Seniors will be required to move their carts to the curb unless they pay an additional fee.  Waste services for City of Piedmont and Schools will continue  to be paid with resident fees. – 

At the March 3, 2017 Council meeting, the City Council agreed to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new waste collection provider.  The current waste collector, Republic Services of Richmond, had told the City they wanted an increase in the fees.  Hence, the City hired a consultant, contributed hours of staff work, held community meetings, and approved the RFP, which allows further negotiations with the City.

Seniors – 

Seniors will be required to pay an additional charge based on distance from cart locations to the curb and any change in elevations.  Individuals certified to be unable or disabled to transfer carts to the curb will not be additionally charged.

Piedmont’s RFP does not include a senior exemption in the RFP, because Piedmont’s attorney, Michelle Kenyon, advised that State laws do not allow the City to give preferential treatment to seniors requiring other ratepayers to cover their extra service.  As has been presented to the Council and City Attorney, numerous other cities do not require seniors age 62 and over to haul their carts to the curb. Presumably, when cities first started requiring carts to be placed at the curb, consideration was given to seniors who enjoyed backyard service at the same rate as all others, who enjoyed rates reduced by placement of carts at the curb.

The City and Schools are provided free service through the fees Piedmont residents pay.  

Concern was expressed that the Schools do not recycle all of their waste, harming Piedmont’s recycling goals.  Communication with the schools was mentioned in the discussions.

Recycling is threatened by a reduction in the number of carts provided at no additional charge.

Piedmont’s current contract allows unlimited recycling.  This is likely to change with a new contract based on an additional charge for additional carts.  It was suggested residents will place recyclables in their black can rather than pay for additional recycling carts.

Bulk pickups are reduced in volume, but will remain at 4 per year.

More money will accrue to the City through an additional franchise fee on the waste collection provider as well as annual Service Rate Adjustment payment  and Performance Review Payment.

The funds to cover the many new tasks assigned to the City through the contract are not clearly identified or known.  New tasks, include arbitrating rates, determining distances and elevations in regard to backyard rates, and certifying those who are disabled or unable to place carts at the curb. Oversight of the collector will be necessary.

Many Piedmonters have expressed pleasure with Piedmont’s current level of service.  Others have questioned the high fees currently charged.

Despite many iterations and considerations, the RFP appeared open ended and available for negotiations making it impossible to know at this point what the ultimate result will be.

Comments may be sent to the Council via either kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us. or jtullock@ci.piedmont.ca.us..

Readers may also send their comments to editors@piedmontcivic.org for publication or enter below.

Reduced services compared with current waste contract include:

• End to unlimited recycling in bins.  
• City employees determine who gets charged for disabled backyard service,  generating privacy rights issues.
• City employees determine distance and elevation for backyard pickup when challenged by residents.
• City to receive additional funds from the waste collector while assuming new staff work.

After learning about the proposed contract, some residents expressed concerns are:

• More work added for City employees with operational costs not evaluated on the long term- retirements, medical, and other employment financial obligations.
• An invasion of residents’ privacy as City employees determine who has a disability or who is unable to place and retrieve their bins at the curb.
• The technical task assigned to City staff of evaluating distances and elevations between the bin location in backyard and curb, creating a new cost for the City.
• Residents decry the idea of massive amounts of bulk waste potentially being placed on the street at a specific time/date, offering an invitation to those from all over the area to come to Piedmont as scavengers.
• Reduced services will discourage routine cleanup and proper disposal of refuse.
• Contract changes appear to benefit the City staff rather than the residents.
• Residents were happy with the current contract work provided by Republic Services.

At the City Council meeting on Monday, April 3rd, the Council will be asked to consider approval of the waste collection/garbage services RFP, which, if approved, will be released on Monday, April 10th. The terms of the waste collection services RFP have been changed from the original the community was asked to comment on.  (See the original draft RFP here and the new staff prepared report and revised RFP here.)

Does the RFP  put too great a burden on City staff by involving them in individual resident’s waste collection and bin location?

The final draft RFP to be considered by the Council on April 3 requires the City staff to get heavily involved in the provision of individually tailored collection services to each resident of Piedmont.  The staff would determine the disability status of any disabled resident.  In order to peg the backyard pickup fee to specific conditions, the staff would have to measure the distance from the curb to residents’ waste barrels in their backyards. Further, staff would calculate the change in elevation involved since the fee for backyard pickup would no longer be flat but would reflect individual distance/height to the curb for those choosing backyard pickup.

The current practice under the existing service contract is to charge an additional flat fee for backyard pickup instead of curbside pickup of waste.  A flat additional fee for backyard pickup does not reflect the variety in yard sizes so some pointed out the discrepancy in waste removal effort and time involved from residence to residence. Others note that a flat fee is simpler and cheaper for everyone since tailoring the backyard surcharge to each residence involves extensive and expensive administration.

The contract as drafted will increase the requirements for hiring and paying City staff to be involved in many aspects of the contract including considering applications for disabilities, measuring distances from curbs and elevations, and other on-going aspects of the contract.  No information on the additional cost to the City and taxpayers is noted in the report.

The City will receive payments in five different categories from the waste collection services provider:

• Reimbursement for the Procurement Process 
• Transition Payment
• Franchise Fee
• Annual Service Rate Adjustment payment
• Performance Review Payment

Some of the service modifications from current services:

• City employees, rather than the contractor, will determine a Piedmont resident’s disabled eligibility for backyard pickup at curbside rate.
• In the case of disputes between the service provider and Piedmont customer about the distance/elevation charge for backyard pickup, the City will determine the distance/elevation to backyard trash location.
• Fewer bins provided unless customers pay an additional monthly fee.
• Green waste beyond the capacity of the green bin will be collected in compostable bags (containing no greater than 50 pound weight) rather than additional bin according to the RFP:
  

  “Provisioning  of green waste overage bags (compostable bags) by contractor to be distributed by mail or at Piedmont City Hall and to be provided and collected from residents at no additional cost to residents.”

There are other changes, too numerous and complex to describe here, however, for the industrious reader the staff report is here.

The Council meeting is open to the public.  The agenda is here. 

Those wishing to state their views to the Council without attending the Monday, April 3 meeting, can send an email to the City Council via City Clerk John Tulloch by clicking >  jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us .

The meeting at City Hall begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be broadcast live on Channel 27 and via the City website under videos.

The City of Piedmont and Park Commission invite all Piedmonters to attend the annual Arbor Day Celebration. This year’s celebration of Piedmont’s urban forest focuses on trees recently planted on >Wyngaard Avenue, location of the celebration.  Piedmont’s numerous garden clubs will be present to accentuate the event.  The keynote speaker is Ralph Osterling, consulting arborist of San Mateo.

  Celebratory refreshments will be served.

Our Urban Forest – Arbor Day Celebration in Piedmont

Thursday – April 6, 2017 – 5 p.m. – 7 p.m.

Map>Wyngaard Avenue – Piedmont

Read the flyer >:   SPublicWork17032813450

Years of work to improve Hampton Park, –  the tennis courts, softball field, play areas and grass field – will culminate with a grand celebration on Saturday, March 25.

Numerous individuals, organizations, and the City have contributed along with the East Bay Regional Park District bond funds to complete the comprehensive park renovation.

Hampton Park City Celebration

Free

Please join the City of Piedmont to celebrate the re-opening of Hampton Park! Tour the renovations and play in the park!

Kids activities, refreshments served and brief remarks at 3:30pm. (Weather permitting!)

When

March 25, 3 – 4:30 p.m.

Where

Hampton Park
Corner of Hampton and La Salle Avenues
Piedmont, CA 94611

Contact information – 

Piedmont Recreation Department
510-420-3070
su.ac.tnomdeip.ic@drp

At their March meeting, the Park Commission discussed the approval of new post mounted signs and path medallion designs for on and off leash areas for dogs at Dracena Park. These new signage designs include post mounted signs which would be aluminum panel signs with a map which identifies the areas where dogs can be on and off leash. While the path medallions would be placed on the pavement or path intersections to indicate areas where dogs are off leash.

The agenda began with background information which was provided by Parks and Project Manager, Nancy Kent, which was then followed by discussion by the Park Commissioners and Piedmont Police Department.

The Commission brought up their opinions on the new signage and medallions being added to Dracena Park in which they are concerned about the scale of the post signage and their impact on the community friendly ambience of the park. It was highly recommended by the Commissioners to try a mock-up to visualize where the signs can be placed to be aesthetically pleasing as well as have an explicit message for park visitors. The Commission unanimously agreed on the addition of the signs but still needed to deliberate on the design, location, size, and material of the signage and medallions.

Afterwards, the Piedmont Police Chief addressed increased presence of animal control in the park and a recent case of a sign being stolen. The Piedmont Police Department has investigated the case and are therefore wary of vandalism and signs being stolen. They are hopeful with the addition of the new signage that more park visitors will be aware of the designated dog leash areas.

In my opinion the addition of new signage to Dracena Park is advantageous in properly and clearly indicating the areas of where dogs can be on and off leash. In developing new signage ideas, it will further enforce Park regulations which could be incremented in other parks.

I interviewed a member of the commission, Patty Siskind, who closely worked at the college and career center at Piedmont High School, and has a business in landscape design. She stated that she came to the meeting as a part of a designated subcommittee for the new signage proposal. Her concerns were pertaining to the overall atmosphere and scale of new signage in Dracena Park. Siskind stated that the signs were too tall and therefore has an impact on the outlook of the park. She plans on addressing her concerns by further engagement with the Park Commission in addition to working with City Council and staffs who are designing the new signage.

The Park Commission meets once a month to discuss updates on the various parks in Piedmont.

by Nicole Jiang, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

An underlying goal of the building code changes (Chapter 17) is to increase housing density in lower Piedmont and provide more affordable housing.

On Monday, March 20, 2017, the Council plans to approve an ordinance that will mean more houses, more apartments, and reduced parking requirements in Piedmont. The City Council on March 6, approved the first reading of the massive rewriting and changes to Chapter 17 of the Piedmont City Code.  The second reading is planned at the March 20 Council meeting.

Council members are convinced that Piedmonters have been informed and engaged in the process.

In a cursory survey of Piedmonters, few had any substantive knowledge of the proposed changes with the exception of changes to Grand Avenue and short term rentals.

On March 6, the Council members decided to remove consideration of short term rentals and commercial property regulations on Grand Avenue pending further input from the public.

The Grand Avenue neighbors have been active and organized in attempting to make new regulations compatible with the neighborhood.

Civic Center Apartments

One citizen, Ted Kinch, referred to the 92% of Piedmonters who responded to the heavily relied upon 2007 Survey, who expressed their preference to keep the small town feeling of Piedmont.  Kinch emphasized the potential problems from adding apartments in the Civic Center – above the Wells Fargo Building and Mulberry’s.  He mentioned that watching children walk to school was refreshing and should not be threatened by increased traffic and parking.

Council approved the proposed building code changes for apartments to be permitted in the Civic Center.  There has been no organized opposition from any neighborhood group, school representative, or emergency service person in regard to traffic, safety, or congestion next to emergency services and schools in the Civic Center.

Inquiry

Only a few of the numerous code revisions received inquiry by the Council members.  The exception was Council member Jen Cavenaugh, liaison to the Planning Commission, who questioned reduced off-street parking requirements for residences and businesses, structures allowed to be built up to the property line, and for profit businesses in public buildings, amongst other issues.

Cavenaugh questioned the likelihood Estates Zone residents would want their neighbors building up to the property line, “Not wanting people to be on top of each other in that way.”

There has been no indication that Piedmont residents in lower Piedmont (Zone A) would accept their neighbors building a structure up to the property line. Planning Director Kevin Jackson claimed the intent was to encourage property owners to build garages and structures at the back of the lot to leave more open space.

Mayor Jeff Wieler was concerned about the reduction in Zone A (residential) lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet.  He stated,  “Our lords and masters in Sacramento… we’re suddenly changing our zoning to satisfy some bureaucrat up in Sacramento. I resent it.”

Council members Teddy King and Tim Rood quickly defended the reduction in parcel size in lower Piedmont as an effort by Piedmont to assist in supplying the area with more housing plus more affordable housing.

King stated, “This is actually a component of the entire revision process (Chapter 17) so that we meet the requirements and spirit of the housing needs in the Bay Area. … To the extent that some of the controversial elements in this proposal have caught the attention of Piedmonters, it is important to explain that many of these changes we didn’t dream up. They are tied to other efforts put in place by State and Federal authorities. We don’t conceive of our own housing and density in a vacuum.”

Parking

Although a lack of adequate off-street parking has been a major issue in numerous Planning Commission applications, King and Rood liked reducing the off street parking requirements to encourage a reduction in automobile usage and an increase in transit ridership. Bedroom additions will no longer necessarily trigger the need to provide off-street parking.

The Planning Commission has been responsible in the past for determining if traffic, parking and safety impact applications, yet traffic and parking studies are not required by the process potentially leaving the matter to subjective opinions.

Short term rentals deferred once more.

A short term rental (under 30 days) prohibition was held for further consideration maintaining the status quo of no City enforcement of ongoing short term rentals. According to Piedmont’s existing Home Occupation Ordinance, all home businesses, including airbnb, require homeowners to obtain a business license and Home Occupation Permit. Short term rentals currently do not qualify for a home occupation permit because the home business owner cannot use a residential property addresse in advertisements or for client access. Organized interest by promoters of short term rentals has been active. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to prohibit short term rentals.  Seeking further input, the Council has not acted on the pending short term rental issue during a three year period.

The Council meeting will be held on Monday, March 20, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber to act on the ordinance changes.  Viewing is available on Channel 27 and from the City website.

Staff report for Item #7 on the agenda.

Draft minutes of March 6, 2017 Council meeting when zoning issues were previously considered.

Agenda for March 20, 2017 Council meeting

Opportunities to serve Piedmont in important volunteer positions!

Be a part of Piedmont’s decision processes!

Application Deadline:

Monday, March 20th – 5PM

Numerous changes to Piedmont building laws are proposed for Chapter 17 of the City Code. Piedmonters generally are not aware of the significance of Chapter 17 on their property and lives until they, their neighbors, or the City considers changes to property, such as: building a fence, remodeling a house, excavating, changing property lines, or adding an additional living space.

The City Council will consider proposed changes and a possible first reading of the ordinance on Monday, March 6, 2017 during their regular Council meeting, starting at 7:30 p.m., 120 Vista Avenue.  The meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 27 and from the City website for remote viewing. 

Lack of public involvement and engagement

Much has been made of the lack of information and interactive opportunities provided to Piedmonters and how proposed construction laws might impact them and their community. Some familiar with the City Charter’s intent and language have found the zone use proposals inconsistent with the Charter’s requirement of voter approvals.

Many items proposed are an improvement; others modifications change the meaning of the original code language and that of the City Charter.  Some items typically found in other cities’ ordinances appear to be missing in the “comprehensive” proposal.  There are two parts to the proposal – the ordinance (Chapter 17) and the “Interim Design Review” proposal.  It is unclear on why some items are being repealed prior to replacement.

Following is an abbreviated, partial overview of some matters of consideration:

1. Omission of a standard for public safety in regard to traffic impacts and parking needs
2. Misinterpretation of City Charter in regard to voter rights to determine uses allowed in zones and size of zones
3. New cost to neighbors or applicants to have matters considered by the Planning Commission
4. Reduction in notices publicizing what is being considered by the City Planning Director and new policies
5. Apartments on top of commercial buildings such as Mulberry’s to 3 floors in height adjacent to Havens School and across from Piedmont Emergency facilities
6. Reduction in the required size and frontage of parcels in Lower Piedmont
7. No setback or building height restrictions on City property
8. Lack of clear definition of Accessory Structure
9. Disparate division of residential zones with different requirements
10. Reduced requirements for parking space size and number of spaces
11. Increased development in Piedmont Civic Center near schools, civic activities, and emergency services
12. Unclear as to which fences require design review
13. Corner property obstruction limits established
14. Existing accessory residential units grandfathered 
15. No rentals less than 30 days allowed (airbnb style)
16. Appeal process timing does not allow for Planning Commission verification of their decision before scheduling a Council appeal.
17. Traffic and safety requirement omitted from Planning Commission consideration for certain variances
18. Ten year period for low income accessory housing rentals  where  parking requirements are forgiven
19. No requirement for longer term low income housing rentals
20. No time limit for applicants to withdraw Planning Commission consideration of application prior to the hearing
21. No provision to request architects to allow copies of their plans during public review
22. Reclassification, a City Charter provision, is misinterpreted in the ordinance language. 
23. Safety is not emphasized in Design Review Guidelines
24. Title of “Director”(unclear to whom this refers) determines what is a “significant change” or a “minor modification” to Planning Commission approved plans without clear definitions.
25. Planning Staff approves plans up to $125,000 (annually adjusted for inflation) unless there is an expensive fee paid for an appeal to the Planning Commission.
26. New language on zoning appears to conflict with the City Charter.
27. No language regarding overseeing the true cost of projects in relation to a building permit is included. 
28. Code language fails to acknowledge the right of voters to control zoning uses (classifications) and boundaries.
29. Reference to the City Charter in zoning regulations does not provide the reader with actual Charter language.
30. The right of a Planning Commissioner, Council Member, or City Administrator to call for a review of a planning decision is unclear and does not specify the planning decision origin.
31. Caveat added to the right of the above noted individuals to require a review of planning decisions has been hampered by new non-disclosure language of the requester’s opinion to one other participant could be against the Constitution. 
32. Designated views are limited to distant views.
33. Preservation of historic public buildings is missing.
34. Traffic, congestion, pedestrian access, bicycle routes, parking, and right of way impacts are not fully identified in design review.
35. Unclear if items noted for repeal are being replaced within the ordinance.
36. Height of accessory structures limited to 7 feet measured from unclear point
37. Definitions and terms within the “Interim Design Review” proposal are inconsistent with proposed code language.
38. Information sheet is inconsistent with proposed code.
39. Parking, driveway, disabled access, vehicle turnarounds: key elements to traffic and public safety – are insufficiently specified.
40. Inconsistent use of language, example: Director – Planning Director or Public Works Director ?       
41. Setbacks for residences or other buildings to be measured from the building wall rather than any eave overhangs potentially making building structures closer together.
42. Commercial uses allowed on public property
43. No parking requirements for public uses
44. Greater control over planning matters by the Planning Director
45. Fewer responsibilities for Planning Commissioners

Numerous other issues of interest to Piedmonters are available in the 500+ page documents. Readers are referred to prior PCA articles here and City sources here.

Editors Note: Attempts have been made to present to the public some of the issues related to the Chapter 17 proposal. Any incorrect statements were legitimately made in attempting to explain to the public some proposal aspects. Corrections and comments are always welcomed on this website. See below or email editors@piedmontcivic.org