City Council agenda Monday, May 7, 2018, 7:30 p.m. Piedmont City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont. The meeting is open to the public and will be broadcast on Channel 27 and from the City website under videos. 

Staff reports for the May 7th meeting are below:

05/07/18 – 2nd Reading of Ord. 742 N.S. Amending Chapter 17 – Planning and Land Use of the City Code Regarding Short Term Rentals and Approval of a Resolution Settings Fines and Fees for Short Term Rentals

1. Both hosted (rooms within a home) and non-hosted (the entire home) short-term rentals are permitted.

2. In order to operate a short-term rental, a resident must seek and gain City approval for a permit to do so. The resident who has gained a permit from the City to operate a short-term rental is referred to henceforth as a short-term rental permittee.

• The application is reviewed and acted upon by the Director of Planning or the Director’s designee.
• The permit is valid for up to one year, until December 31 of the year issued, and may be renewed annually by means of a renewal application.

1. A short-term rental permit application and renewal applications shall be subject to a fee established by the City Council.
2. The dwelling unit being used as a short-term rental, whether hosted or non-hosted, must be the primary residence of the permittee.
3. The short-term rental must be rented for a minimum of two consecutive nights and may not be rented more than 60 days in a calendar year.
4. A short-term rental permit applicant who is a tenant must gain the consent of the property owner to use the dwelling unit as a short-term rental.
5. The following dwelling units are prohibited from being used as a short-term rental:

• Accessory dwelling units, both permitted and unintended; and
• Multi-family dwelling units (i.e. apartments).

1. The permittee is required to do the following:

• Pay an annual business license tax under City Code chapter 10.
• Maintain general liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 during the term of the short-term rental permit.
• Provide his or her contact information to the city, and update any change before renting the property.
• Provide the dwelling or rooms serving as a short-term rental a smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, fire extinguisher, and adequate egress.
• Provide the short-term guest both electronically before the stay and in print during the stay the following information:

o   The short-term rental permittee’s contact information;

o   A diagram of exits, fire extinguisher locations, and fire and police contact numbers;

o   The city’s noise regulations (sections 12.8 – 12.12);

o   The city’s smoking ordinance (chapter 12, article II); and

o   The city’s garbage and recycling guidelines.

9. Short-term rentals may not be rented for commercial purposes other than for dwelling, sleeping or lodging.

10. Enforcement includes the ability of the City Council to establish fines by resolution.

05/07/18 – 2nd Reading of Ord. 743 N.S. Making Technical Corrections to Chapter 17 – Planning and Land Use

Parking space size and specifications

Requiring 12 inches between the side of a parking space and the nearest wall or similar obstruction so that drivers and passengers have adequate room to maneuver into and out of a car parked in a garage or carport.

Sign Design Review Permit

Reinstituting a design review permit and design standards specific to signs on private nonresidential properties.

Parking requirements related to Accessory Dwelling Units

Making Piedmont’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance consistent with state laws by deleting the prohibition of replacement parking spaces within the 20-foot street yard setback. The City may require replacement parking for the primary dwelling when a garage or carport is demolished for or converted to an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

The scheduling of City Council hearings after a Planning Commission recommendation

Allowing for expeditious processing and thorough preparation in response to appeals, appeals are to be scheduled at least 45 days after the filing of an appeal but all other matters are to be scheduled for the next available regular City Council meeting.

The definition of Floor Area

Clarifying what areas within a building’s envelope are considered floor area and would be subject to the floor area ratio limits so that new additions to buildings do not circumvent the City’s regulatory goals of limiting the bulk of a house in relation to the size of the lot and encouraging development within the existing envelope.

05/07/18 – Receipt of a Report on the Timeline for the November 6, 2018 General Municipal Election

05/07/18 – Approval of a Resolution to be Presented to Volunteers at the Annual Volunteer Reception for 2018    May 15, 2018.

05/07/18 – Receipt of the FY 2016-2017 Audited Financial Statements

05/07/18 – Receipt of a Report on the 35% Conceptual Design for the Linda Beach Master Plan and Possible Direction to Staff

05/07/18 – Update on the Service Options Offered by East Bay Community Energy

05/07/18 – Receipt of the Police Department Quarterly Report for the 1st Quarter of 2018

05/07/18 – Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 744 N.S. Amending Chapter 9 (Garbage) of the City Code to Conform to the New Collection Services Agreement

05/07/18 – Consideration of Agreements with Pacific General Engineering in the Amount of $35,660 and Mark W. Shulkamp Electric Company in the Amount of $52,340 for Installation of New Street Lighting on the Oakland Avenue Bridge

05/07/18 – Consideration of the Third Amendment to the Employment Agreement between the City of Piedmont and Paul Benoit 

The  April 16, 2018, Council meeting will be held in City Hall starting at 7:30 p.m. There will be live broadcasts on Channel 27 and on the City website listed under videos.

Read the full agenda HERE.

CLICK ON ITEMS BELOW TO READ THE STAFF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 

04/16/18 – Approval of Resolutions Allocating Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Funds for the Oakland Avenue Bridge Railing Pedestrian Safety Project and Allocating SB 1 Funds to Magnolia Avenue Paving

04/16/18 -Approval of a Resolution Establishing the Pension Rate Stabilization Fund with Public Agency Retirement Services  Council will allocate $2 million to the Fund. 

04/16/18 -Approval of Resolutions Taking Positions on State Legislative Items and Propositions

a. Endorsing Proposition 69 & Supporting SB 1 – Transportation Funding

b. Endorsing Senate Bill 3 –Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond

c. Endorsing SB 5 – Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, & Outdoor Access Bond

d. Opposing Senate Bill 827 – Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus

04/16/18 -Appointment of Yildiz Duransoy as the Planning Commission Alternate for a Term Ending March 31, 2019   City Administrator Recommendation on individual to be appointed by the Council 

04/16/18 -Consideration of Employment Resolutions for the Following Unrepresented Labor Groups for the Period of 07/01/17 through 06/30/2020:  

Compensation packages for employee groups listed:

a. Confidential Employees

b. Professional, Technical & Supervisory Employees

c. Recreation/Childcare Employees

d. Mid-Management Employees (Parks & Project Manager; Building Official, Police Captain; and Police Support Services Commander)

e. Management Employees (City Clerk, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Planning Director, Police Chief, Public Works Director, and Recreation Director)

04/16/18 -Consideration of an Updated Investment Policy

04/16/18 -Presentation from Piedmont Council, Boy Scouts of America

04/16/18 -Consideration of Dracena Park Signage & Upper Lawn Improvements and Establishment of a Budget for the Project

04/16/18 -Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 741 N.S. Updating Leash Law Provisions, Clarifying Off Leash Areas, and Updating Outdated Provisions

04/16/18 -Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 742 N.S. Amending Chapter 17 – Planning and Land Use of the City Code Regarding Short Term Rentals

04/16/18 -Consideration of an Amendment to the Policy Allowing for Residents with Certain Physical Limitations to Receive “On-Premisis” (Backyard) Service at Curbside Rates

04/16/18 -Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 743 N.S. Making Technical Corrections to Chapter 17 – Planning and Land Use

Piedmonters ususally find out when they remodel their homes or their neighbors make changes to their homes how important Chapter 17 is to them. 

Few Piedmonters ever participate by attending meetings or writing letters about land use and planning issues until it impacts them. No sooner had Piedmont Chapter 17 undergone massive changes and revisions, when new changes and revisions are proposed. Once more there has been little general public participation in the considerations.

At its regular meeting on Monday, April 16, 2018, 7:30 p.m., the Piedmont City Council will consider an ordinance adopting revisions to City Code Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use, to implement various technical refinements and corrections.

There are a number of items of concern: 

Proposed language: ” Zoning Map Amendment Publish notice in newspaper of general circulation within the City.”Subject to section 17.62.030, subsections A and C.”

Changing the Zoning Map is required by the City Charter  to go on a Piedmont ballot, yet the City Charter is not recognized in the language change. The new language is in conflict with the City Charter of requiring voter approval for items placed on a ballot always require public information to be provided to voters prior to an election.  

The agenda for the City Council meeting and the staff report for this agenda item are available through the City’s website or at City Hall.

In sum, the ordinance under consideration includes various recommended technical corrections and refinements throughout City Code Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use. After staff  implemented the comprehensive update to City Code Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use, which went into effect on April 19, 2017, a number of inconsistencies and minor errors have revealed themselves. In addition, putting the regulations into practice has revealed the need for the refinement of a few sections and subsections to add clarity. This is expected with such a comprehensive update.

The recommended refinements address the following issues:

Parking space size and specifications

Requiring 12 inches between the side of a parking space and the nearest wall or similar obstruction so that drivers and passengers have adequate room to maneuver into and out of a car parked in a garage or carport.

Planning Department explanation: “The minimum parking space dimensions are: 8-1/2 feet x 18 feet, or 7-1/2 feet x 15 feet for compact car. A minimum 1-foot clearance must be provided between the length side of a parking space and the nearest wall or similar obstruction.”

SECTION 8 AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.38.060.B.5.a Subsection 17.38.060.B.5.a of the City Code is amended to read as follows: “a. Parking. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, any required replacement parking spaces may be located in any configuration on the lot except that the spaces may not be located within the 20-foot street setback. (Gov’t. Code §65852.2 (a)(1)(D)(xi).)”

When the prior revisions were approved by the City Council, concern over more cars forced onto Piedmont’s streets already lined with parked cars, drew opposition regarding the reduction in parking size requirements. The Planning Department anticipates smaller vehicles in Piedmont and thus recommended the reduced size, which has presented problems.  It is unknown if the new 1-foot clearance will be sufficient to avoid adding more cars on Piedmont streets.  

Sign Design Review Permit

Reinstituting a design review permit and design standards specific to signs on private nonresidential properties.

Parking requirements related to Accessory Dwelling Units

Making Piedmont’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance consistent with state laws by deleting the prohibition of replacement parking spaces within the 20-foot street yard setback. The City may require replacement parking for the primary dwelling when a garage or carport is demolished for or converted to an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

The scheduling of City Council hearings after a Planning Commission recommendation

Allowing for expeditious processing and thorough preparation in response to appeals, appeals are to be scheduled at least 45 days after the filing of an appeal but all other matters are to be scheduled for the next available regular City Council meeting.

PROPOSED CHANGE: “If this chapter requires a City Council hearing, the hearing will be scheduled for the next available regular City Council meeting unless the hearing is for an appeal, in which case the hearing will be scheduled at least 45 calendar days after the filing of an appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation.”

The “all other matters” issue scheduled for “the next available regular City Council meeting” arose recently in December after the City Council took up a sublease of public property within 7 days following a hearing by the Planning Commission made a recommendation regarding a Conditional Use Permit.  A number of residents stated the matter had not been sufficiently noticed in a newspaper to allow the public time to learn about the sublease and fully participate.  Some Piedmonters accused the City of avoiding public involvement during the busy holiday season due to a lack of desire for public input.  The proposed change would legislate fast action on public issues and a potential continuation of exclusion on important matters like a Conditional Use Permit that changes the use of a property.

The definition of Floor Area

Clarifying what areas within a building’s envelope are considered floor area and would be subject to the floor area ratio limits so that new additions to buildings do not circumvent the City’s regulatory goals of limiting the bulk of a house in relation to the size of the lot and encouraging development within the existing envelope.

PROPOSED CHANGE REASONS: In order to encourage development within the existing building envelope instead of building outwards or upwards, the floor area ratio standard is not applied to finishing an area into habitable space if: (1) there is no expansion of the exterior building envelope; and (2) the owner has not obtained a final inspection within the prior three years on a building permit issued for an expansion of the building envelope. 

There is no mention of digging down below grade.

The Planning Department states, “Recognizing that the proposed revisions are improvements to Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval at its regular meeting of March 12, 2018. The Commission felt that the changes would eliminate inconsistencies, clarify the regulations for the benefit of property owners and their design professionals, and would better meet the goals of the City’s General Plan.”

Written comments may be submitted to the City Council via email at citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us or via US Mail addressed to City Clerk John Tulloch at 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

Read the staff report.

If you have any questions related to the information provided in the staff report, please contact Kevin Jackson, Planning Director, at (510) 420-3039 orkjackson@piedmont.ca.us.

City Council  revisions of City Code Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use on Council agenda.

Brown Act Compliance Question:

Compliance with the Brown Act is in question for proper noticing of zoning change considerations at the Monday, June 5, 2017 meeting.  The official agenda indicates changes are only to Zone D, yet changes to land use regulations in other zones are proposed.  Only Zone D is mentioned in the agenda listing.

The agenda states:    ” 06/05/17 – Introduction and 1st Reading of Ordinance 733 N.S. Amending Chapter 17 of the City Code Related to the Grand Avenue Sub Area of Zone D“

Only those who previously requested personal announcements received a different wording of the announcement of the agenda item stating: “Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 733 N.S., Adopting Revisions to City Code Chapter 17, including: updates to the regulations for zone D related to: …….” (See the rest of the wording below to compare the two versions.)*

Zoning Controversy – 

There is a controversial and perhaps unlawful statement within the proposed ordinance stating the change to land use in Zone D complies with the City Charter. However, contrary, official information on the intent and language of the City Charter has been presented to the City Council, indicating a Piedmont vote is required for changing Zone D (Commercial) to Mixed Use.  Reclassification wording within the Charter has been shown to mean a change of use within a zone; thus changing Commercial to Mixed Use, indicates the need for voter approval.  The City has offered the language below in an apparent attempt to avoid voter approval per City Charter language.

The newly proposed language states:

 CITY CHARTER and REVIEW BY CITY ATTORNEY: The proposed modifications to the City Code are in conformance with the City Charter, including section 9.02. No zones have been reduced or enlarged, and no zones have been reclassified. The proposed modifications to the City Code, the ordinance and the CEQA determination have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

Staff report <

*City letter sent to those requesting information:  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*An item on the agenda for the City Council’s regular meeting scheduled for Monday, June 5, 2017 is the Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 733 N.S., Adopting Revisions to City Code Chapter 17, including: updates to the regulations for zone D related to:

• residential density,
• lot coverage,
• structure height,
• setbacks and
• parking; and
• various technical corrections to a recent comprehensive update to the chapter.
•  proposed amendments to the regulations for Zone D are the same as those presented at the community workshop held on May 3, 2017.

You can find more information on the proposed revisions to the regulations for properties in Zone D – and the technical corrections* – by visiting the City’s webpage on the topic. It is there that you can also find links to the staff report for the June 5, 2017 City Council meeting and the slideshow presentation for the May 3, 2017 community workshop on Zone D Grand Avenue.

Provide your comments by attending the meeting and addressing the City Council, and/or by submitting written comments via email to the City Council or on paper to 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

by Kevin Jackson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611     Tel: (510) 420-3039 Fax: (510) 658-3167

Some citizens said the Council acted too fast while an equal number said the new signs make Piedmont safer.  –

On Monday September 19, 2016, I drove up to 120 Vista Avenue to attend one of the two City Council meetings held each month. Starting promptly at 7:30 p.m., everyone in the room stood up, placed a hand over their heart, echoed the Pledge of Allegiance, and then returned to their chairs.

The City Council members wasted no time to get into the meeting, which would cover the following: an approval of a license plate reader replacement, public statements on the sixteen new stop signs, a ceremony for Matthew Anderson’s efforts on reducing waste and emissions in Piedmont, as well as a presentation on mosquitoes, updating of City Municipal Codes, an approval for an internship program, as well as an approval to upgrade the Recreation Center along with a few other notable buildings.

After a unanimous decision approving a license plate reader replacement for the police and the replacement of the Dracena Park tot lot surface, the Council moved the meeting to the public forum. The most active part of the City Council meeting, in my opinion, the item was dominated by citizens speaking about the installation of sixteen new stop signs along major streets like Magnolia and Hampton.

It was a very engaging experience to me, because I can see the effect of the new signs when I walk to school everyday. Also, the fact that each citizen had their own take on the signs gave me new perspective on the whole situation. Some of the citizens that were called up by the council expressed that the stop signs were a great investment, due to their inexpensive cost and clear visibility. Many of the supporters expressed that they jogged or biked frequently in the city and the new signs made it safer to get through in busy intersections.

On the other hand, there was an equal number of people who thought the City acted too hastily without consulting and providing more time with members of the public. Many were frustrated that the decision was decided during the summer when many people are out on vacation and could not voice their opinion, while some felt the City concluded this action much quicker than other decisions.  In addition, members of the public expressed concern that a study would be needed to prove that the signs have a significant enough effect.

Not all members of the public who were present came with complaints, however. One citizen, Reid Settlemier, was skeptical on the signs environmental toll. He explained that when cars stop and accelerate they produce extra emissions — especially on the steeper roads. He thought that if the city were to implement speed limits instead of stop signs then the city could provide a safer environment without dramatically displacing traffic.

Personally, I felt that a mix from both sides of the issue would be the most beneficial. Frequently walking up Magnolia Avenue, even after the stop sign installations, the street still has its fair share of fast drivers. Though it is easier  for pedestrians where the stop sign intersections are, it is still very hard due to the road incline and curves. There are even some vehicles, notably construction and trailers, that blow right through the signs.

Following the public forum, two men from the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (ACMAD) gave an in depth PowerPoint presentation on mosquitoes. In wake of the Zika virus and the annoyance of mosquitoes in general, the presentation covered two different types of mosquitoes found in Piedmont, their life cycles, their habitats and food sources, their role in diseases, and how to contain them. ACMAD was very informative and explained that one of the most effective ways to limit the growth of mosquitoes is scrubbing garden pots and finding sources of stagnant water like pools, where the mosquitoes lay their many eggs. They emphasized that controlling mosquitos is a very laborious process, because they need to go door to door and get permission from citizens to search backyards for signs of mosquito eggs.

After the ACMAD presentation, the City Council received an update on proposed Municipal Code changes. The Council discussed they need time for public review before implementation of any changes proposed. The proposed update of zoning provisions calls for an emphasis on preserving Piedmont residential character, which was stated as the most important aspect of Piedmont.

The Council opened the meeting to public participation and a citizen talked about how the Shell Gas Station on Grand and Wildwood could be changed.  She suggested a cafe or homes would be a better transition than the gas station as is currently there.

City Council members nodded their heads in approval and the woman went on to say if there is to be a new building, it should be non-political unlike the Piedmont Post. Agreeing, the Council also discussed that there would be a guarantee of a safe environmental cleanup if there was a new commercial building, favoring the residents due to the lack of businesses in Piedmont.

The meeting concluded with approvals for Civic Spark Internship Program, public opportunity to discuss new facilities for Linda Beach and Coaches Field. Plans to renovate the Recreation Center was affirmed to be the most in need due to its importance to families and children.

Following the meeting I went up to Paul Benoit, the City Administrator and asked what his role was in the meeting and what steps he would take to get issues addressed. He stated that as he works for the City he is required to attend every meeting, and he works with the City Council and staff to address issues brought up from local residents. Benoit promoted that the Forum was a great way for residents to express opinions and encouraged local residents to take advantage of the meetings so he could help address their issues. I thanked Mr. Benoit for his time, shook his hand, and proceeded out the doors to the cool night sky exhausted, but thankful towards the people who contributed towards my city.

Carter Perkins, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Letter to the City Council regarding land use changes without voter approval and conflicts of interest.

re: Sep. 19, 2016  Council Agenda Item 5: Planning and Zoning Revisions

Acting Mayor Wieler and Piedmont City Council –

The July 11, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report at p. 3 recommends changing the use of City Property Zone B to include: “ . . . 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.”  The only exclusively local newspaper is the Piedmont Post.

I express my concerns on the following four points:

1. The US Constitution’s First Amendment and the California Constitution’s protection of free speech raise serious question about the City’s approval of use of public property by a local newspaper with notorious and biased views on controversial local civic issues. The Post apparently operates as City Hall’s media outlet for these important issues by most often favoring the Council majority, by masking the Post’s editorial viewpoint as objective front page reporting, and by denying equal space for opposition viewpoints.

2. There are very serious conflict of interest issues involved in any Council action necessary to allow use of public property by the Piedmont Post.

3. Very real and substantial issues arise under Section 9.02 of the City Charter whether any change in use classification, with the exception of an owner’s voluntary request to zone the owned property to residential, requires an affirmative vote at a special or general election.

4. The Planning Commission recommended not-for-profit businesses be “non-political.” To be consistent, all businesses must be “non-political”  if eventually allowed rental space on City owned public property.

Sincerely,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

A problematic new legal interpretation of Piedmont’s decades old City Charter makes land uses interchangeable amongst zones and removes Piedmont voter from their right to decide on land use.

According to the Piedmont City Charter both classification and area of a zone must be submitted to the voters for approval prior to a change. Classification and area are separate and distinct terms in the City Charter; however, this is not recognized by the City’s new legal opinion, linked below.

After Planning Commissioners along with residents requested a written legal opinion on how the Council could find authority in the Charter to allow changes in land use without voter approval, the City finally produced a legal opinion on July 27, 2016.

This legal opinion came eight years after a seemingly extra-legal land use change in a zone from Public to Multiple family residential to allow the development of the expensive townhouses on the former site of the PG&E substation. Thc movement of property from one zone to another and changing the use was accomplished through the General Plan without voter approval as noted in the EIR for 408 Linda Avenue:

“The zoning for the project site is Zone C, Multiple Density Residential. The land use designation for the site was converted from Public/Quasi Public to Medium Density Residential with the City Council adoption of the updated City of Piedmont General Plan in April 2009.” pages 1 & 2

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/publicworks/docs/408_is.pdf

According to the City Charter* voters have control of land use. 

The City Charter states: “ The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election.” 

The size and area “reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area,” are separate from the classification/use. The Charter states, “no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election.”  Classification and area are not synonymous.  According to the Charter both, classification and area must be submitted to the voters for approval.

The Charter further defines “classification” by stating: “provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a singlefamily dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.”  This clarifies that classification is specifically the use: “the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.” 

The  words “and” and “use” are pivotal in any discussion of voter rights regarding zone area and classification/land use.  City terminology regarding zones states the classification/ land use assigned to the zone – Single family residential, Commercial, Public, and Multifamily – in the City Code, the General Plan, and zone descriptions. 

Piedmont’s former Deputy City Attorney Linda Roodhouse, who worked closely for years with Piedmont’s long time City Attorney George Peyton wrote:

June 7th, 2012 at 2:13 pm   <Context

“Staff is correct on the general scope of the Council’s legislative authority. I was the deputy City Attorney for Piedmont for many years and advised the planning department. I was also the City Attorney in Orinda for 11 years, until 2006. In both cities, I had a major role in the creation of new zoning codes. In Piedmont, the boundaries of a zone and the general land use within the zone are subject to voter approval. The City Council decides the specific rules and regulations within any zone, but the rules and regulations must be consistent with the charter description of authorized uses in a zone.”  emphasis added

 Linda Roodhouse, Resident

A project has now been proposed for the Shell Station on Grand and Wildwood Avenues. The City changed the land use in this zone, the Commercial zone, to allow multiple family residential, without voter approval.  The City Attorney stated the zone change was allowed because there was single family residential in the Commercial zone, so multiple family residential was permitted and the zone land use was changed without voter approval. There is now yet another proposal by the Planning Department to change land use in Piedmont’s Public zone ( parks, open space, buildings, facilities, etc.) to allow commercial/business land uses without gaining voter approval.

None of the present City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, City Attorneys, City Administrative staff, including Planning were involved when in 1980 the revised City Charter was overwhelmingly approved by voters.  Language in the revised Charter perpetuates long held voter rights in Piedmont.  There was never any intention or mention by voters, attorneys, elected officials, or administrative staff, for voters to  relinquish land use control to the City Council through the City Charter, City Codes, or General Plan, and this fact is repeated in all of these documents.

The Piedmont City Charter provides for enforcement and amendments:    

“SECTION 9.06 CHARTER ENFORCEMENT

The provisions of the Charter shall be enforced, with violations punishable in the manner provided by State law and by City ordinance.

SECTION 9.07 CHARTER AMENDMENT

Amendments to this Charter may be proposed by the City Council or by the initiative process, as prescribed by this Charter and by State law.

All proposed Charter amendments shall be presented to the qualified voters of the City at a general or special election. If a majority of said voters voting upon a proposed amendment vote in favor of it, the amendment shall become effective at the time fixed in the amendment or, if no time is therein fixed, thirty (30) days after its adoption by the voters. ” emphasis added

If the City Council wants to change the language in the City Charter, the City Council must place the change on a Piedmont ballot.  Changes have been made from time to time throughout the years.  However in regard to taking away Piedmont voters right to determine land use decisions in Piedmont, no proposal has ever been placed on a ballot. 

The current attempt to change land use in the Public zone to allow commercial uses and the previous yet not implemented change to the Commercial zone to allow multiple housing without getting approval by Piedmont voters demonstrates how land uses are being considered interchangeable from zone to zone.

A ballot measure specifying zoning changes for both size and land use could potentially receive approval by the voters, but the Piedmont electorate are being excluded from these decisions based on the City attorney’s new opinion.

The City’s new legal opinion apparently did not consider the precise language in the Charter and the extensive documented history of placing zoning changes/reclassifications before Piedmont voters.  The new legal opinion appears rely on external interpretations and non-compliance with the Charter.

The Piedmont City Code states in regard to zoning:

SEC. 17.35 CONFLICTING REGULATIONS To the extent that provisions of this Chapter 17 conflict with or are inconsistent with any other ordinance or rule previously adopted, the terms of this Chapter shall control the construction, alteration or other improvements of property, except as to ordinances and rules which are subject to voter approval pursuant to the terms of the City Charter, which are not intended to be modified or repealed by any such inconsistency. (Ord. 488 N.S., 10/87) 

The City Charter Article on zoning is below: 

ARTICLE IX. General Provisions 

SECTION 9.01 GENERAL PLAN The City Council shall adopt, and may from time to time, modify a general plan setting forth policies to govern the development of the City. Such plan may cover the entire City and all of its functions and services or may consist of a combination of plans governing specific functions and services or specific geographic areas which together cover the entire City and all of its functions and services. The plan shall also serve as a guide to Council action concerning such City planning matters as land use, development regulations and capital improvements. 

SECTION 9.02 ZONING SYSTEM The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgement be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a singlefamily dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.” emphasis added

The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose specific ballot measures.  The Association supports following the Piedmont City Charter.

The Piedmont Civic Association advocates that the Piedmont City Charter, essentially Piedmont’s constitution, be followed and voters’ rights be known and followed.  As to the merits of voter approval of land use proposals being put forward by the Planning and Legal staff, the Piedmont Civic Association supports the Charter and allowing Piedmont voters to decide on what is their right to decide. 

The City has publicly stated the cost to put a ballot measure on a General election is minor. Even so, the City has every obligation to follow the law.  Questions of Charter language intent and definitions, voters must make the determination, and the Council must follow the Charter by putting the matter before the voters in regard to both area and land use in all zones.

The heritage and historic right of voters to determine land use in Piedmont cannot be removed by the new legal opinion.

The City Attorney’s recent legal zoning opinion of the City Charter can be read by clicking the link below:

Piedmont – Memo re Interpretation of Section 9.02 of City Charter

The March 16 Shelter at Home order in Alameda County caused an immediate decrease in crime in Oakland, especially  in residential burglaries, according to study of daily crime statistics in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Oakland by the Public Policy Institute of California.  (Read report here).  The Piedmont crime blotter appears  to show a similar decrease.

“Comparing the average weekly number of reported crimes in February to the number reported for the last week in March shows an overall drop from about 6,150 to 3,620—a decrease of 41%. Declines have been particularly large in the two Bay Area cities: about 69% in Oakland and around 55% in San Francisco.

Overall reports of violent crime dropped from a weekly average of about 1,880 in February to about 1,360 in the last week of March—a 28% decrease. Oakland experienced the most dramatic drop—from about 200 to 70. The number of reported assaults dropped from 1,430 to around 1,100 (22%). The overall decrease in robberies—from about 350 to 260—was driven largely by the Bay Area.  … a slight increase in reported commercial burglaries across all four cities suggests that burglars may be shifting from residential to commercial targets now that so many people are at home at all times of day.”    Analysis by Public Policy Institute of California

Recycling vs. Landfill

Materials that could have been reused as recycling go directly into a landfill due to contamination.

Fact 1: The average recycling contamination rate is 25%, or 1 in 4 items.

Fact 2: The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 75% of waste is recyclable, yet only close to 34% of it is recycled.

Fact 3: While glass can be reused for an estimated 1 million years, glass cookware — such as Pyrex, ceramics, and ovenware — can’t be recycled.

Fact 4:  Heavily soiled paper, wax coated paper, and shredded paper cannot be recycled.

Fact 5: Compostable items can contaminate your recycling. The processes of composting and recycling are very different, so you can’t recycle food waste or compostable serviceware.

Fact 6: The three-arrow triangle symbol on plastics  does not necessarily indicate that the material is accepted in the local recycling stream.  The symbol also shows the type of plastic it is. Plastics labeled #3 – #7 are typically only recycled in limited areas. So pay close attention!

Fact 7: Nearly 1,000 recycling plants in California alone have shut down within the last two years due to the recycling contamination crisis.

Fact 8:  Did you know that you can recycle your cigarette butts to be converted into energy? Check out TerraCycle and the Butts to Watts program to find out more.

Fact 9: According to the Government Advisory Associates, material recovering facilities in the U.S. using single-stream recycling has increased by 82.6% in the last ten years.

Fact 10: Proper recycling generates over half a million jobs and over 100 billion dollars of economic activity in the U.S.

Fact 11: Total scrap plastic exports have declined by 40% in the last year mostly due to the U.S.’s high level of recycling contamination.

Fact 12: Despite pricey recycling campaigns and new sorting technologies, recycling levels haven’t improved in the U.S. in 20 years.

Fact 13: In 2017, a survey by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries found that 28% of responders were confused a+bout recycling, believing that it was a highly technical and sophisticated issue.

Fact 14: Recycle Across America has launched a massive recycling solution campaign by promoting nationwide standardization of recycling labels.

Read more of the Rubicon recycling report here.

– Park Commission Meeting Report by Lucy Faust, Piedmont High School student –

At 5:30 on the evening of Wednesday, February 4th, Commissioner Sue Herrick called the Park Commission meeting to order. The Park Commission meets of the first Wednesday of each month to help the City Council in the decision making process regarding public parks and city street landscaping.

At the February meeting, although many issues and projects were brought up, the Townhouse Development Project at 408 Linda and the Highland Garden Walk Project were the most pressing topics on the agenda.

To start, Kevin Leveque, the landscape architect on the Townhouse Development Project, discussed many of the improvements he had made to the plans since the last meeting. He discussed the water draining issues coming from Oakland Avenue that they were solving and brought in samples of tiles to add to the site that are consistent with the area to bring a unified look to the community. In addition, he talked about the lighting to the Oakland Avenue Bridge which will become LED lighting so that less maintenance from the City of Piedmont will be required. Using photometrics, he felt confident that the lighting would be sufficient. Up to that point, the Commission members were very satisfied with his improvements. Moving forward, there was a bit more discussion.

Commissioner Patty Siskind was concerned about the planned lights to be casting shadows for cars in a negative way so that it would raise a risk of traffic accidents and Commissioner Nancy Kent was concerned with the fourteen foot posts that would be lining the walkway and recommended low lighting or a mix of high and low lighting instead. Most of the Park Commission members had thoughts on the lights – so much so that a motion was set to make a subcommittee to monitor the project. By not making a decision at the meeting, according to Director of Public Works Chester Nakahara, it would slow the process of getting a building permit for the project. As a solution, City Planner Kate Black suggested approving the building plans on the condition that the lighting on Oakland Avenue intersection, the path and stair lights, and plants for the landscaping would be approved at a later date. The Park Commission voted to take her suggestion and they all voted for it. They concluded that at the next meeting, the decision agreed upon by the subcommittee would be brought to the Park Commission as a whole.

After this discussion, Nancy Kent brought up the Highland Garden Walk Project and recapped the neighborhood meeting that was held January 24th. Lucy Faust, a student at Piedmont High school spoke in support of the project because she believes in the importance of drought-resistant gardens and saving water whenever possible. After she spoke, the details to discuss the project continued. Nancy Kent, a Park Commission member who has long served Piedmont with the intent of helping to bring its parks to a higher quality, is working hard to see the project through. The project is using sustainable techniques, like sheet mulching, to bring change to the area without eroding the organic material currently in place which will keep the soil healthier for years to come.  After the Highland Garden Walk Project discussion concluded, all other items on the agenda were discussed which included five project updates and a monthly maintenance report.

At the meeting I spoke in support of the Highland Garden Walk project. I spoke about the fact that a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing town is important to me and so is functionality. The current landscaping of the Highland grass, though beautiful, doesn’t make sense because currently, it is maintained like a park, but is not in use like a park. I talked how I have never hung out there with my friends and although I drive past it many times a week, I have never seen people sitting down in the area and enjoying the grass. Drought resistant plants are the future in gardening and I see no reason why we are using city water to water grass no one is using.

Lucy Faust, Piedmont High School Student

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