WELCOME TO THE OPINION PAGE
The following letters and other commentary express only the personal opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
Submit a letter, opinion, article, etc. | Receive email notice of new articles
As a board, we all agree that the press plays an important role in providing information to the community, but it can be harmful when inaccurate claims are made, whatever the cause of such mistakes. Although School Board members (all volunteers) cannot respond to all inaccuracies in the Piedmont Post, we think it important to respond to the Post’s recent article, “School District’s Top-Heavy Administration.”
The District administration provides management, guidance and support for 502 District employees who teach, serve, support and provide a variety of programs to 2701 students. The administration consists of a Superintendent (Randy Booker), an Assistant Superintendent and Chief Business Officer (Song Chin-Bendib), a Director of Curriculum & Instruction (Cheryl Wozniak), a Director of Instructional Technology (Stephanie Griffith), a Director of Adult and Alternative Education, who also manages the Wellness Center (Michael Brady), a Director of Special Education (Julie Valdez), a Director of Facilities (Pete Palmer), a Director of Fiscal Services (Michelle Nguyen), and a Director of Athletics (Vic Acuna). Each of these dedicated individuals provides valuable and necessary services to the District.
The Post article does not challenge that such administrators are needed and that they do an excellent job for our children. Instead, the Post implies that the Board has failed to provide oversight, the public has had no chance to comment, and that there are too many administrators. The facts are otherwise.
• The Post asserts that administration “changes appear to have occurred with limited oversight or input from members of the Piedmont School Board.” Not true. Not only are such staffing changes found in the public agendas (which every Board member reads), but Board members were and are aware of proposed administration staffing before staffing changes are made through frequent individual meetings with the Superintendent, which often address staffing and morale, and confidential performance reviews, including the Superintendent’s management and plans for the administration. Board members can and do email or call the Superintendent frequently about District issues, and that has included administration organization and staffing.
• The Post asserts that “only one of the four new contracts was subject to board approval and open to public discussion.” Not true, as admitted later in the article. Each contract was presented in the Board’s public agenda as a consent item. Routine matters not expected to be of public interest often are placed on the consent agenda. A member of the public may ask to speak regarding consent items, and any Board member may ask to remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion. No such request or public comment was made.
• The Post asserts that the District’s Chief Business Officer (and Assistant Superintendent) “is now being paid over $217,000 a year in base salary.” Not true. Ms. Chin-Bendib started at an annual salary of $165,871 for 205 workdays, and now receives a base salary of $178,750 for 215 workdays. The Board is aware of competitive salaries for CBOs in the Bay Area, and is pleased to have Ms. Chin-Bendib serving as our CBO.
• With full support of the Board, Superintendent Booker has reorganized administrative roles and responsibilities in the District office to meet evolving educational and administrative needs. Mr. Booker has flattened the organization structure by not replacing a second Assistant Superintendent and, instead, having Directors that mostly report directly to him. The Directors provide the expertise to properly serve our student population, including: managing changes in curricula and programs; supporting the approximately 15% of District students who require special education services; developing and supporting technology infrastructure and services; managing maintenance and construction at the schools where our children learn; and providing the operational expertise to keep the District in compliance with federal and state requirements, as well as to meet the high expectations of the Board and the community.
Our community, parents, students and Board members expect a lot from our schools. We expect them to be well-managed, and to serve the many and varied educational needs of our children. Contrary to the assertion in the Post, the administration is not “top-heavy,” it is right-sized. The excellent performance of our students and the support provided to our educational community show it.
Rick Raushenbush
Amal Smith
School Board Members
Sarah Pearson is seeking re-election to the Board of Education at the November 8, 2016 General Election. Sarah writes:
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
I have been honored to serve on the Piedmont Board of Education for the past four years, and I hope the citizens of Piedmont will support me and elect me for second term.
This is an exciting time in education, and I believe our public schools serve the children of Piedmont better now than they did five years ago. We have earned top academic rankings while focusing on the whole child and nurturing curiosity and love-of-learning in our students. Nonetheless, PUSD faces many challenges that will require thoughtful consideration and require all stakeholders to work collaboratively to ensure well-informed decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources.
My husband, Evan Seevak, and I have three children who are so grateful for the Piedmont schools. They and their classmates have benefitted from great teachers who use innovative instructional strategies, such as differentiated teaching, and make the curriculum relevant and engaging. My children have enjoyed participating in a wide range of extracurricular activities at school, such as community service, athletics, journalism and the creative arts (acting, a cappella, instrumental music, studio art and ceramics). Our eldest just graduated from Piedmont High, and it is heartwarming to look at her classmates and see that these thirteen years in the Piedmont schools truly produce thoughtful, curious, creative and caring individuals who value community and service. I am optimistic that our graduates will become engaged global citizens.
I enjoy serving on the Board, and I believe that I can provide strong leadership in the next term. I have a proven record of working well with all stakeholders. I ask tough questions, research best practices, and insist that we get follow-up whenever we approve a program change. Our children’s educational experience is directly related to the quality of teaching, and I support rigorous hiring practices and on-going attention to teacher training and evaluation. I have a K-12 perspective, and I embrace an attitude of continual improvement. I want to ensure that PUSD continues to provide an excellent education to all of our students.
I am grateful to live in a community where people work together to make Piedmont a special place, and I am honored to serve on the Board of Education. I hope to be re-elected for a second term to keep the focus of the Board on providing the best possible public education for all the children of Piedmont.
Sincerely,
Sarah Pearson, Member of the Piedmont Unified School District Board of TrusteesSarah’s website is being regularly updated and contains photos, endorsers, and issues. Click to read > www.VoteforSarahPearson.com
Editors Note: While welcoming information on the candidates, the Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
East Bay Times Editorial states:
“After voters soundly rejected the district’s 2014 bond plan, they now face one four times as large. This $66 million proposal is a vast overreach.
“Piedmont’s existing special school taxes — added to the base 1 percent property tax — dwarf others in the East Bay.
“Measure H1 would drive that annual cost to $4,260. Even for wealthy Piedmont, this is off the charts. The district must inject fiscal reality into its plans.”
Measure H1 – Piedmont’s School Facilities Master Plan Bond Measure
Tracing back to the passage of Prop 13 in 1978, Piedmonters have recognized that the maintenance of excellent public schools is an essential element of our community’s reputation as one of the premier places to live in the Bay Area. From that time forward successive School Boards, administrators, teachers, parents and private citizens have worked together to nurture and enhance top flight quality in our schools. Measure H1 is the latest, and one of the most important, ongoing steps in that process. Consistently since 1978, Piedmonters have stepped up to the plate to tax themselves and donate the funds necessary to achieve and maintain excellence.
Measure H1 takes the first, and biggest, step to implement the Facilities Master Plan recommended to the current School Board by the Facilities Steering Committee, the majority of whom are highly qualified private citizens of Piedmont. The total cost of needed work is estimated to be $137 million. Citizens can review every aspect of this needed work by going online to the Piedmont Unified School District Facilities Assessment (dated February 10, 2016).
Recognizing that bonding capacity limits, as well as financial prudence, restrict the amount of work that could be undertaken at one time, the Facilities Steering committee recommended that a bond for $66 million be proposed now, and that with full community‐participation the needed work be prioritized. That is exactly the process the Board adopted. And, as recommended by the Committee, we are now at the point where input from all interested citizens is invited to complete the prioritization of work to be done. It is contemplated that following approval on Measure H1 in November, the public input period will continue with a series of community meetings, following which the Board will adopt a final priority plan.
I laud the Board for pursuing a process that maximizes the opportunity for public participation in the determination of what work will be done first. The Editor of the “Post” has kindly offered to facilitate this process by providing space regularly throughout the campaign for airing of public views on the specific needs for improvement of the P.U.S.D. facilities to maximize their suitability for various academic functions.
I urge all interested citizens to participate by making their views on the prioritization of projects known – AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO VOTE “YES” ON MEASURE H1.
CAMERON WOLFE, JR., Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. The Piedmont Civic Association welcomes campaign information – endorsements, photos, and opinions. The Piedmont Civic Association, however, does not support or oppose specific ballot measures or candidates for public office.
Election information can be sent to PCA by clicking the link below > editors@piedmontcivic.org or making a comment below.
Dear Planning Commissioners:
On the top of page 4 of the staff report, staff cites several goals, actions and policies from the 2007 General Plan as rationale for the zoning proposals it has brought before you. In particular the statement is made “The report stressed that the intent behind the General Plan directives is to have regulations and procedures that do not act as barriers to low-density commercial and mixed use development in Zone D.”
As a city councilman involved with the drafting and approval of the General Plan, I can say that Council did not intend such a broad interpretation of the General Plan to accommodate mixed use development. To the contrary, there is specific language in the Plan that new development be in character with Piedmont and in particular with the neighborhood for which is it slated.
As with all new development in Piedmont, there is direction in the General Plan that NEW development not be impactful on the neighborhood. I provide below the sections from the General Plan that you should consider when evaluating staff’s proposed changes. I think you will find the proposed revisions to Chapter 17 are not in line with the intent of the General Plan. In particular, I call to your attention that Policy 4.2 says nothing about the constraining of MULTI-FAMILY housing.
That said, I understand that staff is attempting to be responsive to a broad community sentiment expressed in the 2007 General Plan Survey for more pedestrian-friendly commercial services in Piedmont. I think that sentiment can be best addressed by implementing the zoning policies staff proposes for future development in the Civic Center. That is the closest, most walkable pedestrian center for all of Piedmont and a logical place to encourage community gathering. Such policies for the Grand Avenue commercial district are too impactful on that neighborhood and I encourage you to direct staff to return with different development policies for this section of Zone D.
Staff has attempted to mitigate impacts by proposing to lower the building height in the Grand area however I think that lack of parking is a bigger impact on the neighborhood. Direct staff to undertake a thorough parking and traffic analysis of the neighborhood before considering additional revisions.
Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member
Attachment ………………………………………………… from the 2007 General Plan:
L A N D U S EGoal 1: Residential CharacterMaintain the character of Piedmont as a residential community.Policies and ActionsPolicy 1.1: Encroachment of Non-Residential UsesMaintain zoning regulations which strictly limit the encroachment of non-residential uses into residential areas, and which support residential uses on private land throughout the City.Policy 1.2: Neighborhood ConservationSustain the balance between homes, private yards, and public space that defines Piedmont’s residential neighborhoods. The essential form of the city’s residential areas—including the scale and appearance of its homes, the mature vegetation, the views and vistas, the appearance of streets and public places, and the street layout—should be maintained for the long-term future.Policy 1.3: Harmonious DevelopmentMaintain planning and development review procedures which ensure that new development is harmonious with its surroundings and will not conflict with adjacent properties. New development and home alterations should be consistent with established standards for setbacks, height, and bulk, thereby conserving the low-density, pedestrian-friendly character of the city’s neighborhoods.Goal 2: Commercial and Mixed Use AreasProvide for a limited range of commercial uses which serve the basic needs of the community.Policies and ActionsPolicy 2.1: Local-Serving Emphasis: On the city’s limited commercial land supply, strongly encourage activities that meet the needs of Piedmont residents rather than region-serving activities. By supporting local-serving businesses in these areas, Piedmont can advance its goals of reducing driving, promoting walking, and creating a more balanced and well-rounded community.Policy 2.2: Mixed Use DevelopmentWithin the Grand Avenue commercial district, encourage mixed use development that combines ground floor commercial uses and upper story residential uses.Policy 2.3: Office DevelopmentSupport limited office development in the city’s commercial districts to accommodate businesses serving Piedmont residents, and to provide rental office space for Piedmont residents with small businesses.Policy 2.4: Commercial ParkingResolve parking problems in the city’s two commercial districts in a way that balances the needs of local businesses with those of immediately adjacent residents and the community at large.Policy 2.5: Off-Site ImpactsMaintain a conditional use permit procedure for commercial uses which ensures that off-site impacts such as traffic, noise, parking, and odor are disclosed and mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Buffering and screening should be required between commercial development and adjacent residential properties to minimize the potential for land use conflicts between the two uses.Policy 2.6: Commercial Uses as Gathering PlacesRecognize the importance of Piedmont’s commercial land uses as community gathering places. Any new commercial projects should be designed in a way that contributes to pedestrian vitality and safety, and provides a clean, attractive, and welcoming environment for the public.Action 2.A: Allowing Multi-family Residential in Commercial ZonesAmend City regulations so that multi-family housing becomes a conditionally permitted use in the Commercial zone (Zone D). However, such uses should only permitted when they are part of a mixed use project that includes ground floor commercial uses.Action 2B: Commercial Development StandardsReview the development standards for commercial uses to ensure that they support the goal of promoting pedestrian-oriented development and attractive streetscapes.HOUSING ELEMENTAs noted in Program 1.E, the City will be amending its Zoning regulations to permit mixed use and multi-family development in Zone D (the Commercial zoning district). As further noted in Program 4.G, the City will also amend the regulations for Zones C and D to allow fewer parking spaces for smaller multi-family units. Additional steps to incentivize multi-family and mixed use development in Zone D will be established. This should include the following specific zoning changes:a) Raising the maximum lot coverage allowed for two story buildings in Zone D for projects which include housing.The limit is presently 50 percent for one-story buildings and 25 percent for two-story buildings. Given that most multi-family and mixed use buildings are two stories, it would be difficult to do such development in this zone without a Variance for lot coverage. The ordinance should be amended to allow 50 percent lot coverage for mixed use and multi-family buildings in Zone DGoal 4: Elimination of Housing ConstraintsMinimize constraints to the development of additional housing without compromising the high quality of Piedmont’s neighborhoods.PoliciesPolicy 4.1: Communicating Planning and Building InformationEncourage public understanding of the planning and building processes in Piedmont to facilitate permit processing and reduce project costs and delays.Policy 4.2: Planning and Building StandardsEnsure that planning and building standards, development review procedures, and fees do not form a constraint to the development, conservation, and rehabilitation of housing, or add unnecessarily to the cost of building or improving housing.
Neighbors near the Shell Station at Wildwood and Grand Avenues are circulating a petition to gather support for their proposals to protect Piedmont residents. The pervasive zoning matter, originating in the Planning Department, attempts to increase the height of commercial buildings next to Piedmont homes to 40′, reduce the size and number of parking spaces required, permit eaves and overhangs on all Piedmont buildings to extend to the property line, and require housing on upper levels of new commercial buildings.
The petition does not address the dormant breach per the City Charter precluding Piedmont voters of their right to control land use changes. The breach was proposed in 2012 and later approved by the Council. No development has occurred while awaiting the controversial 2016 proposed regulations.
The Planning Commission meetings covering consideration of zoning changes has been found by some to thwart community input while proposing consequential negative impacts on residential properties near the commercial zones located on Grand Avenue and in the Civic Center on Highland Avenue, and thus impacting all of Piedmont.
Below is the petition being circulated:
https://www.change.org/p/piedmont-planning-commission-and-piedmont-city-council-maintain-zoning-regulations-that-protect-piedmont-residents Don Dare and Miguel DeAvila Piedmont Residents
“As Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s mother, I am writing to object to any mention of his name and death in Benghazi, Libya, by Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party.
“I know for certain that Chris would not have wanted his name or memory used in that connection. I hope that there will be an immediate and permanent stop to this opportunistic and cynical use by the campaign.”
MARY F. COMMANDAY, Oakland, Calif.
Objections to proposed zoning regulations are voiced in letters to the Piedmont Planning Commission by Piedmont resident.
Subject: 7/26/16 Planning Commission Study Session
My name is Don Dare. My wife, Dianne, and I live at XXX* Wildwood Avenue, and have done so for the past thirty four years. Our Zone A property shares a boundary with the Zone D property which currently is the Shell station at 29 Wildwood Avenue. I and a group of my neighbors attended the Planning Commission Special Session held on 7/26/16 to discuss City Code Chapter 17 modifications. We were, and continue to be concerned about the proposed modifications to the Zone D regulations, specifically those concerning building height, lot coverage, and parking space requirements. These modifications propose a 40’ height limit, no lot coverage restrictions, and a severely reduced parking space requirement.
At this meeting, Planning Director Kevin Jackson stated that there were 19 parcels in Piedmont that are in Zone D. He said that of these 19 parcels, only one would be a likely candidate for mixed use development in the years or even decades to come. That is the parcel at 29 Wildwood Avenue. He also stated that under the existing code, the mixed use development proposal for this site, submitted for discussion last year, (by ex Planning Commissioner David Hobstetter and Shell owner Jeff Hansen), could not be built. It therefore appears to me that the proposed modifications are being made to accommodate these would-be developers and their project, as no other mixed use development is anticipated for some time, if ever.
Mr. Jackson displayed photo examples of mixed use development on Grand Avenue and Lakeshore Avenue in Oakland, and Solano Avenue in Albany. These photos depicted streets which for a block or more were lined with retail on both sides. These examples in no way compare with the site at 29 Wildwood, a stand alone triangular parcel that either abuts or faces Zone A single family neighborhood homes on two of its three sides.
As the discussion concerning these modifications proceeded, Commissioner Theophilos said that there should be no modification to the existing code, and if need be, the General Plan should be modified to remove the need for any such modifications. He stated that this type of development should be constrained. Alternate Commissioner Jajodia expressed the opinion that the proposed modifications were “giving away the farm.” Commissioner Zhang pointed out that the Grand Avenue and Civic Center locations are unique, and not easily covered by one set of regulations, and suggested creating code for each. Commissioner Behrens found the various lot coverage scenarios confusing. Commissioner Ramsey expressed the need to minimize the impact on adjacent neighbors. Full support for the modifications was given only by Commissioner Ode, who stated that this was not a one property issue, (which it actually is), and eagerly supported all modifications without reservation.
Despite the obvious lack of consensus among the Commissioners and the repeated and ongoing protests by property owners who live in the immediate neighborhood, it appeared at the end of the meeting that the proposed Zone D modifications were given back to Mr. Jackson largely unchanged. The Commission’s discussion of these modifications included little or no reference to concerns expressed by the public. The concerns and issues expressed by Commission members appeared to fall victim to time constraints, as 7:30 p.m. came and went and became time to wrap it up.
I would urge you to continue discussion of this difficult and complex topic at your next meeting. Giving away the farm is not the best solution when the perceived motivation is to accommodate the financial viability of a specific project for a specific developer at a specific site.
Thank you, Don Dare, Piedmont Resident
Comments Part 2
My name is Don Dare. My wife, Dianne, and I live at XXX* Wildwood Avenue, and have done so for the past thirty four years. Our Zone A property shares a boundary with the Zone D property which currently is the Shell station at 29 Wildwood Avenue.
At the subject Study Session, it was established by comments from Kevin Jackson, Planning Director, that the proposed changes to Chapter 17 Zone D regulations were being made primarily to accommodate mixed use development of 29 Wildwood, as no other Zone D parcels were likely candidates for development for many years or even decades.
Per the Piedmont Post article printed following the 7/6/15 Study Session regarding the proposed mixed use development at 29 Wildwood, Investor David Hobstetter claims his project can’t proceed without assurances from the City that they will grant variances that far exceed the code for anything currently existing in Piedmont. Mr. Jackson confirmed this at the 7/26 Study Session, saying that under the current code, the proposed project could not be built. Jackson therefore proposed an increased height limit to 40’ and removal of all lot coverage restrictions.
I have included a photo representation of the impact that a 40’ tall building covering the lot to the sidewalk would have for me. The photo was taken from my front porch and is looking southwest. Aside from the obvious negative aesthetic impact and loss of view, this wall would deprive me of several hours of direct sunlight every day for the 6 months a year that the sun would set behind it.
I am hard pressed to imagine how the Planning Commission can reconcile approval for such a monstrosity, or the code which would allow it, with providing me the protection to which I am entitled under Zone A code. To further assist your decision making regarding the proposed Zone D code modifications, I have included quotes by David Hobstetter, a well regarded proponent of the positive effects of daylighting and natural light who is also an ex Planning Commissioner, and a principal in the proposed development.
Thank you for your consideration, Don Dare, Piedmont Resident Date: July 28, 2016
Dare’s further comments: ______________
Let The Sun Shine in: The Value of Daylight Excerpts..
By Susan BloomAccording to David Hobstetter, a Principal at San Francisco based KMD Architects, “Regular contact with daylight promotes circadian stimulation, regulating physical and mental function through our natural responses to the rhythms of light,” and helps to minimize the incidence of “cardiovascular problems, immune dysfunction, cognitive and functional deterioration and depression. Exposure to full spectrum sunlight further enables us to synthesize vitamin D, which promotes strong nerve and muscle functioning as well as cell growth regulation.”
He adds: “Optimizing the use of daylight also has enormous potential to provide energy savings—electric lights can be turned off when sufficient daylight is available, cutting lighting and cooling costs dramatically.” For example, he shares, “The CEC estimated that incorporating skylights with automatic daylight sensors into all new educational buildings would save the state of California up to $7 million dollars in energy costs each year.”
Overall, Hobstetter concludes: “Windows that admit daylight and provide an ample and pleasant view can dramatically affect mental alertness, productivity and psychological well being.”
*Address numbers have been removed in the interest of privacy.
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Planning Commission re: July 11 Agenda Item 9; City Code Chapter 17 Modifications proposals.
Honorable Commission,
The City Charter states “no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election (p. 22).” The staff report recommends allowing in Zone B “for-profit entities because the City may want to allow a community-serving business, such as a local newspaper or beverage stand, to operate out of a City building (p3 of 2016-07-11 Report)”. Currently for-profit entities are not allowed in Zone B in the public zone. As zoning is the critical mandate in controlling land use, I believe a City wide vote is needed to allow this fundamental change to allow for-profit in Zone B.
I ask for clarification and I ask the Commission to obtain clarification from staff as to what is the threshold and definition of zone reclassification and why the addition of “for-profit” is not reclassification.
Should a for-profit business be allowed, there are deserving segments of our community that have been identified in the General Plan. The 801 Magnolia building might be ideal for a teen or senior center. Additionally, a café for the Piedmont Center for the Arts also has wide appeal.
The term “community-serving business” must also embody that all segments of the community are given equal treatment. The reference in the staff report to “local newspaper” can only be the wholly Piedmont serving local newspaper, the Piedmont Post. While the Post does a proper job of reporting sports and social events, Piedmont Post publishing ethics do not include objective reporting on the passage of taxes, potential taxes and how tax dollars are used. The Piedmont Post has a sharply skewed editorial bias in support of City Hall actions. Those who oppose city taxes are shut out from virtually any space in the Post and/or opposition comments are grossly misreported. The many who opposed the partially taxpayer funded “no taxpayer cost” Blair Park Sports Complex were denied equal access in the Post.
I suggest removing the recommendation for a “local newspaper” in Zone B. Another option in the interest of transparency is to substitute “Piedmont Post” for “local newspaper” and remove “community-serving business.”
Respectfully,
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
Following is a letter sent to the Piedmont Planning Commission regarding a proposal to allow for-profit uses of public properties. The matter will be considered at the July 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
Staff is recommending that you consider language changes to “Zone B: Public Buildings – Uses and Regulations” of Chapter 17 to allow for-profit businesses in city buildings.
As rationale, staff suggests that these businesses be “community-serving” businesses. I recommend you direct staff to not adopt such language and if any changes be proposed, that explicit language be added to encourage the location of non-profit organizations into city buildings, specifically the 801 Magnolia Building.
First, the general requirement for Conditional Use Permits that businesses provide services used by city residents has always had little teeth and past Commissions have struggled to define what such businesses are.
Secondly, the examples of such businesses offered by staff, a newspaper and beverage stand, need not be located in the Civic Center and are already operating within the city limits and Civic Center area. And most importantly, such for profit businesses would block out the development of important non-profit community services that residents have been calling for for years.
For a discussion of those services, I suggest you read the 2007 General Plan Community Survey to which over 1200 residents responded indicating their preferences for policies and capital improvements in town (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/whatsnew/gp_survey_report.pdf), specifically Tables 5 and 7.
Two of the highest requested community improvements in that survey are the development of more gathering spaces in the Civic Center area and the development of a teen/senior center. The 801 Magnolia Building is the best suited of any of our civic buildings for the development of these community services and should be encouraged through Chapter 17 code revisions.
For-profit businesses, while of some utility, will not lead to optimal use of this limited space for all of the community, nor at no cost. Space in Zone B is quite limited so leave the development of new for-profit businesses to Zone C, which also happens to be in the center of town, just across the street from Zone B, where the community can just as easily avail themselves of these for-profit services.
Garrett Keating, Former member of the Piedmont City Council
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane
