On Monday, December 18, for a rushed Council consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application of The Piedmont Post newspaper to rent space in the Piedmont Center for the Arts Center at 801 Magnolia Avenue, a City property leased to the Arts Center with adherence to all City, State and Federal laws as well as restrictions on activities and hours.

The Council meeting will start at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall. Consideration of the sublease of the Arts Center is late on the agenda.  The meeting will be broadcast on Channel 27 and via the City website under videos. Read the agenda HERE.

The City of Piedmont appears ready to become the landlord of one of Piedmont’s local newspapers, the Piedmont Post.  Other media outlets have reported the sub-leasing story, yet the Post has failed to notify residents of the proposal and the unique scheme to rent the subsidized City arts space to the newspaper.

The City Council has full authority under the Arts Center $1 per year lease to determine who sublets the City owned and subsidized property.

The subleasing of public property at the subsidized Arts Center has drawn growing attention as residents begin to learn of the proposal. Numerous residents who are critical of the Post’s politicized editorial practices have stepped forward. Praise has also come to the Post from residents, particularly beneficiaries of the Post’s coverage.

According to correspondence received by the City in regard to the application to house the local newspaper in a Piedmont government owned building designated for the arts, the City will receive more “bad press.”  The Piedmont Post, is owned and operated by Gray Cathrall, a founder and recent Board member of the Piedmont Center for the Arts.

A number of residents including a former School Board member, candidate for City Council and a City Commissioner, a former President of the Piedmont Education Foundation, and Arts Center neighbors, to name a few,  have come forward decrying the notion of the Post as a renter of a subsidized City building. Some opponents of the proposal are intimidated by the Post and have been afraid to come forward with their names.

Written comments were presented to the Planning Commission and are included in the staff report linked at the bottom of this article.

One detailed comment is copied below:

Dear City Council,

 

As a long-term Piedmont resident, I am strongly opposed to providing space in the PCA to the Piedmont Post Newspaper.  There are several factors behind this. First of all, it is an egregious conflict of interest for a sitting Advisory Board Member to simultaneously be the leader (editor) of the proposed tenant. Even if that Board Member is completely recused from the decision, the other Board Members undoubtedly have a close relationship with the Editor and cannot possibly render an unbiased decision regarding potential tenancy.

 

Second, the longstanding biased Editorial bent of the Piedmont Post should not be condoned by the city.  The Post has gone out of its way to malign certain arbitrarily non-favored candidates, coaches, etc. The maligning bent in some instances has been severe and toxic.

 

Third, the Post is run with mysterious finances.  Although there are some subscriptions, there is also a long-term use of “underwriters” as the mechanism of funding the Post.  How exactly this additional money is used is unknown, and, certainly, having underwriters who provide large cash payments seems inherently biased — one would presume that large donations would inherently introduce biased coverage. 

 

If Piedmont truly had an unbiased, subscription-based, jewel of a local paper, then placing it in the PCA would be suitable.  Instead, we have a highly biased, donation-based, and occasionally mean-spirited paper, and thus placing it in the PCA and providing public support to it is clearly the wrong thing to do.  It would not be in the community interest.

 

Tim McCalmont, Piedmont Resident and former President of the Piedmont Education Foundation

City of Piedmont as landlord to a newspaper.

The original lease for the City’s property at 801 Magnolia housing the Arts Center specifies  hours of operation, adherence to all City, State and Federal laws, notices to be provided to the City, etc. See copy linked below.

The sublet lease was not provided during Planning Commission consideration.  One lease condition proposed to be breached by the sublet is allowing hours past 11:00  p.m. bringing great concern to neighbors with school age children and senior residents desiring quiet late nights contrary to the proposed late night business activities running until 12 midnight on school nights. 

Many have expressed concern that Piedmont government facilities should only be rented for community wide services, as originally allowed for the arts.   Additionally, the newspaper is not accepted by all as a public service because of “egregious acts” against the schools, individuals, candidates for office, news manipulation, and being a bad influence on Piedmont youth.

Those attempting to find out more about the unusual transaction that would allow one local newspaper to receive a subsidized, government rental space leased for $1 per year have yet to receive complete answers to the following:

• What is the financial condition of the Arts Center ?
• Why wasn’t the space advertised locally to encourage other renters of the highly desirable central Piedmont location ?
• Why did the Center break from a singular use as an Arts Center?
• Did the Center’s Board hear from their former Board member  and potential renter at a Board meeting gaining an inside opportunity?
• Could the City of Piedmont use the space rather than have it sublet?
• Why was there no notice in the Post of the application or the timing of the hearings?
  
• Why wasn’t there ever a meeting with neighbors to learn about their concerns in regard to parking and late night business meetings on school nights?
• Why is the matter being considered so hurriedly over a 7-day holiday period with many Piedmonters away or preoccupied?
• What is the rush?
• How long has the proposed space not been used and available?
• At the time the zoning was changed on the property was the space available?
• Why wasn’t notice given to the residents of Piedmont at large for alternative use of this important Piedmont property?
• What is the relationship between the City and the newspaper such that the newspaper receives preferential treatment over other media outlets?
• What will the rent be?
• Has the City Council been provided with the proposed sublease?

At the December 11, 2017 Piedmont Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Director provided advice, plus public comments were received. The Commissioners, without hearing from the business owner or whether the proposed usage complied with the requirements placed on the Center in their lease, recommended approval of a sublease for part of the Piedmont Center for the Arts for the Piedmont Post newspaper.  

City Council decides what can be in the Arts Center building.

The lease conditions were changed in 2016 to allow uses allowed in the public zone which soon opened the ability to sublease the property to a for-profit entity.   The Council revised the City Code in 2017  to allow for-profit businesses to be in the  Public Zone.  The change from non-profit zone uses to for- profit uses in the Public Zone was never put on a Piedmont ballot per Charter requirements to obtain Voter approval. Piedmont voters were not allowed to rule on the significant change.

The intent of the Charter was never pursued by the City, despite receiving an affidavit from a former mayor and an email from another former mayor informing the City Council that the intent of the Charter was being misinterpreted. The zoning change was singularly approved by the City Council, and without extensive reporting, was largely unrecognized by Piedmont voters.

There was concern at the time of the zone change allowing businesses in the Public Zone, such as a newspaper office or other commercial enterprise, in the scant public space available.

In 2011 when 801 Magnolia Avenue was developed as the Arts Center, the City Council, did not offer the property to various potential users of and acted to permit the Piedmont Center for the Arts.  Strict, limited hours of operation were incorporated into the lease agreement in consideration of the location next door to a home and in a school/residential neighborhood.  Center founders Gray Cathrall,  editor and owner of the Post, and Nancy Lehrkind, now Vice President of the Center Board, fostered the Center lease through the City Council.

The Municipal Pool, recreation tennis courts, and the schools all limit their operation hours to accommodate neighbors and minimize intrusive neighborhood night light pollution, noise, traffic, parking in the immediate vicinity of the Center.  No traffic studies of the proposed new tenancy were produced.

At the December 11, 2017, Planning Commission meeting few questions were asked regarding the application before the recommendation of approval to the City Council.   Commissioners relied on the narrow consideration factors presented by the planning staff.  The leases between the City and the Arts Center were not presented to the Planning Commissioners during their consideration.   Commissioners indicated neighbors could expect noise and traffic from schools without regard to the existing limitation on late night hours.

The integrity and character of the newspaper was not part of the Planning Commission consideration, although both pro and con opinions of the newspaper were presented at the meeting. The City Council is in a different position being the landlord of the property.

Arts Center Board member, Nancy Lehrkind, addressed the need for more revenue to support the Arts Center programs, while noting the incompatibility of joint use of spaces by various businesses or organizations.  No information indicating the space was  advertised to potential market rate renters.  No financial statements of the viability of the Arts Center were provided to the Commission. Lehrkind stated the Post would pay “top dollar” for the space, however the rental fee was not disclosed.

The Post on the application signed by Post owner Gray Cathrall stated the gross annual revenue of the Post equals $380,000.

The staff report includes comments/letters, documents, leases and the recommendation. READ the staff report HERE.

Comments can be sent to the City Council at the links below:

All Council members will receive comments sent to the City Clerk at jtulloch@piedmont.ca.gov

Recent news article by The Piedmonter newspaper can be read HERE.

PUSD School Board Very Vocal About Post Untruths

The Piedmont School District School Board has been very vocal in their displeasure with the Post’s unfair coverage of the School District and painting District decisions in the most negative way possible.  Please take a look below at two very thoughtful letters that call out the Post that have been posted to the Piedmont Civic Association website.  A poll of School Board Members would undoubtedly reflect concern if the Post was allowed to move so close to the school.

“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.”  

Being an Upstander:  https://www.piedmontcivic.org/2016/09/19/opinion-being-an-upstander/

The Piedmont Post’s Misrepresentations and Bullying Continue – https://www.piedmontcivic.org/2016/09/16/opinion-school-has-no-conflict-of-interest-despite-charge-by-piedmont-post/

The Piedmont Post is a Purveyor of Fake News

What do B Durham and Seamus Murphy have in common?  They are names of fake reporters on Page 2 of the Piedmont Post Directory routinely used to publish negative articles under “pen names.”  These profiles are used to initiate especially nasty negative articles.  Using fake reporters is the definition of “Fake News” and to have a purveyor of Fake News directly across the street from the High School would be a very bad decision by City leadership.

Keeping the Post Away From Students, Especially Females.

Transgressions of the Piedmont Post have not been a good example of a properly run publication in our community, and considering one of the main reasons for the Post’s application for a conditional use permit is “convenience for students to file sports stories,” we feel it would be setting a bad example to let the Post move so close to the school it continuously destroys in its editorial pages.

“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.”

We also believe the Post is just fine where it is currently located, at the farthest point possible away from students.  A very brave former employee came forth with stories of hateful staff “locker room talk” towards members of our community including Piedmont High School female students and athletes. This excerpt from an email Scott Prosterman, Former Piedmont Post employee, was sent [The email was not published on this website.] to the Piedmont Civic Association on February 4, 2016 and paints a very chilling picture of work behavior.

[  DELETED ]

Comment about Peter Harvey’s opinion on the danger of cell towers.

Peter Harvey, a scientist at the Space Science Lab at UC Berkeley, has publicly expressed his opinion on the potential negative health effect of long term exposure to the electromagnetic radiations emitted by cell towers. In the piece published in the Post, he refers to two websites that report on the preliminary results of a study made by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) on rats. Several scientists claim that the NTP results provide “strong evidence for the genotoxicity of cell phone radiation”.

I am personally not concerned at this point in time for three reasons:

1. Why should cell radiations harm the male’s brain and not the female’s, as reported by the study?

2. As far as I could find out, the study has not yet been reproduced by another lab. Reproducibility and replicability together are among the main principles of the scientific method. There is an on-going crisis in research with regard to reproducibility as reported by the Journal Nature on May 25, 2016 : 70% of researchers surveyed have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.

3. I trust the American Cancer Society’s opinion on cell towers.

If you are still concerned and want to minimize risk, there is a solution to shield yourself and your family from radiation: the Faraday cage. A Faraday cage is an enclosure used to block electromagnetic fields; it is formed by a mesh of conductive materials. It is very effective if the holes in the mesh are significantly smaller than the wavelength of the radiation. Cell towers wavelengths range from 6 to 15 inches. Best is to use a mesh made out of copper, but other conductive metals such as used in chicken wire would do. A shield can be built around a bed, a room, or a house. Conductive paint and conductive soft fabric are commercially available. Use the “bars” on your cell phone to check effectiveness.

On my side, I am thrilled by the enormous benefits that the cellular technology has brought to the third world. I just hope that research will someday establish a measure of the risk associated with the technology in a way that enables comparison with all the other environmental health hazards in our daily life. Then I may change my mind.

An entry in the blog of Joel Moskowitz (PhD in Social Psychology and Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley) provides a useful comparison of the potential lifetime risk of cell phone radiations relative to the lifetime risk of death by accidents (that is unintentional injuries, such by car, fall, gun fire, …).  The first one is estimated at between 1 in 200 and 1 in 250 after 20 years of cell phone use, as per the peer-reviewed study of glioma (http://www.saferemr.com/2017/02/long-term-cell-phone-use-increases.html). The second one is around 1 in 34 as documented by the Information Insurance Institute (https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk).

So one would be about 6 times more likely to die from an accident than from a brain cancer induced by 20 years of cell phone use. True, the study used in this comparison only focus on glioma. But may be Joel can provide a better estimate using his knowledge of all the potential ill-health effects of cell radiations that have been investigated.

For those interested, this is the textbook on shielding: “Architectural Electromagnetic Shielding Handbook: A Design and Specification” by Leland H. Hemming”. It is available at UC Berkeley. A single conductive flat surface between a nearby cell tower and a bedroom can offer some shielding. Outlets are a simple way to ground the surface.

There are also websites that offers products for the home: https://www.lessemf.com/faq-shie.html. Their effectiveness is for sure enhanced by their placebo effect.

 by Bernard Pech,  Piedmont Resident

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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:

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