As smartphone use continues to increase in the U.S., especially among children, the California Department of Public Health today issued guidance for individuals and families who want to decrease their exposure to the radio frequency energy emitted from cell phones. Although the scientific community has not reached a consensus on the risks of cell phone use, research suggests long-term, high use may impact human health.

New Fares and Fewer Seats for 2018

BART raises fares every other year, tracking inflation to provide predictability, with the next increase arriving Monday, January 1, 2018.  Who should pay more and how much more was discussed at a number of BART Board meetings over past months.

$2 is the 2.7% inflation based fare that becomes the new minimum on January 1, 2018.  18% of all BART trips are minimum fare trips. Examples of minimum fare trips: Concord to Orinda, Ashby to Bay Fair, El Cerrito Norte to Downtown Berkeley, Hayward to Union City, Daly City to Civic Center, Embarcadero to Powell, Fruitvale to Coliseum, etc.

Teens Will Pay Less

Beginning January 1, 2018, riders aged 13-18  will get the Youth discount of 50%, which has previously applied to ages 5-12. Children 4 and under always ride free.

Seniors, Disabled, and Children 5 – 12 Will Pay 3.4% More

Several board members noted that increasing the senior fare by 33% as originally proposed was counterproductive to the goal of combating reduced ridership.  As a result the fare increase for this group of riders was held to only 3.4%.

Only 4.5% of BART trips are taken by seniors who represent 12.3% of BART regional population, they offer the most fruitful demographic potential to fill empty off-peak BART seats, a priority goal. Moreover, seniors are a growing proportion of the population, having increased by 10% between the 2000 and 2010 census. Several board members noted that increasing the senior fare by 33% as originally proposed was counterproductive to the goal of combating reduced ridership.

Adult Riders will pay 2.6% More

For example, in 2018 a Piedmont adult taking BART round trip from Rockridge station to Powell station will pay $7.90 instead of the 2017 fare of $7.70, considerably less than the cost of parking and bridge toll.

Penalty Surcharge to use Paper Ticket instead of a Clipper card

To encourage customers to use Clipper cards for fare payment 50 cents will be added to the fare for each ride using BART blue paper tickets.  Seniors and people with disabilities will pay an extra 19 cents per ride if they use green or red paper tickets instead of Clipper cards. Youth will pay a 25 cent surcharge.

To Avoid the Penalty, get a Clipper card

BART will have at least 100 machines that sell Adult Clipper cards for a one-time $3.00 fee.  The permanent card can be loaded with money via cash or credit card.  Adult Clipper cards purchased online with Autoload payments linked to a credit card avoid the $3 fee.

How to get a Clipper Card.

Easing the Commuter Crush

New cars are oriented to commuters, not off-peak riders.  To accommodate more standing passengers during morning and evening rush hours, BART embarked on a program to remove one third of the seats.  BART off-peak ridership began declining in 2015, but commuter traffic remained strong, often at or above capacity.  To be financially healthy, BART needs to fill more seats off-peak.

Piedmont property owners face important property tax deduction changes on their 2018 income tax statements. 

This site does not provide tax advice, however there is information to indicate paying the full  2017-18 property tax by December 29, 2017 (Friday) may save taxpayers money because of the IRS deductibility rule changes for 2018.

Some property owners have wondered if they can pay even further ahead for 2018-19 taxes.  According to Alameda County Tax Collector Henry Levy, the answer is NO.  See below. 

Read an article regarding Alameda County Property Tax payments HERE.

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors. 

BART services used by Piedmonters will be somewhat reduced Tuesday, December 26 through Friday December 29.

Piedmont guests flying home between Christmas and New Year should not count on the normal early morning trains to the San Francisco Airport.

From Tuesday, December 26 through Friday December 29, 2017, BART will reduce peak-commute Pittsburg/Bay Point (Yellow Line) schedule. Passengers on the Pittsburg/Bay Point Line during peak hours should expect trains every 10-15 minutes.  Also, Transbay trains will be operating as 8-car trains instead of 9-10 car trains during commute hours.

The following Pittsburg/Bay Point (Yellow Line) trains are cancelled during the morning commute:

• 6:59am, 7:14am, and 7:29am that start at North Concord
• 8:42am that starts at Pleasant Hill

The following Pittsburg/Bay Point (Yellow Line) trains are cancelled during the afternoon commute:

• 4:58pm and 5:13pm North Concord trains that start at Daly City
• 6:12pm and 6:27pm Pittsburg/Bay Point trains that start at 24th street

New Year’s Eve Service

• On New Year’s Eve BART will extend service until 3am Please read details about the special service plan from 8pm-3am.
• On New Year’s Day, Monday, January 1, 2018 BART will operate on a Holiday/Sunday timetable with service beginning at 8am.

A Tale of Two Ledes…

from The Piedmont Post newspaper cover story of 12/20/2017:

 .

“At a meeting on Monday, December 18 the Piedmont City Council voted 3-2 to approve a conditional use permit for the Piedmont Center for the Arts’ sublease to the Piedmont Post after 90 minutes of deliberation.”  The rest of the front page goes on to explain how the Arts Center functions, never mentioning the opposition to the application.  The story makes no mention of the opposition of several School Board members to the application.

 .

from The Piedmonter newspaper and online cover story of 12/22/2017: 

 .

“Despite objections and numerous calls and emails to the city, the Piedmont  City Council approved – by a split vote – a conditional use permit to the Piedmont Post weekly newspaper to move its offices into the nonprofit Piedmont Center for the Arts.”   The rest of the front page goes on to explain the vote (McBain/King/Andersen in favor, Cavenaugh/Rood opposed) and the failure of the Post editor to respond to calls from the reporter to respond.  The story explicitly mentions written comments from a School Board member opposing the application.

.

Dear Piedmont City Council Members,

In addition to questions of propriety and potential tricky First Amendment issues with the City being the Landlord for a press organization, and the potential optics of the Council being seen to essentially provide a subsidy to a news organization, both of which are very important to consider, I have some core public policy concerns around the decision to allow the Piedmont Center for the Arts  (PCA) to sublet City space to any commercial entity at market rates.

1. The PCA has apparently stated to the Council that it cannot survive without this Sublet Rent

This in itself raises some very troubling questions about the financial stewardship and oversight by the Board of the PCA.  If this is true, it begs the question of whether the City needs active oversight of the PCA.  Here are the facts sourced from the Form 990 filings of the PCA, all which would seem to indicate that it is more than financially viable:

–          In its first 4 years of operations, the PCA was more than self-sustaining with income of $10,000 – $33,000 a year (average of $19k a year from 2012 – 2015)

–          Since its inception, the PCA has had an annual fund raising campaign with active solicitation letters and mailers sent out broadly to residents; the most recent one that I am aware of was in Oct/Nov 2015

–          The PCA has raised, on average, approximately $20k a year in donations from the community, separate and distinct from any revenue from program events, i.e. pure charitable contributions

–          During these years, its rental income from subleasing the space, was not that substantial: Bay Area Children’s Theater was paying $7,200/ year (through 2015)

Therefore, if something changed dramatically in 2016 that no longer makes the PCA financially viable, it begs the question as to what has changed so dramatically in programming and/or community support (donations)?  Either should be cause for concern for the City because one of the main contentions of the PCA when it was established was that it would be self-sustaining and would require no further support from the City.

2. The PCA received a very generous donation of $100,000 in 2012, which more than guarantees its financial independence

In 2012, the PCA received $100,000 from the Thornborrow Foundation, in the form of an unrestricted grant.  This grant was invested and, to the best of what I can gather from the 990s, has over the years grown to $135,000 plus.

Given this more than generous endowment, and the fact that most of the PCA’s programming is self-sustaining (and if it is not, that raises the question of what has changed in the PCA’s mission), does it not raise the question of why the City of Piedmont should be further subsidizing the PCA to the tune of $50 – $70k a year?

In other words, if the PCA needed $x a year to be financially viable, they should have put that in the original lease and the City would then have considered the implications of giving that additional subsidy to the PCA.  The whole reason that was not necessary was that it was part of the original deal that the PCA made with the City, and what the City’s (and the public’s) understanding of the terms were: give us the building, we will raise funds to renovate it and then we will be completely independent from the City and self-sustaining.

[Extra information on the PCA’s programs: Artists’ rentals (raises revenue), Music recitals (pay for themselves through ticket sales), Juried Art Show (more than pays for itself through entry fees), Theater (??)]

3. Allowing the PCA to sublet the space to a Commercial Renter is in effect the City increasing the PCA’s subsidy substantially

The financial terms of the original “contract” of the City with the PCA can best be summarized as: you, the PCA will renovate and maintain 801 Magnolia and use the space exclusively to bring Arts to the community.  In return, the City grants you use of the property for 10 years for a nominal rent.  Any way you look at it, this was the City subsidizing the PCA, albeit for a very community-beneficial cause, a cause that I fully support.  (God knows, there should be more set aside for the Arts everywhere!)  The subsidy in this instance being the rent the City could otherwise have obtained from renting out the space itself to a commercial renter for 10 years.

Now the PCA has come to the City and said that the best use for a part of the space is for it to be rented out commercially.  The City’s rationale in providing a heavily rent-subsidized property to the PCA was to facilitate the bringing of Arts to the community, which the PCA has done an admirable job of.  That was the underlying rationale for the economic subsidy (rent-free for 10 years).  Hence the initial sublet clause in the original lease was that any rental would be aligned to the mission of PCA, i.e. bringing arts to the community (and which was the case from 2012 – 2106).  If that whole use condition is removed, and the space can now be sublet to any commercial renter, the entire public policy rationale of giving subsidized rent to the PCA, on that portion of the property, goes away.  Put another way, by allowing the PCA to sublet out space that it is receiving from the City at a heavily subsidized rate (under one pretext), to a commercial entity (whose purpose is completely unrelated to the PCA’s mission), at market rates, is tantamount to the City providing the PCA a substantial, additional subsidy. 

The question for the City Council then is this: shouldn’t the revenue that the City could obtain from itself renting out this portion of 801 Magnolia (and other parts of the building which it has exclusive use of), be part of the City’s overall budget and spending priorities?  Why is a decision to grant the PCA a further subsidy of $50k – $70k a year being taken outside of the context of several other more crucial spending priorities of the City?

My issue is not whether or not the City should be subsidizing an arts organization – God knows we need more of that!  The issue is that this is taxpayer money, valuable revenue that could be used to defray the cost of other City services. Whether or not it is appropriate for the City to spend that much to subsidize the Arts is a question that is most appropriately considered along with other budget priorities of the City, in a more considered process, open to public comment like any other spending priority.  If fact, the very decision by the City to allow a tenant to lease space commercially is an economic decision that the Council and Staff should have vetted no differently than they vet any other spending decision by the City.  Secondly, given the size of the subsidy here, if the PCA is no longer financially viable as they now claim, should there not be oversight of how this money is spent?  Essentially, the City is handing over $50 – $70k worth of potential taxpayer monies to the PCA Board, without any accounting for how that money will be spent.

4. Any appearance that the Piedmont Post is not paying Market Rent implies that the City is Subsidizing a News Organization

Is Council aware of the actual terms of the sublease between the PCA and the Piedmont Post?  If the Post is not paying what would be considered “market rent” for use of space in the heart of the city, with two parking spaces, then essentially the City, as the landlord, would be subsidizing the Post, which exposes the City to a potential First Amendment lawsuit and the Council members to potential accusations of conflict of interest.  The same holds to a lesser degree to any other commercial lessee, i.e. the City will be subsidizing the entity if it is not paying “market rent”.

Respectfully,

Gautam Wadhwani

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Newspaper had already received pre-approval from City Administrator for a sublease of the public property at 801 Magnolia that houses the Piedmont Center for the Arts.

At the December 18, 2017  Council meeting starting at approximately 10:00 p.m., the Piedmont Center for the Arts was given approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allowing space to be sublet to one local news organization, The Piedmont Post. The Council approval was on a narrow vote of 3 for and 2 against.

Voting for the motion to approve were Mayor Robert McBain, who praised the newspaper, Vice Mayor Teddy King, who was eager for  approval, and Council Member Betsy Andersen, the newly appointed member of the Council, who inquired about the hours of operation.

Voting “no” on the motion to approve the CUP were Council Member Tim Rood, who had noted his disapproval of the Post and Jen Cavenaugh, who had many lingering unanswered questions regarding the lease and potential of gifting valuable city resources to a business.

Unbeknownst to the public, and evidently, the Council,  City Administrator Paul Benoit had already given permission to the Arts Center to sublet their space to the Post if approval of a Conditional Use Permit was granted by the Council.  Benoit stepped into the Council discussion supporting the Post’s usage of the building.

Numerous questions went unanswered: basis of the lease to the Arts Center’s ability to sublet or use the City’s property at 801 Magnolia for profit businesses, while denying non-profit usage, ability of City Administrator to grant permission to sublet the property without public involvement, hours of operation, unknown sublease conditions, amongst other matters.

The City Code and lease were recently changed by the Council to allow businesses in the Arts Center building.

Findings of the Planning Commission are in error, consequently the decision should be put over to a later date.

Dec. 16, 2017

Piedmont City Council

Dec. 18, 2017

RE:  801 Magnolia Avenue: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Lease approval for Piedmont Post newspaper.

 Dear Mayor McBain and Council,

          CUP Findings CUPs require that the “use is primarily to serve Piedmont residents.” The Dec. 18, 2017 Piedmont Staff report states that “The Piedmont Post . . . provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and public engagement” at Finding Two. The Dec. 11, 2018 CUP staff report to the Planning Commission states, this CUP “Should not be decided based on the content of the Piedmont Post.” Therefore, it is valid to examine whether the Post provides a forum as it is not an examination of content.          

          A forum is “A medium (such as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas” (Merriam-Webster); it is a “Public medium . . . used for debates in which anyone can participate” (Business Dictionary). The Post commonly denies letter space to many Piedmont residents. The Post does not provide a forum by any reasonable and commonly understood definition of what a forum is. Finding Two is in error.

The CUP should be rejected as it does not serve Piedmont residents unless the City’s intent is to not serve all residents. Alternately, the CUP can be sent back to the Planning Commission for further community input on whether the Post does provide a forum.

         Approval of the Lease. The City has not determined if it is appropriate to have a relationship with a commercial media firm by leasing space to it on public property.  A media outlet can move elections; therefore it is critical to determine how closely aligned the City should be to a media outlet. The Post views City Staff, elected and appointed officials as “colleagues.” (Paisley Strellis, former Post News Editor and Writer quote at her July 23, 2016 City sponsored retirement party held on public property); the relationship is unacceptable.           

          Is Council equitably representing residents and getting maximum value?  The Piedmont Center for the Arts (PCA) at 801 Magnolia Avenue is subsidized by $75,000 to $100,000 annually by taxpayers. Will there be a gift of public funds as a pass-through subsidy to a commercial media outlet? 

          The applicant states the sub-let will be at “top dollar.” What is this amount? How was “top dollar” rate determined? What efforts were made to obtain a tenant other than the Post? 

          There is a conflict of interest. Given the close relationship of the Publisher/Owner to PCA, this appears to be a sweetheart deal that does not serve taxpayers.

          Deny the CUP and disapprove the sub-let. Minimally, as many families are involved in Holiday celebrations, kindly put this matter over to a later date.

Respectfully, Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident 

Cc: Paul Benoit
John Tulloch 

 Kevin Jackson, Planning Director

 Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

The following public documents are published to help readers consider the issue of a sublet of the Piedmont Center for the Arts to the Piedmont Post newspaper that is before the City Council on their Monday, December 18 agenda:

Original City lease with the Arts Center Section 14:

Tenant shall not voluntarily assign or encumber its interest in this lease or in the premises, or sublease all or any part of the premises, or allow any other person or entity (except Tenant’s authorized representative) to occupy or use all or any part of the premises, without first obtaining Landlord’s written consent. Any assignments, encumbrance, or sublease without Landlord’s consent shall be voidable and, at Landlord’s election, shall constitute a default. No consent to any assignment, encumbrance, or sublease shall constitute a further waiver of the provisions of this

paragraph.

“The lease amendment before you tonight is drafted to allow for more flexibility in the terms of usage of the premises. The intent of the revised language is to allow the PCA to manage the facility with a higher degree of independence and to accommodate reasonable requests for facility usage without first having to obtain the written permission of the City Council. Given the PCA’s proven ability to professionally and responsibly manage the leased premises, I believe that this amendment is in the best interests of both the City and the PCA.It allows the PCA to more nimbly respond to requests from outside groups to use the facility, and allows for greater control in the scheduling of events and activities. For the City, the amendment acknowledges our confidence in the PCA’s abilities and keeps minor, operational issues from having to be acted upon by formal Council action.”

 

Section 14 – Of the Lease is hereby modified and restated as follows: Tenant shall not assign, transfer, convey, encumber or sublease (collectively, a “Transfer”) its interest in this lease or the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord, which consent shall be within the sole discretion of Landlord. For purposes of this provision, a Transfer shall be considered to include any assignment to an entity related to Tenant or a change of ownership or control of Tenant. Any Transfer without Landlord’s consent shall be voidable and, at Landlord’s election, shall constitute a default. Prior written consent of Landlord is required for all Transfers. Consent to a prior Transfer shall not be construed as consent to any future Transfer.