is under age 19 — the community is largely stratified by age.  Piedmont is also home to 8,069 caucasian people, 1,499 foreign-born people, 2,018 Asian people, 649 multiracial people, 632 Hispanic people, 142 African-American people, 19 Native American people, and 6 Hawaiian or Pacific Islander people. This stratification of age and ethnicity results in a variety of generational or cultural mindsets, that we were able to see more clearly during a polling question section.  While 74% of participants full-heartedly agreed that they would want to be able to talk to neighbors about a variety of issues, the idealism began to crumble when confronted with reality.  50% of participants soon responded that “talking about race with neighbors could open a can of worms” and that it was “not worth it” sometimes. 49% of participants felt that only “sometimes” were they able to talk comfortably about religious or non-religious systems with their neighbors, while 9% felt uncomfortable.

As I shared with the entire group present, I see this split between idealism and reality as being due to a “cultural longing for agreement.  We have, in recent years of polarized politics and social issues, transformed ourselves into a culture that equates agreement with trust and friendship.  Disagreement, feels like a threat to understanding and empathy.  As we hold our personal beliefs very near to us — they form our identities, which often feel the need to safeguard relentlessly in a Trumpian era — the fear of disagreement precludes our sincere engagement on many issues.  When discussing issues and possibly disagreement seems connected to losing or gaining friends or community support, many freeze up.”

Indeed, even this meeting reflected a largely like-minded group.  As I shared to the group, “we have grown accustomed to our echo-chambers, but I believe we can apply the same sort of open empathy and trust to all people, regardless of whether we know they will agree with us or not.” Action must, and will, take place.  Especially after an activity that allowed us to organize our identity into seven different categories, and then quickly cross each aspect off one by one to leave the last one remaining. The Let’s Talk event brought more awareness to those who must “shed an identity everyday just to feel safe.” As an adult woman, Sara, spoke out: “privilege is not needing to shed an identity in everyday life.”  The Let’s Talk event confirmed that we must find ways to allow everyone to feel safe in their everyday life.  As an African-American woman reaffirmed to the group: “we must reinforce that anyone can have a positive social identity even if the community does not directly reflect it.”

For many, the desire to take this positive step was what brought them to conversation at Let’s Talk.  As we reflected on the first time we became aware of our racial identity, or considered the aspects of our identities that were most important to us, I noticed that the meeting drew upon members of the Piedmont community from all walks of life, and for all reasons.  Many adults present were parents of children in the elementary schools, hoping to better understand the culture of the high school.  Others were active supporters of the schools, and PADC.  Vanna Nicks, in a interview with me afterwards, found that she was there “to actually practice  [engaging in the uncomfortable]” and “explore many points of views, rather than just [learning how to] convince other people to adopt one way.”  Others, largely the teen contingent, were there to give a student insight into the actions of the high school.  All attendees, however, were there to support and shape a Piedmont that is tolerant and comfortable for all.

Many adults at the meeting voiced hopes for more intersectional contact for kids of Piedmont at a younger age.  After learning about the need for young children to develop the anti-bias domains of identity, diversity, justice, and action, many adults, including Nicks, concluded that a diverse Rec Department for elementary school kids — with different play styles and different kids — could help lay the foundation for trust and empathy early on.  Nicks also proposed that a “big brother-big sister” buddy program could help inspire younger students; high schoolers could play and talk with younger students about how to communicate, be brave, and take action.  Nicks views the learning she encountered at the meeting — from a newfound understanding of the word “cisgender” to learning frameworks for how to communicate with people and recognize when they are feeling pain or anger or suffering in a conversation — as being highly applicable to kids in the schools, especially if initiated in bite-sized, natural chunks.  Another adult, who had long taken part in a Mormon book group when she was not Mormon, also advocated for more exposure — at any point in life — to different groups of people.  Taking the time to be vulnerable and step out of one’s comfort zone was the resounding theme of all responses to the discussions.

Community member Vanna Nicks affirmed her hope for a tolerant populous in the United States as well as in Piedmont: “speaking as a person who stutters, I [sometimes] assume that people will want to end the conversation [with me] because I can’t control my blocks.  [Yet] living in the closet because of fear,” Nicks found, has limited her in the past.  Describing her pleasant surprise when, in fact, peoples’ attentiveness to her words grow due to her stutter, she feels ready to ask the question of “what can happen when we show our true selves.”   While she knows that the fear of lack of acceptance does indeed “come from somewhere,” she also knows that “we have a role” in our interactions and our lives.  Fear does not “just happen to us.” We always have the choice to respond to it with brave, kind action.

by Genevieve Raushenbush, Piedmont High School Senior 

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Open House, Monday, February 26, 2018, from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m.

Piedmont Community Hall, 711 Highland Avenue

There will be a brief 15 minute Q & A session and closing remarks at 7:45 pm. Read the agenda here.

The deadline to be counted in the Climate Action Plan survey is Friday, March 2. Residents may want to have their opinions included along with the non-resident business owners, and people who work in Piedmont who have been invited to respond to the survey.

“The City of Piedmont invites residents, families, business owners, and people who work in Piedmont to review and comment on the Climate Action Plan 2.0 and CEQA Negative Declaration during a 45-day review period from January 16, 2018 to March 2, 2018. In order to facilitate public comment on the draft Climate Action Plan 2.0, an >  online survey is now available.”

Read previous articles on the survey here and here.

Piedmont and Crown Castle agreed to refer the cell antenna lawsuit to court mediation with a March 22 date in United States District Court, Northern District of California, in Oakland. On  October 16, 2017 the City Council denied eight of the 11 cell antenna sites requested by Crown Castle.  In response, Crown Castle sued the City November 15, 2017 and Piedmont is expected to respond no later than March 9, 2018.  

Resident assesses what to do regarding cell tower issues –

To the Piedmont City Council:

I encourage you to settle the Crown Castle lawsuit and approve their application. Here is my point of view for whatever it is worth to you:

1- All new technologies carry risks that have to be weighed against the benefits to our community, our State, and our Nation. Here is a comparison of common risks in the US:

– Lifetime risk of death by injuries (such by car, fall, gun fire, …) for a person born in 2014:  1 in 20 as documented by the Information Insurance Institute.

– Teenagers’ risk of injuries (treated in an emergency room) suffered in motor vehicle crashes: 1 in 25 as per Center for Disease Control.

– Lifetime risk of developing cancer due to background radiation : 1 in 100 as per the National Center for Health Research. Background radiation refers to radiation that naturally occurs in our environment and does not come from any manufactured devices, such as emitted from the earth, sun, our galaxy, and other galaxies. The vast majority of non-invasive cancers are non-melanoma skin cancers caused by non-ionizing ultraviolet radiation.

– Lifetime risk of brain cancer after 20 years of cell phone use: 1 in 200. This is the only available evaluation and an entry in the blog of Joel Moskowitz, PhD, a member of our community, Director and Principal Investigator, Center for Family and Community Health, UC Berkeley.

2- The Sutro Tower emitted TV programs at an Effective Radiated Power (ERP) of 10 Million Watt for decades (versus 730 Watt ERP for a Crown Castle antenna). A 2001 review of epidemiology studies by the San Francisco department of public health concludes as follows: “Because of weaknesses (in the peered reviewed studies), current evidence does not suggest that living near broadcast towers would lead to an increased risk of cancer”.

3- It is easy to measure the strength cell provider signals using one of the many applications available. A good one is “Network Cell Info” for Android phones. Note that -100 dBm is essentially 0 Watt, and -36dBm is 0.000,000,3 Watt. One can also test the effectiveness of the Faraday effect to shield an area by placing a flat conductive wire mesh between a cell phone and its sending tower antenna.

4-The power emitted by a cell phone during a call ranges from 1 milliWatt when reception is good to 1 Watt (a thousand time more) when the reception is poor. (The power level picked by a cell phone for a call is negotiated between the phone and the equipment attached to the cell tower antenna when the call is established. It is then adjusted during the call to maintain good communication). Transmitted energy density diminishes with the square of distance. At 1 Watt, the brain is exposed to a power density of 35 milliWatt/cm^2 (phone against the ear at 1.5 cm from skull). The additional maximum exposure to the signal transmitted by one of the proposed Crown Castle antenna is 19 microWatt/cm^2 or 1800 times less. It is quite possible that a resident who lives in an area with very poor coverage and who spends a significant amount of time on her phone at her home everyday would be exposed to less cumulative radiated energy should an antenna be installed in front of her house. Fear your cell phone more than tower antenna!

5- With regard to scientific research, studies’ reproducibility and replicability are among the main principles of the scientific method. There is an on-going crisis in research with regard to reproducibility as reported by the Journal Nature on May 25, 2016 : 70% of researchers surveyed by the Journal Nature have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.

Bernard Pech
Piedmont Resident

February 24, 2018

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Proposed Changes to Piedmont Governance Are Missing  Community Input – 

The February 5, 2018 Staff Report has the proposed revised  City Charter. There are single lines added that are fundamental changes to the way Piedmont operates and has operated for many, many years. Example: p19 Sec. 3.01 “All other officers shall be appointed and directed by the City Administrator.” Only the City Administrator and Attorney would be appointed by the Council under the new charter.

Under the current City Charter the City Council is the final authority. Under the proposed new Charter the Chiefs of Police and Fire, City Clerk, Director of Finance, Director of Public Works, City Engineer, Planning Director, Director of Recreation and such other subordinate officers, assistants, deputies and employees would be appointed by the City Administrator. This is a fundamental change in Piedmont governance. Much more community input is required for this and other fundamental changes.

The essential character of government in Piedmont is civic involvement and public discourse. The City Charter is the central document and rushing this to a vote without more public input and a committee report seems unwise.

Recently the Planning Commission approved a recommendation that Staff have more input on window reveals. If the distance a window is set back from the horizontal exterior wall plane is worthy of committee review, surely changing the City Charter also deserves a thoughtful committee investigation and report.

As public discourse is at the heart of Piedmont governance, an Open Government Ordinance is needed and should be made part of any new charter. This would extend the Brown Act three day notice requirement to a longer period such as eleven days so that during holidays, summer vacations and other demanding family times there would be more notice and adequate time for residents to digest and involve themselves in important changes in town.

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Piedmont League of Women Voters Joins Individual Citizens Expressing Great Concern About the Lack of Citizen Participation and Quick Timing of Proposed Revisions to the City Charter – 

Councilmember Jen Cavenaugh suggested the newly proposed office holder limits appeared to be a solution looking for a problem.

As Piedmonters find out about proposed Piedmont City Charter changes, concern has grown.  In years past when important City Charter changes were proposed, community involvement was primary.  The majority of the City Council at their February 5, 2018 meeting made no attempt to require outreach to Piedmonters.  Only Councilmember Jen Cavenaugh desired more civic engagement prior to placement on the June ballot, which would postpone the Charter ballot to November, 2018.

The City Charter requires all proposed Charter changes be placed on a Piedmont ballot and approved by Piedmont voters prior to becoming law.

The Charter changes were agendized by Mayor Bob McBain and the City Administrator with little time for general public input.  After the February 5 introduction of Charter changes, the next Council meeting for consideration has been scheduled for March 5, 2018.  A Council meeting typically would have been held on February 20, following President’s Day of February 19, however that meeting was cancelled making the Monday, March 5, 2018 the next and last regularly scheduled Council meeting to take action on the ballot measure for it to qualify for the special election in June.

City Attorney Michelle Kenyon told the City Council the numerous changes to the Charter came from the City Administrator, the City Clerk and the Council members. The public was not involved or informed of Charter changes until release of the staff report for the February 5 Council meeting.

Mayor Bob McBain immediately suggested that the June 2018 ballot measure only offer two proposed Charter changes, which evolved to: 1. Exclude former two term officials from seeking public office until an eight-year waiting period has elapsed.  2. Remove from the Charter the budget limitation of 25% in Piedmont General Fund reserves. 

 The Council has shown interest in changing the limit on General Fund reserves from the current 25% limit. To avoid the accumulation of reserves in the General Fund, the Council has recently established various reserve funds where excess money has been placed in an effort to avoid exceeding the 25% limit. 

Cost to the City of up to $55,000 to vote on the Charter changes in June instead of November 2018.

The unexpected urgent placement of the ballot measure requires Council action within weeks of their first public introduction.  The incomplete and unavailable form of the possible ballot language must receive Council action by March 8 if it is to be on the June 2018 ballot.  (See Alameda County election deadlines below).  The expedited timing eliminates the opportunity for broad citizen participation prior to a ballot measure and would cost Piedmonters up to $55,000 than  waiting for the November election when there would be one ballot measure at a reduced cost. 

Some Council members suddenly want Charter changes for Special June Ballot, rather than waiting for November Election.

City Clerk John Tulloch told the Council that City Administrator Paul Benoit had informed the Superintendent of Education Randall Booker the Council wanted to place further limitations on out-of-office former officials seeking election to the Board of Education.   Benoit’s conversation took place prior to public information or Council consideration.

City Attorney Michelle Kenyon explained that the City Council and ultimately the voters rather than the School Board would make the decision on term limit requirements.  Kenyon acknowledged that this was an “important change” to the Charter.  

Importance of the Piedmont City Charter 

The Piedmont City Charter is the underlying legal basis of Piedmont governance.  Previously when significant changes to the City Charter were considered, a Charter Review Committee was appointed by the Council to review, carefully consider issues in open meetings, and then make recommendations to the Council.

The proposed Charter change limiting former office holders’ return to the City Council or School Board originated with Mayor Bob McBain.  McBain explained to the Council he had been approached about office holder term restrictions and had decided it would be beneficial to end prior officer holders ability to ever serve again.

McBain stated he felt it was unfair, and created an uneven election if past officeholders, who he referred to as “incumbents,” sought election after an absence of only 4 years.  He noted that many people want to serve and there are many volunteers.  This City Council has had the practice of recycling prior commissioners and committee members between the various boards, raising a question of the appointments excluding new willing volunteers. Though he had suggested a permanent exclusion, McBain was later convinced during the meeting that an eight year absence from  service was an acceptable time limit for an individual to once more seek election.

Council member Jen Cavenaugh stated that only one person in recent years had wanted to come back and returning past office holders were able to hit the ground running.  She was repeatedly interrupted by other Council members during the meeting when she attempted to speak. 

City Clerk John Tulloch had initiated outreach to other cities to see what exclusions on past officials they included  in their Charters.  He spoke of no outreach within Piedmont. 

On February 13, Mayor McBain and City Clerk Tulloch made a presentation to the School Board.   Following McBain and Tulloch’s presentation, the School Board was not prepared to take a position on the Charter changes.  See Superintendent’s report below.

The City Council has not taken final action to place the term limit issue on the June 2018 ballot and despite the School Board’s inaction, Mayor McBain preemptively proclaimed to the School Board that the service limits impacting the Board members would be on the June 2018 ballot and he hoped that the School Board would vote for the new limits on public service. 

McBain’s proclamation was on a split Council vote with Council member Cavenaugh seeking further information and citizen involvement prior to expending money for the ballot measure in June. 

Given the few past office holders out of office for only four years, the limitation and barring of candidates appeared to be targeting specific individuals.

Deadlines for June 2018 Election Ballot:

Close of Nomination Period for the June 5, 2018 Direct Primary Election –  March 09, 2018

Deadline to file Arguments In Favor/Against a Measure on the June 5, 2018 Direct Primary Election – March 14, 2018

Deadline to file Rebuttals to Arguments In Favor/Against a Measure on the June 5, 2018 Direct Primary Election – March 19, 2018

Ballot arguments are filed with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Board of Education current Policy 9110 states in regard to terms of office:

“BB 9110 Board Bylaws Terms Of Office:  The Piedmont City Charter contains the following provisions relative to the Board of Education: 1. The Board shall consist of five members elected from the city at large for a term of four years. Board members shall be elected at the times and in the same manner provided for members of the city council. Only qualified voters of the city shall be eligible to hold the office of Board member. No person who has served two full consecutive terms as a members of the Board shall be eligible to hold office until one full intervening term of four years has elapsed. Any person who serves as a member of the Board for more than eighteen months of an unexpired term shall be considered to have served a full term.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The City Has Another Survey for You!

The City of Piedmont is seeking resident input to help build a new website! Over the next six months, the City will be working with CivicLive, a municipal web development and hosting firm on the creation of a new web site.

The first step in this process is gathering opinions on the City’s current web site and finding out what residents would like in a new website for the City of Piedmont. Please share your thoughts with the City! Your input will help the City create a new, modern, and responsive web site.

Please take the > survey!

What will happen when you want to replace a window?

Staff site visits, measurement of recesses, materials, compatibility with existing windows, additional time to gain a permit, increased costs, and drawings are part of the newly proposed Window Guidelines.

Piedmont Planning staff once more scheduled important public input on changing building permit guidelines at an undetermined time near the end of the February 12, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.  The draft Window Guidelines were not publicized. Generally, a public hearing follows publicity and involves ready access to a hearing at a specific time. One person was in the audience.  For practical purposes, the Window Guidelines consideration by the Planning Commission did not constitute a public hearing,

The Commission discussed changing a keyword to “recessed” to indicate window depth from the wall of a building to the window. 

More administrative cost and involvement will be required with the new guidelines, including staff site visits, measurements of the recesses, materials, compatibility with existing windows, drawings, etc.  The resulting additional cost of the Window Guidelines to homeowners and the additional City staff time for window replacement was not detailed or integral to the Commission’s recommendation. 

Consideration of expense to homeowners appeared of little concern to Commissioners following a commissioner remark that standard manufactured windows are not always desirable. 

The recommended Window Guidelines will need to be acted on by the City Council who typically credit the Commission’s recommendations with involving broad public consideration and information.  Although the Commission considered the issue in public and the meeting was recorded, broadcast, and a video was made, available in the City archives, it was apparent there was little public participation or knowledge.

Read the staff report with examples of windows >PCA PC Report Window Guidelines 2-12-2018.doc