Dec 13 2017

Code Violation Fees:

On December 4th, 2017, I attended a City Council meeting at the City Hall in Piedmont.  The meetings begin at 7:30 p.m. and conclude when all topics on the agenda have been covered. However, I only was able to attend the meeting from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

During the hours I attended, the meeting centered around discussion on the renewal of a sanitation and waste contract. Before that, the Mayor declared December 4th to be Piedmont High School Cross Country Appreciation Day.

The Council briefly went over plans to increase fines for violations in relation to disturbance of peace in Piedmont. The primary topic the Council spoke on that I witnessed was the sanitation and waste contract renewal, and this took up the bulk of the time.

On the topic of the Sanitation and Waste Contract Renewal, the council members inquired about the reasoning behind the fee increase – originally a 50% increase, but was reduced to 30% in an attempt to meet in the middle on negotiation.

The reason given for the fee increase to begin with was stated as having stemmed from a disproportionate amount of citizens in Piedmont that request backyard trash pickup services rather than curbside trash pickup services. Backyard service requires additional labor and costs – primarily due to increased likelihood of injury resulting from needing to transport the garbage receptacles from backyards. This, along with the general geographic terrain pattern in Piedmont – it being generally hilly – further increases the likelihood of injuries being sustained to workers and thus, in-turn, overall overhead costs to the sanitation department.

The council members were all in favor of reducing the proposed new rate increase, which was ultimately how the 30% rate was settled at the time that I’d needed to leave. No members from the public were able to speak during the extensive staff presentation, so the sentiment held by the members of the public that were present was unknown, though it seemed as though the Mayor as well as the Council were of the belief that they were generally representing the public’s opinion accurately in supporting the need for a renewal on this sanitation contract.

Aside from discussion on renewal of the sanitation contract, very brief discussion was held on the proposed fine increases for violations regarding disturbance of the peace. The majority of the members of the Council were in favor of the increase, with the bulk of any actual discussion being held more on the logistics of how the fines would be judiciously carried out. Council members wanted to ensure that members of the public were in fact given a warning before being issued the increased fine, thus ensuring that the members of the public who continue to violate the policy had received ample notice warning them of their inappropriate behavior, before being subsequently required to pay an increased fine. No Council members in opposition to this (voted Nay) nor did they voice their opinion vocally.

INTERVIEW

While I was at the Piedmont City Council meeting, I interviewed a local resident by the name of Ray Cornejo, who mentioned he wanted to be there to understand what issues were facing the City of Piedmont, as well as what is being done to rectify them. He stated that he learned a bit about the negotiation process between a city and a company on what is really something of a necessity for it – sanitation.

His reaction to the meeting was overall positive, as he was  able to witness the City of Piedmont hold a thoughtful, and productive discussion on various topics that do and would in-fact affect the residents of Piedmont. The Council’s consideration of the elderly citizens was appreciable, and  the Council fought to represent them by trying to come up with ways to avoid additional financial stress on these members simply because of their physical situation. This was further appreciated and respected. The next step that Ray is taking to continue to have his concerns addressed, is to continue his participation and attendance at future City Council meetings.

My personal opinion on increasing the fines for disturbing the peace is that it is appropriate to have the fine in general, and that preceding the fine with a warning seems appropriate as well. I believe that people in general know that they are doing something wrong – such as disturbing the peace – so the very fact that they continue to do so, in my opinion, justifies a punishment. The increased revenue generated from the punishments could potentially be used to fund local projects.

by Teddy McKenna, Piedmont High School Senior

Staff Report with fines HERE.

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

The Piedmont City Council consists of five members, including newly elected Mayor, Robert McBain, and Vice-mayor, Teddy Gray King. The purpose of these meetings is to govern the city by holding elections, proposing bills, and passing laws. There is a set agenda for each meeting, including a short period of public forum.

The meeting on December 4th discussed important issues such as the approval of fines for violations of Code Enforcement and Nuisance Abatement provisions of the city code. Fines for these code violations were previously set at tremendous $1,000 a day. However, because the authority for setting fines has recently been shifted to the City Council, Council members have voted to reduce these to a maximum  of $500 after the third violation. It was clearly stated by Councilwoman Jennifer Cavenaugh, that these extreme fines were out of the normal range for Bay Area cities.  All members of the Council voted to approve this motion.

Next, the Council members discussed resolutions related to the City of Piedmont’s Limited Obligation refunding bonds. Council members moved to approve three different motions related to this issue, such as creating new districts for the reassessment bonds.

The last topic of discussion for my period of attendance at the meeting was regarding policy adjustments with the waste removal company, Republic Services. Republic Services has requested an increase in compensation due to the unique circumstances of Piedmont’s topography as well as extra services. The City of Piedmont requested a policy that enabled those residents unable to take their carts to the curb the option for on-premise collection services with no increase in charge. A Republic Services employee made it understood that almost half of  Piedmont residents requested on-premise collection services as opposed to about 10 percent of residents in surrounding cities.

In the period designated for public forum, many different students spoke out. Most students spoke out about issues regarding traffic safety near their homes. However, student Abigail Wilson made the suggestion of officially making Piedmont a sanctuary city, meaning it would limit its cooperation with the government’s immigration efforts. This would serve little benefit to immigrants as very few call Piedmont home, but it could help set an example for surrounding cities. Many cities around the Bay Area have agreed to become sanctuary cities, including San Francisco and Oakland. This is a very controversial topic, as the President has previously reclaimed funding from cities after refusing to cooperate with immigration officers. I am personally in favor of Piedmont becoming a sanctuary city, because it helps create a precedent for other communities in the United States that are having a similar debate. Declaring Piedmont a sanctuary city would also help create a more friendly living environment for minorities in the Bay Area.

After the meeting, I spoke with concerned resident, Paul Pappas. Paul Pappas is a sophomore at Piedmont High, who attended the meeting “for Boy Scouts.” Mr. Pappas was particularly concerned with the lack of street signs in the community. “One problem that was brought up that I cared about was the lack of necessary street signs on certain streets. I think this is a bigger problem than a lot of people realize.” Mr. Pappas is working so hard to make a difference in the community that even after speaking at the City Council meeting he will “bring it up with parents and see what they can do.”

by Jordan Cortes, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.
Dec 11 2017

Proposed Conditional Use Permit for 801 Magnolia by the Piedmont Post

Monday, December 11, 2017

Dear Mr. Kevin Jackson, Piedmont Planning Director:

I live on Vista Avenue and I am a neighbor to the Piedmont Center for the Arts.  I have been invited by the City to comment on the use of 801 Magnolia by the Piedmont Post.  I am completely against the Piedmont Post using this location.

As I understand it,  the hours of operation include the middle of the night.  My house is very close to this location and I strongly object to the noise of trucks, cars and people in this area at all hours, including the evening, night and early morning.

 By granting this permit you will have impacted my quiet enjoyment of my home and that of  my neighbors.  Such use may well constitute a nuisance.  I request that this permit be denied.  I do not believe a business should be in this public arts space.

 Sincerely,

Rachel Asa, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
2 Comments »
Dec 10 2017

Dec. 10, 2017

Piedmont Planning Commission
c/o Kevin Jackson, City Planner

Re: Dec 11 CUP Hearing, sub-let 801 Magnolia Ave by Piedmont Post.

Dear Chairman Ramsey and Planning Commissioners,

The taxpayer funds used to purchase 801 Magnolia Avenue, renovate the deteriorated property and provide low/no cost space to the Piedmont Center for the Arts (“PCA”) has been money well spent. The July 11, 2016 Staff Report recommended the change to allow commercial use: a beverage service or local newspaper. A beverage service would provide a complimentary benefit to PCA visitors. However, a newspaper is not politically neutral as a beverage stand is and the violation of our Constitutional rights is serious. Leasing space to the Post has involved rezoning public property in violation of the Charter and violations of our State and Federal Constitutional rights to be free of government support for a partisan point of view on matters of public importance.

The Piedmont Post has provided community benefit in its reporting of non-political issues such as art, entertainment, culture and life events. Regardless, for critical Civic issues the Post is Piedmont’s own Fox News. This particularly partisan newspaper provided a weekly forum for our recently disgraced and resigned Mayor Wieler, supported the failed Blair Park sports field, will not provide equal space to opposing resident viewpoints, sought to distort facts in support of the failed 2012 sewer surcharge tax; and has disgracefully attacked our School Board. The Post has a right to take, and disseminate these partisan positions but not from City property. That is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights.

While the First Amendment allows the Post to commonly distort and omit facts to the detriment of many residents, good government requires that the City treat all residents equally. Sub-leasing to the Post on public property violates that essential equal treatment. This public property is paid for and subsidized equally by all taxpayers.

PCA Board Vice-President Nancy Lehrkind has stated the lease will be “at top dollar.” We are entitled to see the terms of the sub-lease and the City is obligated to disclose them before approval is given for the CUP application. What rent will the Piedmont Post pay? What assurance do we have that this is not a below market rent? Will comparable space at 801 Magnolia be made available on comparable terms to other parties who wish to communicate their public positions on matters of public importance? What assurances does the City have of this from PCA? Is this assurance in the City’s lease with PCA? Where is the space and what are the terms?

The applicant states: “#9. Benefit to Piedmont residents: Residents writing articles.” As the Post has denied many resident articles and letters that do not support the Post’s editorial agenda, the Post is not consistent with #9. The intent of Sec 17.020.010.B.7 is to allow commercial use which will serve the residents of the City. By denying print space to a significant number of residents, the Post and this application by PCA are not in compliance with the City Code.

The Post does not comply with the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics that “. . . public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues (and) strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.”

In important civic issues, matters that require a City Council resolution, the Post acts as the Media Outlet of City Hall and falls far short of the Journalist Code of Ethics. City Hall’s support of the Post threatens local democratic government.

Former Post City Editor Paisley Strellis verified the partisan mission of the Post on its June 29, 2016 front page: “I consider many members of the city staff and the city’s elected and appointed officials to be colleagues.”

Having the Piedmont Post located on public property directly behind City Hall is an affront to decency and good government.

The CUP should be denied.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
5 Comments »
Dec 9 2017

“Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.”  Mark Twain

On Monday, December 11 at 6ish p.m. in City Hall and broadcast live, the Piedmont Planning Commission will consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for The Piedmont Post to relocate their offices to the City owned property at  801 Magnolia Avenue.

According to the application, the hours of operation of the office in the residential neighborhood will extend to midnight on several nights weekly and the workday will last as long as 12 hours, adding a considerable amount of activity on already busy Magnolia Avenue considering the coming and going of Middle School, high schools, Piedmont Adult School, the Recreation Center, the Aquatic Center as well as the many special events.

An independent free press should not be a creature of the government it is meant to cover, that would make it a government public relations entity.  If subsidized office space is offered to one commercial news business, it should be available to all news organizations as is the dedicated White House shared press workspace.

If the Post wanted to rent office space on Grand Avenue in Piedmont or in the Wells Fargo Building, there would be no conflict of interest and no citizen objections. The Post has never operated in commercial space in Piedmont, although its business address is a home in Piedmont on Oakland Avenue.

The City provides the building at 801 Magnolia Avenue on a subsidized basis at $1/year lease for the public benefit as an Arts Center.

The Council has the ultimate responsibility to determine what is appropriate for the use of public, taxpayer-supported property.  The Piedmont Center for the Arts was approved by the Council and pays $1 per year for their space at 801 Magnolia Avenue across from Piedmont High School.

According to information pertaining to the development of a space for The Piedmont Post, it appears there was no public advertisement of the space availability in the Piedmont Center and no other media entity was offered the subsidized office space.

The Piedmont Post started in the building at 801 Magnolia Avenue approximately 20 years ago when the building was owned and operated as the First Church of Christ Scientist.  A newspaper business in the church was not legally allowed by the City and the Post was forced to move out of the building.

Subsequently, the Church dissolved and the City of Piedmont purchased the 801 Magnolia property for just under $700,000.  The building was seldom used for years except for city storage.  A plan for an aquatics facility at the site delayed changes to the building.

Founders of the Art Center, Gray Cathrall (Editor, Publisher, and Owner of The Piedmont Post), Nancy Lehrkind (Current Vice President for the Piedmont Center for the Arts), and others saw potential in using the property as the location of cultural activities and the arts.  Beginning in 2011 the City of Piedmont granted a lease of part of the building, now the Piedmont Center for the Arts, for $1 per year for 10 years on the basis it would be exclusively used for non-profit purposes and the building would be improved – painting, heating, roofing, etc.  The City, however, has maintained the grounds and landscaping.

In the six plus years of the 10 year lease, the Arts Center has become a shining star of culture, music, drama, and graphic arts.  Interest and participation in the Arts Center has spread far beyond Piedmont borders.

In the summer of 2016, the Arts Center applied for and was granted by the City Council a change in the terms of their lease allowing the Center to engage in uses allowed in it’s zone, the Public Zone.  This lease change was evidently unnoticed by most Piedmonters.

Then in 2016, the Council approved significant changes to the zoning laws of Piedmont including allowing for-profit businesses on City property under a conditional use permit process.  The change of use without voter approval as prescribed in the City Charter, again drew little public notice and the Council changed the zoning without voter approval.

The justification for the zoning change from nonprofit to for-profit uses in the public zone was focused on allowing the Aquatic Facility to sell goggles, food, or beverages.   However, that would not have violated the zoning as it stood as long as the sales were by the Facility for the financial benefit of the Facility.  Now, the actual result allows a commercial business to profit financially with the taxpayer subsidy.

The Conditional Use Permit is on the Monday, December 11 Planning Commission agenda.  The Commission will make a recommendation  to the City Council.

It was long rumored that the goal of the Post was to move back into the 801 Magnolia building. Although the Post owner, Cathrall has been announced as termed out from the Arts Center Board, his newspaper, The Post, continues to foster and advertise the activities at the Center. Nancy Lehrkind, also a founder and Vice President of the Center Board, continues on the Board and has signed the CUP application documents.

Conflicts of interest are inherent in the leasing of public space to a single, local media outlet.

Having an office in the center of Piedmont in a public building leased for $1 a year would be beneficial to all media outlets.

There are a number of news media outlets covering Piedmont: The Piedmonter, The Piedmont Post, The Piedmont Civic Association, Piedmont Patch, East Bay News, Piedmont Portal, and others.

Piedmont residents, as with any group of people, have differing points of view on numerous subjects.  Coverage by the various media outlets often reveals these differences.

The Piedmont Post has long been viewed as the Piedmont City Administration news outlet. 

If the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for The Piedmont Post to relocate their offices in the City owned property at  801 Magnolia Avenue (Piedmont Center for the Arts) is approved, the relationship between City Hall and The Post will become even closer and raise new questions.  The Post and the City will have a financial relationship based on a lease and a Conditional Use Permit to use City property for a newspaper business.

Residents have raised issues in the past regarding City buildings not being appropriate for political activities nor for allowing businesses with potential conflicts of interests.

The Piedmont Post is an independently owned private newspaper supported by donors, advertisers, official City notices, and subscribers.  The for-profit business entity is currently located in Oakland on Boulevard Way. The Post, contrary to City laws, uses a Piedmont residential address on Oakland Avenue as the business address.

There is no information available as to a business license in Oakland, Piedmont, or a Piedmont Home Occupation Permit as a business location on Oakland Avenue.  There are no published documents available indicating the financial status of the newspaper. The application states a gross income of $380,000 per year.

The application indicates a need for more Art Center income to support the activities of the Center, however no documentation or audit has been publicly released to show the financial status of the Art Center.

The Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 11 starting at 5 p.m. in City Hall’s Council Chambers. The Planning Commission’s Conditional Use Permit consideration will follow a number of other applications on the agenda and will likely be considered after the Commission breaks for a half hour dinner around 6:30 p.m.

Those interested can attempt to attend or observe the meeting on Monday, December 11, at 5:oo p.m.  The meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 27 and from the City website under videos.

Comments may be made to the Planning Commission:

Staff Liaison: Planning Director Kevin Jackson – kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us – (W) 420-3050
Council Liaison: Jennifer Cavenaugh – (510) 428-1442
Commissioner Eric Behrens  
Commissioner Aradhana Jajodia  
Commissioner Jonathan Levine  
Commissioner Susan Ode  
Commissioner Tom Ramsey  
Commissioner Clark Thiel (Alternate)

Commenters should send their correspondence to the Commission and Council via   kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us

8 Comments »
Dec 7 2017

    The December 4th, 2017, Piedmont City Council meeting started with a lovely ceremony recognizing the Piedmont High School’s men and women varsity cross country teams, and quickly descended into incomprehensible tedium. Although the purpose of public council meetings is, at least theoretically, to allow the citizens to participate in and check the power of the government, these meetings have astoundingly little transparency.

    After the ceremonial matters, which were moved up on the agenda so the cross country teams could go back home, the Council moved on to the Consent Calendar, a portion of the meeting in which the Council votes on (and largely approves) items that are uncontroversial and uninteresting to the public. That’s all fine and good, but that simple explanation is never actually given to the public attending the meeting; I saw many confused faces in the audience.

The agenda, given online, is also fairly difficult to parse, simply because of the bureaucratic language used. As part of the Consent Calendar, the council discussed the setting of fines for specific code violations, things like permit issues, individuals leaving their property in their yard, and other minor aesthetic breaches. After that scintillating episode, it was time for the Public Forum for items not related to the agenda, which in this case, mostly meant Civics students attempting to get an “A” on the very assignment this article is for. The disparity was honestly pretty funny; personally, I attempted to make a joke and had my bit fail spectacularly.

   Multiple students spoke about actual issues, such as lack of stop signs on a certain blind corner, or Piedmont’s status as one of the only Alameda county cities that is not a sanctuary city. Unsurprisingly, there was also a slew of Civics students talking about traffic around the school.

   Once the Public Forum was done, the first thing on the official schedule was the issue of refunding bonds. As a seventeen year old with little (read: no) financial experience, this was fairly difficult to follow, but apparently few others could parse it either, because there was only one public comment for this section.

   One woman asked how much the process would cost the city, as well as homeowners, and the response was that the $29,500 would come out of bond proceeds, and thus not cost the City anything. Again, I really had no idea what was going on for that part. Those three bond assessments were voted on (three aye votes, one abstention, and one recusal).

   The next agenda item, and final one that I was present for, was the Piedmont renewal of its contract with Richmond Sanitary Services. This was by far the most difficult thing to make it through, and I actually had some interest in the topic before the dull droning of various city staff thoroughly killed any attention span I had.

   Essentially, because Republic Sanitary is the only one being considered for the contract, and because Piedmont does such a stellar job of caring for its residents, Richmond Sanitary is not planning on renewing its contract without more money. That seemed reasonable to me, especially because I happened to know beforehand that, in the past few years, Piedmont residents have been foregoing curbside pickup in lieu of a service in which the collectors can bring one’s cans down from wherever they may be.

   The issue is that that on premises or backyard service is predominantly meant for those who physically cannot bring their own cans down to the curb, either the elderly or the disabled, and so it was priced for a small subset of customers.

   Currently, about half of Piedmont residents use the on premises service, and the company is not being paid adequately for it. This was another technical issue that was mostly commented on by city staff and other professionals involved in the process.

   The public, far from being uninterested, was instead just lost in the hour of commentary on an issue that, in my admittedly unprofessional opinion, probably could have been abbreviated. I do understand that there isn’t really a good solution to the disconnect between the Council and the public, but that doesn’t mean I can’t complain about it without offering any real solutions. After all, that’s what democracy is about, right?

by Sylvie Srinivasan, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
1 Comment »
Dec 7 2017

Piedmont’s City Council met on Monday, November 20th, when the main point of discussion was the question of whether to approve the addition of a cell tower across from 314 Wildwood ave. (above Witter field, beside Wildwood Elementary School and the entrance to the dog park).

After a brief public forum and ceremonial kick-off for the Toys for Tots program as well as the Thanksgiving book drive, the Council turned to the issue most people in the room were there for – the cell tower. Although it is true that Piedmont’s code does protect the city against large, obstructing objects, if the Council finds that the benefits of the object outweighs the negatives, the Council may allow the object to be placed. In this case, the object would be a large “wireless communication facility” and the reason for approving it would be an apparent coverage gap in cellular service in Piedmont.

Before the members of the community were invited to speak on the matter, Sharon James, a representative from Crown Castle (the company responsible for installing the tower), rose to the podium. Ms. James remarked that in this day and age efficient cell service is a necessity. After Ms. James spoke on behalf of the tower, numerous residents stood up to protest the installation. Included in the more than twenty residents who spoke was a real estate broker who attested to the decline in property values if the tower was to be put in, a scientist who acknowledged the potential health hazards of having a tower so close to people’s homes and schools, and a lawyer who remarked that under federal law there is, in fact, enough coverage provided in the city. Many other residents continued to address similar issues about declining property values, health risks, disturbance to the beautiful aesthetics of the city, and noise pollution. The general rallying cry of the residents who spoke against the tower was “Don’t let the corporations win.”

Among these residents was Joe Ahashi* who spoke on behalf of his wife who was unable to attend the meeting herself. Previously uninvolved with the issue, Mr. Ahashi was playing catch up at and right before the meeting. He remarked afterwards that what he learned and what remains at the heart of the problem in his opinion is what exactly constitutes a “coverage gap”. “There are many ways you can measure a gap- based on what customers say, or what industry peers say. I want to know what was the methodology, how did they collect that information [etc.]”  And it is true that although representatives from Crown Castle claimed that there is in fact a coverage gap, many residents came forth with anecdotal stories of how they do not know of anyone who has coverage issues in Piedmont.

The real data regarding this supposed coverage gap, as far as Mr. Ahashi understood, was undisclosed to the public, making it a future plan of Mr. Ahashi’s to reach out to members of the council and ask whether this data could be revealed to the public. He said, “We, as citizens, should be able to weigh in, particularly if it’s going to really limit the city council in what they can do in future.”  Like most of the other attendees at the meeting, Mr. Ahashi was disappointed with the council’s decision to approve the structure. Despite the abundance of residents in opposition to the tower, Mayor McBain announced that in this case, the Council must not merely base their decision on the opinions of the community, but on the rules and regulations. With that thought in mind, the Council unanimously approved the measure.

In my personal opinion, the tower should not have be put up based on the amount of dissent from the residents who will actually have to deal with the disturbance in their front yard and by their children’s school. I do not believe it will make as huge a difference to every-day life as some people were arguing. However, the evidence provided did not seem clear enough to convince me that it was absolutely necessary.

by Claire Hanke, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~~~

On the evening of November 20 at 7:30 p.m., the Piedmont City Council met in Piedmont City Hall’s City Council Chambers. The principal issue on the agenda of the Council, which meets on the first and third Mondays of every month, was the consideration of an application to install a new, small-cell wireless communication facility.

Other topics scheduled for deliberation included the content of memoranda to both the Piedmont Police and Firefighters unions from the Council, the purchase of a new ambulance for the city, conditions of agreement with a company to redesign Piedmont’s official civic website, and the possible adoption of the Information Technology Strategic Plan.

Proceedings regarding the communication facility proved time-consuming, mainly due to the amount of citizens who spoke to the issue. During the recess that followed the discussion of the communication facility, I stole away from City Hall into the November night, but not before the clock hand had past 9:30 p.m.

The meeting opened with the Council unanimously approving the minutes from the October 16 meeting. The floor then opened for general commentary, which was followed by ceremonial proceedings: Fire Chief Bud McLaren announced the commencement of the annual Toys for Tots drive and Councilmember Jennifer Cavanaugh announced the Thanksgiving Book Drive Kick-Off.

These introductory matters did not, however, indicate the parade of boiling tempers and accusatory tones that would soon be slung from the small wooden podium on the eastern wall of the Piedmont City Council Chamber.

Planning Director Kevin Jackson began the discussion on the application for the new communication facility at the prompting of Mayor Robert McBain, by giving an explanation of the facility’s location, design, purpose, and where City Council was thus far in their proceedings regarding the approval of the facility.

The application for the proposed wireless communication facility, dubbed a ‘small cell’, is intended to be installed across from 314 Wildwood Avenue, near the Wildwood entrance to Piedmont Park. Site PHS 09 is one of nine “small cell” wireless communication facilities locations proposed by Crown Castle, a wireless infrastructure provider based in Houston, Texas.

The purpose of “small cell” facilities is to provide faster, more reliable coverage and a higher capacity to areas of dense population. Crown Castle’s Government Relations Manager, Sharon James, explained that the planned design for the small cell conformed to city landscaping and design regulations, and will function as an attachment to a street lamp. The street lamp was modeled after the fixtures on Oakland Avenue in an attempt to avoid corruption of Piedmont’s cityscape aesthetic.

Site PHS 09 was the last of the nine applications for  Crown Castle wireless facilities to come before the council, five of the previous applications having been denied, and three having been approved. Before even reaching the approval vote phase, Site PHS 09 had already been subject to twenty-six conditional limitations constructed by the city’s Planning Commission in accordance with state, city, and federal laws and regulations.

At the meeting, representatives from Crown Castle, the applicant, were the first to speak, defending the application. Sharon James provided statistics concerning the usefulness of thorough data coverage, stating that 77% of Piedmont citizens have mobile devices and 50% don’t even have wired lines in their homes.

The opposition to Site PHS 09 came from citizens voicing a number of concerns ranging from noise pollution, the dangers of harmful emissions, the degradation of park aesthetic, to the moral corruption of Piedmont at the hands of corporate capitalism.

Piedmont resident Sherry Newman warned against the possibility of a 20% reduction in home values near Site PHS 09, which realtor Anian Tunney, acting as representative for the residents of 314 Wildwood Avenue, repeated. Newman suggested a “citywide vote” that would enable the citizens to decide the fate of the application directly.

Former Piedmont resident Peter Harvey claimed he moved out of Piedmont after decades of citizenship due to the installment of new cell towers near his home. Resident Jeanie Alvis brought up the possibility of toxic emissions, and asked if an independent contractor oversees the annual testing of emission rates. The Council responded, stating that the applicant is responsible for the testing. Wildwood Avenue resident Indira Balkerson pleaded with the Council to “not let capitalism win,” and avoid endangering the school-aged children.

Up to Ms. Balkerson’s time on the stand, I had been relatively uncertain of what to say. I could see both the arguments of the citizens and the goals of the applicant, and more importantly, the City Council. There was also a particular facet of the Site PHS 09 plans that many weren’t understanding. A number of citizens who had spoken, including Sherry Newman, Jason Malk, Caroline Jung, and Emmy Wiesner all referred to the Site PHS 09 small cell as a ‘monstrosity.’ However a ‘site’ is exactly what PHS 09 is right now-just a location. No lamppost has gone up, as the plans have been awaiting approval by the Council.

Mayor McBain repeated three times that the structure currently standing across from 314 Wildwood Avenue was a story pole, the framework of construction, not the actual “small cell” facility.  Nevertheless, the word ‘monstrous’ continued to be used. To me, it seemed like the citizens demonstrated their ability to rabble rouse and convey threatening tones, but had shown up to do just that, without much regard for what either the Council or the applicant had to say, no matter how legitimate the response.

As much of the commentary seemed to insinuate the Council’s desire to put children in harm’s way, I chose to speak in defense of the Council’s character, stating that “the Council has an interest in maintaining the lifeblood,” or the safety of the young people, “of the community.”  I also referenced Ms. Balkerson’s claim that the Council was endangering the young people, and pointed to the unreasonable nature of her assertion. The Council, I noted, would never forfeit the best interest of the people who voted for them to adopt merely a single small cell wireless communication facility.

After the meeting, I spoke to the Crown Castle representative Sharon James. “We are here as representatives of the applicant,” stated James, adding that the problem with the opposition is that “both federal and state laws apply” and protect the implementation of a new small cell facility. James was surprised the plans were met with such strong objection from the community, admitting that she “thought Piedmont would be more open.”  The bottom line, James pointed out, was that “laws allow for telecommunication facilities.” “There are twenty-six conditions on the facility already,” James said, assuring me that Crown Castle would “address appeals with [their] legal department.”

 The result of the issue? Wildwood Avenue residents should anticipate the ‘monstrosity’ to soon appear on their block. Mayor McBain expressed on behalf of the Council, “we make legally defensible choices,” before voting in favor of the applicant along with every other councilmember.

It looks like in this match, with the backing of city regulations and federal and state law, Crown Castle captured the king.

by Andrew Hansen, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.
Dec 7 2017

Piedmont Center for the Arts Application for Conditional Use Permit – 

The recent posting by Garrett Keating contains several inaccuracies which I would like to correct.  The most important one is the fact that The Piedmont Center For The Arts, Inc. has applied to the City of Piedmont for a Conditional Use Permit to allow THE CENTER to sub-lease space to a commercial sub-tenant. Garrett has represented that The Piedmont Post has applied for this Conditional Use Permit and would become a “tenant” of the City in a City-owned building.  In truth, it is The Piedmont Center, which has a right to sub-lease some of its space to a tenant of its choosing, that has applied to the City for a permit, in accordance with the new zoning laws requiring this procedure.

Garrett also represents that Gray Cathrall, Editor of The Piedmont Post, is on the Board of The Piedmont Center.  This is untrue.  Gray was termed out and resigned from the Board last summer.  He was a major contributor to the formation and ongoing publicity needs of The Center.

The Piedmont Center For The Arts has a lease with the City of Piedmont covering a portion of the space in the building at 801 Magnolia.   The initial lease was effective on May 2, 2011 and it has been amended several times.  The original lease DID restrict any sub-tenants to non-profit entities.  In the Lease Amendment effective August 31, 2016, that restriction was removed by amending the Lease to allow The Center to rent to any tenant in accordance with Piedmont’s zoning law.

Why does The Piedmont Center need a tenant?  A good question to consider and the answer is simply money!  In the original business plan for The Center, the opportunity for rental income from the old Christian Science Reading Rooms was intended as a cash flow which would subsidize all of the arts activities.  It was intended to pay all of the overhead and maintenance costs plus a little extra for unforeseen expenses and upgrades.

For the bulk of our tenancy, the Bay Area Children’s Theatre rented our extra space.  They were an ideal fit as a sub-tenant because The Center has to have some partial use of these rented rooms & BACT was a very compatible and easy-going group.  The extra space at The Center can only be rented as a “shared space” with no exclusive access by either party.  During the year, The Center uses those back rooms as the “Green Room” for all theatre productions (make-up, costumes, changing rooms, entrances & exits), the on-going artists’ exhibitors use these rooms to store their wrappings, all Center users utilize the smaller back room for their catering needs, and musicians use them to store their clothing & instrument cases.

Bay Area Children’s Theatre moved out of the building last summer (when they were able to rent an entire vacant church in Montclair) and we have been trying to find a tenant(s) ever since.  The problem is that they all want exclusive use, locked doors, a separate alarm system and no use by The Piedmont Center for its programs.

In order for The Piedmont Center to be able to sub-lease even shared space to a commercial tenant, The Center has to obtain a Conditional Use Permit.  The Board realized that The Piedmont Post office would be a sub-tenant who would not increase congestion, noise or parking around our building and they are willing to lease on a “shared space” basis at top dollar.  That was the kind of sub-tenancy we were looking for.

Nancy Lehrkind, Vice President
The Piedmont Center For The Arts

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
3 Comments »
Dec 6 2017

 Regarding the proposal to move The Piedmont Post newspaper into 801 Magnolia Avenue – the Piedmont Center for the Arts Building (public space) –

On the Monday, December 11 Planning Commission agenda is an application by The Piedmont Post to sub-lease office space from the Piedmont Center for the Arts (PCA) in the 801 Magnolia building. Some background/history: The editor of The Post serves on the PCA board.

PCA was given an essentially  rent-free lease for half of the 801 Magnolia Building by the City Council in 2010 as a non-profit with the authority to sub-lease to other non-profit organizations. As the city owns the building, it is public space and private for profit uses were prohibited. PCA has certainly earned that status as a public space given the arts activity it has brought to Piedmont.

Last spring, the City Code (Chapter 17) was revised by the Council to allow private for-profit uses in public spaces. Private businesses are required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, one criteria for which is that “the intent is to allow commercial uses which will serve the residents of the City” as opposed to regional users.

City staff explicitly recommended “newspaper” as an acceptable use in its report to Council at the time. In The Post’s application for a Conditional Use Permit, it addresses this intent requirement with the following response: “It will be very convenient for students and residents to file sports stories, notice cultural events, to pick up copies of the weekly newspaper, and provide photographs, etc.”

The Post has been publicly critiqued by Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) School Board members for its biased reporting on school bond measures and stories maligning PUSD staff and hires.

If the use permit is granted, such conduct will continue from taxpayer-supported office space. Comments on this matter can be sent to Kevin Jackson, Planning Director, at kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or City Council at citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us.

By Garrett Keating, Former City Council Member

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
7 Comments »
Dec 6 2017

On December 4, 2017, the City Council listened to long and detailed staff and consultant explanations of the proposed ten-year contract with Republic Sanitary Services, the sole bidder to provide solid waste services for Piedmont.  Republic is Piedmont’s current provider.  The Council asked  a few questions at the meeting, having gone into greater detail at the off-camera “Study Session” the prior week.

Approximately 3% of service provided in Piedmont is subsidized by the ratepayers to cover the total cost for school and City waste disposal requirements. It was explained that this practice is one of the unique features of Piedmont’s service contract. Most cities and schools pay for their own waste collection services separate from ratepayer fees.

The Council approved the first reading in the two part ordinance approval process. As suggested by Mayor Bob McBain, the second reading will not take place until the Council meeting of January 16, 2017 to allow further input from residents.

Council member Tim Rood requested that the over 5% Piedmont franchise fee, be reduced to approximately 2%, allowing the residential rates to be slightly lower.  Prior to the second reading and adoption, staff will come back to the Council in January with a chart of the impacts to the City revenue and ratepayers.

The proposed rates for a curbside 35 gallon cart, which includes unlimited recycling carts, will go from $55.11 per month to $84.60 per month.  The rate for premises/backyard 35 gallon cart service, plus unlimited recycling carts, will go from $61.08 per month to $126.93 per month.

Under the proposed plan those wishing to slightly reduce the charges, can opt for a 20 gallon cart rather than a 35 gallon cart.  There is also an option to prepay the full year charge in order to reduce the fee by 8%, gaining essentially a free month of service.

Policy for those physically limited 

A policy allowing those who are physically unable to place their carts at curbside was approved by the Council.  On an annual basis, those residents with specific limitations may attempt to qualify for receiving on premises or backyard service for the same rate as those placing their carts at the curb. Those residents will file an application with the City signed by their doctor or present their handicapped vehicle placard to gain qualification to receive on-premises, backyard pick up, at the curbside rates.

Privacy of the physically limited residents’ information was not discussed.

There will be no reduced rates for seniors, unless within their household no one, including themselves, is able to place carts at the curb.

Republic Services representative informed the Council that there are 11 employees picking up waste in Piedmont 5 days a week.  The typical period of their pick up runs from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m.

As in many Bay Area neighborhoods, the hilly, curvy, narrow streets in Piedmont make service more difficult and expensive than flat, broad streets where commercial structures and residences are conveniently spaced.

Comments may be sent to the City Council as follows:

Robert McBain, Mayor rmcbain@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 547-0597 2nd Term Exp. 11/20
Teddy Gray King, Vice Mayor tking@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 450-0890 1st Term Exp. 11/18
Jennifer Cavenaugh jcavenaugh@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 428-1442 1st Term Exp. 11/20
Tim Rood trood@piedmont.ca.gov (510) 239-7663 1st Term Exp. 11/18
Betsy Smegal Andersen bandersen@piedmont.ca.gov Unexpired Term Exp. 11/18

Read prior PCA article with links to the Staff Reports and extensive details on the contract and points of consideration. HERE

Dec 6 2017

On November 20, 2017, the City Council interviewed a number of applicants to fill the Recreation Commission vacancy created when Betsy Andersen was appointed to the City Council.  Conna McCarthy was chosen by all Council members to become a member of the Piedmont Recreation Commission. McCarthy had also applied to replace Jeff Wieler upon his resignation for the Council

McCarthy has long been involved in Piedmont activities, particularly recreation, encouraging youth to become active in athletic programs and fundraising.

Professionally, McCarthy is an attorney and works with her husband in their San Francisco law firm Craigie, McCarthy and Clow.

Recently McCarthy initiated activism against former mayor, Jeff Wieler, for his hateful and sexual statements found on line.  Wieler ultimately resigned his position on the Council as Piedmont’s Mayor.

McCarthy is the daughter of former California Lt. Governor, Leo McCarthy.