Jun 17 2012

“Landscaping must conform to guidelines …..”

Revisions to a proposed Piedmont landscaping ordinance drafted by StopWaste.org will be considered by the City Council at its June 18 meeting. Slight revisions to Section 17.18 have been proposed by the City planning staff in an effort to address some of the private property concerns raised by the public and Council Members at a June 4 Council meeting regarding hedges, lawns, plant specifications, local control, and cost.  Perhaps in error, Chapter 17.18.3. (a.ii) still defines all use of the term, “Bay-Friendly Landscaping Guidelines means the most recent version of guidelines developed by Stopwaste.org”

Chapter 17.11 has not been revised and still refers to the “most recent version” of Stopwaste.org rules.  Chapter 17.11 covers “City owned and/or operated” properties, which include the Art Center, Central Park, Moraga Canyon/Blair Park, etc.

The proposed ordinance will require a landscape plan to obtain a permit for any type of new building in Piedmont.  At the discretion of the Public Works Director or Planning Commission, a landscape plan may also be required for other types of permits and variances affecting existing landscaping.

“Automatic” Future Restrictions by StopWaste

Residents expressed concerns about future StopWaste restrictions automatically becoming Piedmont law without hearings within the Piedmont community. The Council directed a revision of this language. The Staff Report notes revisions have removed this language for residential and commercial properties, but not City property:

“If Stopwaste.org makes changes to the criteria under the Scorecard, it would not affect any residential or commercial properties in Piedmont, but would affect very large public projects on public land under the existing Civic Bay-Friendly Landscape Ordinance that affects public properties in Zone B.” (At p. 26.)

The Checklist continues to refer to obsolete language in the original model ordinance.   The ordinance also continues to use terms not entirely consistent with terms used in other parts of the Piedmont Municipal Code.  

Hedge and Lawn Restrictions

Hedge and lawn restrictions were raised as a concern by residents.  (See comments.)  All restrictions on hedges and lawns remain in the ordinance.  Specific plant selections must adhere to the guidelines.  However, the type of projects which must comply with the restrictions on hedges and lawns has been limited.  Revisions limit compliance with the StopWaste Checklist (version 2.1 dated December 2011) to:

(1) Rehabilitated Landscapes and new construction associated with Rehabilitated Landscapes for public agency projects and private commercial developments that require design review and/or a building permit;

(2) Rehabilitated Landscapes and new construction associated with Rehabilitated Landscapes which are developer-installed in multifamily developments that require design review and/or a building permit; and

(3) Construction of a new single-family residence on a vacant property which is homeowner-provided and/or homeowner-hired that includes a total project Landscape Area equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet, and that requires design review and/or a building permit.

“Multi-family” will include private homes with legal second units, and also homes with illegal and unintended second units if conversion to a legal unit during the process of obtaining a permit is proactively undertaken by the homeowner or staff pursuant to newly adopted 2011 Housing Element provisions.

Residents are required to obtain a building permit when landscaping plans include installation of a 30 inch retaining wall, demolition of an existing potting shed, erecting fences or trellises, installing lighting, and features common in landscaping.  (See detailed list below.)

In general, ordinance would not apply to existing private homes without second units.

If passed, the law would apply to new single-family residential projects on vacant lots that plan to install 5,000 square feet or more of irrigated plant areas. However, the ordinance would apply to re-landscaping for existing multi-family residential buildings, if the project requires design review or a building permit and if the re-landscaped area is at least 2,500 square feet or more of a 5,000 square foot irrigated planted area. The same requirements would apply to re-landscaping a City-owned area in a park or next to a City facility. 

The Fiscal Impact – Compliance Costs and $22,000 Grant

A “Bay Friendly Landscaping Compliance Officer” must certify compliance. This position is currently defined as the Public Works Director or his designee, but a certification system by independent professionals is envisioned by StopWaste in the future.  StopWaste.org estimates the total added cost of compliance with an independent professional will be $2,500 to $4,000 per project.  Staff costs associated with certification have not been estimated by StopWaste or Piedmont staff.

Piedmont City staff indicates StopWaste.org has reviewed the revisions and assured Piedmont it will receive a $22,000 grant from StopWaste if the ordinance is passed as revised.   Staff noted, “While it is typically not possible to make changes to model ordinances, StopWaste.org agreed to allow Piedmont to make changes to address the unclear language.”

How many private residents are currently affected?

At the last hearing, the Council asked staff to determine how many private properties the proposed ordinance might impact. Staff determined there are 57 privately owned vacant lots subject to the ordinance. Staff believed 34 of these lots would be unlikely to install 2500 square feet of landscaping due to their size. The other 23 lots are larger and would be subject to the ordinance if a single family residence were built on them. Staff noted 6 are landlocked, many are steep and difficult to develop, and others are currently used as pools or garages for an adjacent lot.

According to staff, there are an estimated 117 homes with “unintended” second units and an unspecified number of homes with suspected illegal second units.  If “proactively required” to convert to legal units due to recent 2011  requirements added to the 2011 Housing Element, these private homes would come under the “multi-family” provisions of the Bay Friendly proposed ordinance (in addition to homes with legal units).

Other cities and other regulations

Staff no longer recommends approval of the ordinance, but instead presents the ordinance for the Council’s consideration.

Staff currently maintains and distributes StopWaste.org Bay Friendly Landscape information including Guidelines, a Checklist and a list of Bay Friendly plant materials to all members of the public. Staff indicates they can continue to do so whether or not the ordinance is approved.

The Bay Friendly restrictions are in addition to existing regional and state restrictions on landscaping.  At least four other agencies currently regulate landscaping:  CA-WELO, the Cal Green, the C&D Ordnance, and East Bay Municipal Utility District Requirements for New Water Service. Staff has prepared a spreadsheet comparing the proposed requirements (Exhibit G) of Stopwaste.org Bay Friendly Basics with the existing sets of regulations imposed by four other agencies.  (See below.)

When a Building Permit May be Required

The following types of landscape-related work will generally require permits, though Design Review is often not necessary.  Check the codes listed.

  • FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS, pursuant to Sections 17.20.4(a)(ii) and 17.20.5(b)(ix) of the Municipal Code.
  • ON-GRADE OR BELOW-GRADE IMPROVEMENTS such as walkways, irrigation lines and drainage work, pursuant to Section 17.20.4(a)(iii) of the Municipal Code.
  • CHANGES IN ROOF MATERIAL, pursuant to Section 17.20.4(a)(vii) of the Municipal Code.
  • COMPLETE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL of an outdoor feature, or architectural feature, pursuant to Sections 17.20.4(a)(ix) and 17.20.5(a)(i) of the Municipal Code.
  • PATH LIGHTS, STAIR LIGHTS AND WALL LIGHTS, pursuant to Section 17.20.4(a)(x) of the Municipal Code.
  • MAILBOXES AND NON-STRUCTURAL DECORATIVE ELEMENTS, pursuant to Section 17.20.4(a)(xi) of the Municipal Code.
  • NON-STRUCTURAL BARBEQUES, BIRD BATHS AND FOUNTAINS, pursuant to Section 17.20.4(a)(xii) of the Municipal Code.
  • GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS, pursuant to Section 17.20.4(a)(xiii) of the Municipal Code.
  • VENTS, FLUES AND SPARK ARRESTORS, pursuant to Section 17.20.4(a)(xiv) of the Municipal Code.
  • PET ACCESS DOORS, pursuant to Section 17.20.4(a)(xv) of the Municipal Code.
  • NEW OR REPLACEMENT FLOORING ON DECKS, BALCONIES, PATIOS, STAIRS AND PORCHES, pursuant to Section 17.20.4(a)(xvii) of the Municipal Code.

 

Full Text of Landscape Ordinance, as Revised

 

 

 

 

Comparison of Existing Landscape Ordinances

 

 

 

Jun 17 2012

Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization Debt to City is “Under Discussion” – 

A June 18th staff report to the City Council by City Administrator Geoffrey Grote outlines the City’s total outside vendor expenditures for the now defunct Blair Park sports field project and Coaches Field.

The expenditures, compiled by Finance Director Mark Bichsel, total $793, 956 for Blair Park and $103,234 for a plan to install lights and artificial turf on Coaches Field.  The $897,191 grand total is for outside consultants and services and does not include the substantial costs of time estimated at almost $250,000 spent by City recreation, planning, and administrative staff over the past four-plus years on both of the failed projects.

Grote’s report states that Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) owed the City a total of $303,588 for expenses dating from March 21, 2011 (the date the Council voted that all expenses for the Blair Park sports field proposal be paid by PRFO)  through April 2012.  To date PRFO has paid the City $118,000 of this amount and still owes $220,267.  Grote states that, based on the Council’s March 21, 2011 decision, City expenses incurred for Blair Park before that date, with the exception of “previously received gifts” will not be billed to PRFO.

To date, the City has received $379,200 in “donations” for Blair Park.  If PRFO pays its outstanding balance of $220,267, that will leave the City with costs of $194,489 in outside consultant and other expenses for the Blair Park project. This amount, plus $246,187 in estimated City staff time, adds up to a total of $440,676 in City expenditures.

Although PRFO made a binding “Reimbursement and Indemnification Agreement” with the City to pay all legal expenses related to Blair Park, the City has not billed PRFO for any expenditures between January and April 2012, because, according to Grote, “These expenses are the subject of ongoing discussions.”  At the same time he notes that the City is holding onto a $125,000 deposit from PRFO as a guarantee of the indemnity agreement.

Grote concludes, “It is unlikely that we will know the totality of financial circumstances of this project until all legal matters are concluded, primarily the issue of attorney’s fees in the matter of Friends of Moraga Canyon v. Piedmont.”

The full staff report can be viewed at http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/citycouncil/
Listed under Staff Reports: b. From the Private Contributions fund to the CIP Blair Park Account (127-0432-006-001) in the amount of $118,000

Jun 14 2012

In response to citizens’ concerns, City staff has revised its previous recommendation of amendments to Chapter 17 of the City’s Municipal Code.  “While it is typically not possible to make changes to model ordinances, Stopwaste.org agreed to allow Piedmont to make changes to address the unclear language.”  The revised ordinance proposal begins on Page 13 of:

Revised Version of StopWaste Proposed Ordinance

The Staff report notes that “the City council asked staff to make changes to the model ordinance proposal by Stopwaste.org…”  The new proposal will be discussed on June 18 as Item 4 on the agenda.  (Open session begins at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.)

The meeting will begin earlier, at 6:30 p.m. with a closed session to discuss three matters:  litigation re Blair Park, labor negotiations for all units, and the appointment of an interim Chief of Police.  The 2012-13 budget will also be on the agenda for Council approval.

 

Jun 14 2012

 Editors’ Note:  The following are comments from the community on the proposed StopWaste ordinance.  Note that revisions to the proposal were posted on June 14.  View the revisions here.

 

Nancy Lehrkind

I think this [PCA Inconsistency and Confusion Article] is a good and fair analysis which points out a large area (and potentially larger) of applicability of this Proposed Ordinance to residential re-landscaping projects in Piedmont. I would also take issue with many of the “Findings” which are stated as reasons why this Proposed Ordinance is needed. In particular, Finding Number 3 does not apply to Piedmont (It “finds” that we in Piedmont are responsible for 5.4% of the Alameda County landfill containing gardening debris.). We have actually taken extraordinary steps to ensure that we, as a community, are practicing green recycling of our gardening debris. In addition, I personally am very shocked that our town Council can be openly bribed to pass legislation. I have received offers of up to $11,000 to pay the City to NOT pass this law. Is this really the way we operate here? Really? I think those of us who care about any aspect of this proposed legislation or its process should show up Monday night to register his/her protest.

Garrett Keating

The applicability of the Proposed Ordinance to re-landscaping projects is very likely less than that of new developments. To apply, re- landscaping needs to be 2500 sq ft of an existing 5000 sq ft of irrigated landscape of a commercial, multi-family or public property in conjunction with a building application. The number of commercial and multi-family properties that even have 5000 sq ft to re-landscape is probably zero. Public projects of this size and nature seem rare in Piedmont. Take the recent Tea House as an example – that was a building project yet does not meet the sq area requirements. Likewise, the Ronada-Ramona triangle or Linda Tot lot would not be affected by the ordinance. Civic projects that exceed $100000 are already subject to the city’s Civic Bay Friendly Ordinance so it seems the public provisions of this ordinance will apply in very few circumstances.  > Click to read more…

Jun 12 2012

Piedmont on the brink of ceding local control for $22,000

On Monday, June 7, the Piedmont Council rethought its plans to give up local control of landscaping rules to a regional agency, StopWaste.org A number of citizens objected to a proposal to conform Piedmont law to a set of rules devised by StopWaste, plus any future rules it decides upon.  The future revisions to Piedmont law could occur without notice to Piedmont residents.

Mayor John Chiang expressed concern about forgoing one-time money of $22,000 offered by StopWaste.  But, the City of Newark, has already declined the offer of money, based on its determination that a one-year grant will not cover the extra staff time and costs on an ongoing basis. The City of Pleasanton has also declined the StopWaste offer.

A principle . . . not just one issue > Click to read more…

Jun 12 2012

Council’s Opportunity to Address Unfunded $40 million liability –

A Member of the Piedmont 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee submits a letter responding to “Piedmontage” in the May 30, 2012 edition of the Piedmont Post:

Contrary to the misleading view expressed in the “Piedmontage” editorial, vital City services need not be reduced as there are sufficient opportunities to reduce cost in a reasonable, fair and orderly fashion particularly in the cost of employee fringe benefits (primarily health benefits for current and retired employees and contributions to employee retirement plans).  > Click to read more…

Jun 12 2012

After closed session involving employee contracts and performance reviews, the School Board will meet on June 13, at 7 p.m. to approve employee contract amendments and the instructional calendar for 2013-14.  Details of the contract proposals will be available for public review as of June 12 on the front page of the district website.  The contract will be subject to County review.

Final adoption of the 2012-13 budget is planned for the following meeting on June 27, 2012.

Jun 9 2012

Piedmont youth soccer players don’t have to lose practice time – 

The following letter was published as a Viewpoint in the Piedmont Post (6/6/12) in response to a letter published on 5/30/12 by Mark Landheer, past president of the Piedmont Youth Soccer Club (PYSC).

Speaking for myself and not for the Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC), I offer the following rebuttal in response to Mark Landheer’s letter of May 30, “The Legacy of FOMC.”

1. The number of kids in PYSC will not necessarily be restricted without the large field at Blair Park. Alameda Point with two fields provided only half the required 3-hour practice time per week for the 330 that play competitive soccer. Existing fields in Piedmont provided the other half.  Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization’s (PRFO)Steve Schiller said (9/28/11) that one new large field at Blair Park would replace the two large fields at Alameda Point by doubling up; that is, two teams would practice simultaneously on one field. That being the case, doubling up on the existing fields in Piedmont would equally well resolve the lack of field space for the 330 youths displaced at Alameda Point, at least temporarily. There would be no need to turn away any youngster. Moreover, I have visited several alternate soccer fields outside of Piedmont. The field at Laney College in particular was unquestionably available. So, in fact, there are other possibilities for the 330 youths. Roughly 20 percent of these players live outside of Piedmont.

2. Blair Park clearly has the potential to be enjoyed not only by dog walkers but also by many other residents of all ages for passive recreation as a complement to Coaches Field and as an attractive gateway to the City. The East Bay Regional Park District has allocated $507,325 of Measure WW bond funds to Piedmont precisely for the purpose of improving this and other city parks. Cost to the City is not a problem.

3. In the November 9, 2011 Piedmont Post, Lance Hanf, then treasurer of the PYSC, calculated air pollution from the round trips needed for soccer practice at Alameda Point. However, Lance miscalculated the number of trips, assumed an excessive driving distance, and omitted the net difference between round trips to Alameda Point and Blair Park. As a result, his numbers for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, etc., were greatly exaggerated. Be that as it may, the PYSC at any time could have rented a bus to make just three round trips per night during the 11-week practice season instead of the 60 per night by auto, which would have radically reduced the negative impacts associated with travel to fields outside of the city.

4. On safety, Moraga Avenue will continue to be unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists as long as there are no sidewalks and no bicycle lanes (which PRFO deleted), and as long as the Piedmont Police Department does not enforce the 25-mph speed limit. The Piedmont Public Works Department is vigilant, and we can all be confident that the Monterey pines at Blair Park will not crash on Moraga Avenue.

On another of Landheer’s points, City policy has long been to provide park maintenance. It was the City Council, not the FOMC, that required PRFO to pay for all maintenance costs had Blair been built. Even so, unknown to many, ELS, the Blair Park project architect, defined a “project area” within the site that evidently limited PRFO responsibility to a portion of the park and not the entire 5.6 acres.

Three years ago, I told the City Council that Blair Park was unsuited for the large field proposed and suggested instead an improved “drive-to” public park with various amenities. My comments fell on deaf ears. Not much has changed from my point of view, but the opportunity still exists to complement Coaches Field with an attractive neighborhood park, accessible to the entire community, across the street at Blair Park.

William Blackwell, Piedmont Resident

The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Jun 9 2012

Education Group Opposes California Layoff System –

Only California and 10 other states base teacher layoffs on seniority.   Francisco Castillo of StudentsFirst, an education advocacy group, states,No one wants teacher layoffs to take place, but they are an unfortunate reality this year, and California’s current layoff system makes the situation so much worse.”  He notes a 2012 California Education Policy survey that found 75% of Californians supported ending seniority-based lay-offs.  “Support for such reforms is even greater in the Latino and African American communities. More than 84 percent of Latinos and 83 percent of African Americans favor ending seniority-based layoffs, while only 13 percent and 12 percent, oppose such reforms.”

In late May, StudentsFirst released a report, “Great Teachers for Every Child: A Matter of Social Justice” (GTEC) which analyses the impact of California state policies and budget crisis on schools.  Among the findings in the report is a $15,000 differential in salary for those laid-off and those retained in seniority-based layoff regimes.  When those retained earn the highest salaries, the number of classrooms impacted is maximized.  California’s revised budget proposal could result in more than 8,000 teachers laid off state-wide.  But, if the State changed its layoff policy, it could potentially save up to 2800 of those teachers, according to the GTEC report.  The report further predicts that schools serving minority neighborhoods will lose significantly more teachers since they tend to have teachers with the least seniority.

Jun 7 2012

 

New second unit and multi-family housing rules in Piedmont without a citywide vote –

On June 11, staff will be presenting a comprehensive set of proposed revisions of the Piedmont Zoning Code to the Piedmont Planning Commission.  One change will require any new development in Zones C and D (multiple density residential and commercial) to be a minimum of 12 units per acre.

The proposed changes follow recent additions to the Housing Element of Piedmont’s General Plan, including commitments to new programs and zoning changes intended to create incentives for high density housing.  These programs were adopted as part of the new Housing Element was approved by the City Council on June 6, 2011 and certified by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development after protracted negotiations with the State.  The new Housing Element committed to multiple changes in current Piedmont zoning laws.  > Click to read more…