Piedmont City Council, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2020, 7:30  p.m., City Hall – viewable on the City website under videos.

At the Piedmont Planning Commission on Jan. 13th, numerous questions arose regarding changing Piedmont’s ordinances for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to conform to City staff interpretation of newly passed state laws.  Some of the issues raised were parking, notice, public input, number of people living in an ADU, safety, distance from public transit, staff review process, design review considerations, plantings, landscape requirements for privacy, construction plans, necessity to act prior to complete information, etc.

Four of the Planning Commissioners, voted to recommend approval to the City Council, with one opposed (Levine).

An important question has arisen regarding the necessity of moving ahead with a new Piedmont ordinance prior to the California Department of Housing and Community Development issuing a directive on how the new laws are to be implemented.  Piedmont’s Planning Staff acknowledged publicly it had been challenging to meld three new statutes together because of conflicts and lack of clarity.  Some community members have indicated the proposal includes unnecessary items while excluding items as noted above.

Nowhere in the staff documentation is there a direct correlation between the new state laws and the proposed changes to Piedmont’s laws. 

Given that the new state laws may (unless Charter cities are ruled exempt on zoning) preempt any conflicting Piedmont ordinances not complying with the new state laws, it has been stated that a hasty adoption of an incomplete new ordinance is not in Piedmont’s favor and should not be enacted by the Piedmont City Council until issues are resolved.

According to the Piedmont Planning Department, State laws place limits on a local jurisdiction’s ability to regulate ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs).  The staff report does not quote the relevant State law language for each inconsistency it cites.

READ the proposed Ordinance  HERE.

Comments can be sent to the Piedmont City Council for their first consideration on Tuesday, Jan. 21 by clicking below. 

> citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov.

To send comments via U.S. Mail, use the following address: Piedmont City Council c/o City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

~~~~~~~~~

The staff recommended revisions to Piedmont’s ADU ordinance to address the identified inconsistencies with state laws are:

a. Once an application for an ADU has been deemed complete, the City has 60 days to take action on it, rather than the currently required 120 days.  What action does state law require and does it require the proposed changes immediately? 

Contrarily, if approved by the legislature and Governor, SB 50 would require beginning after January 1, 2023 creating new inconsistencies:

A local agency must notify a multi-family development proponent if the application does not qualify for ministerial approval within 60 days.  (However, a local agency could exempt a project from streamlined ministerial approval if the project will cause a specific adverse impact to public health and safety.)  To qualify, the project must be constructed on vacant land or convert an existing structure that does not require substantial exterior alteration into a multifamily structure, consisting of up to 4 residential dwelling units and that meets local height, setback, and lot coverage zoning requirements as they existed on July 1, 2019.

b. ADUs must be allowed in every zone in which residential use is allowed. In Piedmont, this is every zone.

c. A requirement for owner occupancy on the property is no longer allowed, at least through 2025.

d. Architectural review of construction related to an ADU is allowed, but it must be done ministerially without public hearing.

e. Any minimum size standard for an ADU must allow 850 square feet for studio or one-bedroom units, and 1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom. (The current code limit is 800 square feet.)

f. When a garage or carport is demolished or converted for the purpose of creating an ADU, no replacement parking can be required, and existing nonconforming setbacks and coverage can be retained.

g. In addition to a regular ADU, the City must also allow a JADU. Both an ADU and a JADU can be constructed on a single lot.

h. There are four categories of ADUs the City must approve by right:

1. One ADU and one JADU within the existing building envelope of a single family dwelling, with an expansion of up to 150 square feet for ingress and egress.

2. On a lot with a single-family dwelling: A detached ADU that is not more than 800 square feet, that is no more than 16 feet in height and is set back at least 4 feet from side and rear property lines.

3. Within existing multi-family residential buildings: multiple ADUs converted from areas not currently used as living space (at least 1 ADU and not more than 25 percent of existing dwelling units).

4. Not more than two detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multi-family residential building that are no more than 16 feet in height and are set back at least 4 feet from side and rear property lines.

BACKGROUND: Current Regulations

The City adopted the current regulations for accessory dwelling units in May 2017. In brief, the current regulations require an owner of a single-family dwelling to seek an accessory dwelling unit permit to create an ADU as a dwelling unit independent of the primary residence. Except for Exempt ADUs (those created before 1930) either the primary or accessory dwelling unit must be owner occupied. The ADU may be attached or detached, but must have a separate exterior entrance.

As required by state law, an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit must be processed ministerially (without a public hearing) if it meets all the standards required for the ADU permit. New buildings or changes to buildings that are intended to contain the ADU require separate design review and building permits and must meet design review criteria and zoning provisions for buildings, or a variance from those provisions.

Revision of Incentives for Affordable Housing

The current code imposes a limit of 800 square feet on all ADUs and authorizes the Planning Commission to grant an exception to the size limit for units up to 1,000 square feet if the owner agrees to rent the unit to a low income household for a period of 10 years,

Page 2 of 112  – or 1,200 square feet if the owner agrees to rent the unit to a very low income household for a period of 10 years (Sec. 17.38.070.C.1).

Since May 2017, the City has received no applications for an ADU requesting an exception from the unit size requirement and has approved no ADU permits with a rent restriction.

The state law changes the minimum size standards permitted under local regulation, requiring revision of the City’s exception provisions. In accordance with Government Code section 65852.2(a)(3), it is recommended that exceptions to size requirements to provide an incentive to create affordable housing be processed ministerially.

City of Piedmont General Plan Housing Element

The majority of the General Plan Housing Element for 2015-2023 (separately available on the City’s website) is devoted to ADUs (referred to as second units in the Element) because, as a built-out city, ADUs are the main means by which the City is able to provide new housing units, either market rate or affordable.

Housing Element policies and programs that relate to ADUs include the following:

Policy 1.2: Housing Diversity. Continue to maintain planning, zoning and building regulations that accommodate the development of housing for all income levels.

Policy 1.5: Second Units. Continue to allow second units (in-law apartments) “by right” in all residential zones within the City, subject to dimensional and size requirements, parking standards, and an owner occupancy requirement for either the primary or secondary unit. Local standards for second units may address neighborhood compatibility, public safety, and other issues but should not be so onerous as to preclude the development of additional units.

Policy 1.6: Second Units in New or Expanded Homes. Strongly encourage the inclusion of second units when new homes are built and when existing homes are expanded.

Program 1.C: Market Rate Second Units. Maintain zoning regulations that support the development of market rate second units in Piedmont neighborhoods.

Policy 3.1: Rent-Restricted Second Units. Continue incentive-based programs such as reduced parking requirements and more lenient floor area standards to encourage the creation of rent restricted second units for low and very low income households.

Policy 3.2: Occupancy of Registered [Permitted] Units. Encourage property owners with registered [permitted] second units to actively use these units as rental housing rather than leaving them vacant or using them for other purposes. Page 3 of 112

Policy 3.3: Conversion of Unintended Units to Rentals.Encourage property owners with “unintended second units” to apply for City approval to use these units as rental housing. “Unintended” second units include spaces in Piedmont homes (including accessory structures) with second kitchens, bathrooms, and independent entrances that are not currently used as apartments.

Policy 3.4: Legalization of Suspected Units. Work with property owners who may be operating second units without City approval to legalize these units. Where feasible and consistent with the health and safety of occupants, consider planning and building code waivers to legalize such units, on the condition that they are rent and income restricted once they are registered.

Policy 3.5: Second Unit Building Regulations. Maintain building code regulations which ensure the health and safety of second unit occupants and the occupants of the adjacent primary residence.

Policy 4.4: Updating Standards and Codes. Periodically update codes and standards for residential development to reflect changes in state and federal law, new technology, and market trends.

Policy 5.2: Second Units, Shared Housing, and Seniors. Encourage second units and shared housing as strategies to help seniors age in place. Second units and shared housing can provide sources of additional income for senior homeowners and housing resources for seniors seeking to downsize but remain in Piedmont.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.2 AND 65852.22: In September 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 68, AB 881, and SB 13 into law.  

Read the full Planning Department Report by clicking below

Planning-ADU-Report-2020-01-13

No more single-family housing zones in Piedmont.

Piedmonters who falsely relied on Piedmont’s City Charter and voters rights to protect single-family zoning in Piedmont have lost their authority under new state legislation changing Piedmont and housing in California by opening development opportunities while eliminating Charter City rights and public input in determining  housing requirements.  

Piedmont housing is dramatically impacted by the signing in October 2019 of state legislation AB 68, AB 881, and SB 13.  The legislation was unopposed by Piedmont’s City Council.  The laws essentially eliminate Piedmont’s  single-family zoning which was controlled by Piedmont’s City Charter and voting rights.

While some cities strenuously resist AB 68, AB 881, and SB 13, Piedmont’s City Council guided by the Piedmont Planning Department has stepped in line to become a different city by discarding Piedmont voters’ rights specified in the Piedmont City Charter to either support or oppose the changes.

Developers for decades, who have wanted to change and densify Piedmont, will now have “by right” without public input the ability to densify  Piedmont properties up to 3 units on a former single-family property.

At 5:30 p.m. on January 13, 2020, the Piedmont Planning Commission will review an ordinance amending Chapter 17 (Planning and Land Use) of the City Code to conform the City’s regulations regarding Accessory Dwelling Units to new state laws and make a recommendation to the City Council.  See staff report below.

A week later, at 7:30 p.m. on January 21, 2020, the City Council will consider the proposed ordinance and the recommendation of the Planning Commission and could approve the first reading of the ordinance.

Both meetings will be  held at City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, City Council Chambers and will be televised via the City website under videos.

Background – 

On January 1, 2020, new state laws came into effect which limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). These units are frequently referred to as “Granny Units” or “Secondary Units.” With the new legislation, parcels can contain up to 3 units without the owner being a resident. 

The Piedmont staff believes and interprets existing state law to require extensive reduction in resident planning for a desirable single-family community.

  According to the staff provisions affected by the changes to state law include, but are not limited to:

• ministerial review and approval of all ADU permit applications= no public hearings  or neighborhood input
• off-street parking requirements = off-street parking requirements eliminated
• garages can be converted to ADU’s with no set back requirements
• unit size limitations on applications = size increases 
• approval timelines = 60 day term
• owner occupancy requirement  = owner no longer needs to be a resident on the property
• allowance for junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) = Small ADU
• ADUs on multi-family properties = increased densities
• ADUs that must be approved by-right
• allowance for 3 dwelling units on a property
• setback requirements in certain situations = eliminated

“Local laws which do not conform to these new state standards are preempted and cannot be enforced. City staff has developed the proposed ordinance which will be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council to conform Piedmont’s ADU regulations to the new state law.”  Piedmont Planning Department

Link to staff report:

https://piedmont.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/Departments/Planning%20Division/Planning-ADU-Report-2020-01-13.pdf

Documents on the City Website

Documents related to this effort are available on the City website. A staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 13, 2020 is provided on the website (see Agenda Report mid-webpage). It includes the proposed changes that will bring the City’s regulations for ADUs into compliance with the new state laws, while preserving the City’s rent-restricted ADU program, as well as the City’s ability to regulate ADUs and JADUs.

The Planning Commission’s responsibility is to make a recommendation for consideration by the City Council, which is the decision-making body. The City Council staff report for this item will be posted on the City website no later than 12 noon on Friday, January 17, 2020.

Public Engagement:

Following no consideration of the legislation by the Piedmont City Council, the legislation was signed in October 2019.  Piedmont is now moving to an expedited review and rapid adoption of a new ordinance, which does not comply with the Piedmont City Charter.

According to the City, the opportunity for public input is available throughout this rapidly moving process. Interested members of the public are encouraged to attend the public meetings. Both the Planning Commission meeting on January 13, 2020 and the City Council meeting on January 21, 2020 will be televised live on KCOM-TV, the City’s government access TV station and available through streaming video on the City’s web site at piedmont.ca.gov/

Written comments regarding the proposed ordinance may be sent to the City Council and Planning Commission via email to: :@piedmont.ca.gov. Comments intended for the Planning Commission’s consideration preferably should  be submitted by 5 p.m., Thursday, January 9, 2020 for distribution to the Planning Commission.

Comments can be sent to the Piedmont City Council for their first consideration on Jan. 21. 

> citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov.

To send comments via U.S. Mail, use the following address: Piedmont City Council c/o City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

If you have questions about the ordinance, contact Planning & Building Director Kevin Jackson by email at kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov. Any correspondence sent to the City will be considered a public record.

Contact: Kevin Jackson, Planning and Building Director at Tel: (510) 420-3039   Fax: (510) 658-3167  kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov.

“…housing is strictly a matter for local officials.”

“(T)his court finds that the (Housing Accountability Act) is unenforceable to the extent the HAA conflicts with or purports to disregard otherwise enforceable portions of the city’s Municipal Code regarding review of housing development projects,” Judge George Miram ruled.

In its December 7 editorial the Chronicle’s Editorial Board warned that the ruling’s “startling conclusion” is a threat to housing construction in charter cities across California.  “In charter cities, the judge ruled, housing is strictly a matter for local officials.”

“This is a dramatic challenge to state officials. It has the potential to derail their authority not just in San Mateo but in more than 120 charter cities across California.” Read the Editorial here.

On November 21, 2019, the Bay Area Council asked Attorney General Xavier Becerra to request a rehearing of the case.  The Council noted “A terrible and misguided court decision in San Mateo County threatens to undo and undermine a raft of recent [housing] legislation …”

“In a stunning judgement, Miram effectively ruled that the state does not have a role in guiding or enforcing zoning, land use and permitting decisions in cities that are governed under their own charters.”

Local Control and the Opportunity for Meaningful Citizen Input into Planning is a Problematic Issue  in Piedmont.

Piedmont neighborhood groups have complained of lack of citizen input and local control when faced with changes that raised health concerns, destruction of views, harm to aesthetics, loss in property values on Maxwelton and elsewhere. When residents offered modifications to improve projects Planning Commissioners supported, they lost on appeal.  Others complained to no avail, when told they “cannot comment on” proposed development.

700 local citizens signed a petition in opposition to the proposed dispersal of cell towers (68 cell towers ultimately envisioned spread across virtually every street in Piedmont).  Resident Bruce Mowat opined that the response would change, “Once those ‘Above Highland’ realize that most of the future 68 sites will be sited on locations like Seaview, Hampton, St. James, Estates, etc.”

Piedmont’s Staff and City Council have been eager to maximize increased housing in Piedmont.

Under the leadership of City staff, Piedmont has surged ahead of many California communities in prodding Piedmont homeowners to build additional housing units on their property.  Ignoring the citizen argument that Piedmont’s status as a Charter City gave it more autonomy and self-determination, State goals to drastically erode single-family neighborhoods were embraced.  Standard off-street parking requirements have been ignored, modified or eliminated.  Neighbor privacy concerns have been brushed aside along with safety and property line violations. 

Zoning laws per Piedmont’s City Charter have been forfeited in the multi-family, single-family, and commercial zones.

“An effort to take legal action against San Mateo for the City Council’s decision to reject a proposal to build a 10-unit condominium building off El Camino Real in 2018 hit a stumbling block earlier this month when a judge ruled the city did not violate the Housing Accountability Act when the council denied the project’s approval based on height differences between properties.”

Read the whole Peninsula Daily Journal article here

The San Francisco Chronicle December 5 report “California Could Lose Housing Leverage over Cities under Court Ruling” suggests Piedmont was overeager to modify its zoning regulations:

A judge’s ruling in San Mateo County is raising fears among developers and advocates for more housing construction that the state will lose its leverage for forcing cities to build their way out of California’s affordability crisis. The judge said the city of San Mateo was not obligated to follow a state law on housing approvals because it is a charter city — a system that gives local governments greater control over their own affairs. There are more than 120 charter cities in California and housing is tight in many of them, including San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose.

California Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) issued a statement against the San Mateo County Superior Court ruling exempting charter cities from the requirements to impose multi-family projects in all neighborhoods and essentially eliminate single family zoning:

“The San Mateo trial court’s ruling exempting charter cities from a key component of our housing laws is disappointing and patently ignores the very real need for more affordable housing in our communities. We want local governments to act in partnership with the state to address our housing and homelessness crisis. California has provided more than $1 billion to local governments over the past two years alone to streamline local procedures, update planning documents, and provide infrastructure financing to accompany new housing.”

Piedmonters have observed numerous changes in Piedmont’s single-family zoning with the proliferation of vehicles parked on city streets and reduced or eliminated on-site parking requirements. State requirements do not allow notification of neighbors when new housing units are added to single-family dwellings or requirements for off-street parking.

At the December 2, 2019 Piedmont City Council meeting, Councilmember Betsy Andersen enthusiastically welcomed “a good thing,” Piedmont’s receipt of an SB 2 state grant to streamline the production increase of two-family housing and multi-family housing projects in Piedmont.++

Information on SB 2 – 

https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2019/May/SB-2-Planning-Grants-Are-Available-Find-out-How-t

https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/planning-grants.shtml

Thanks go to those attending the Climate Challenge Showcase on November 7!!

City staff was so impressed by the high turnout, and by the palpable excitement you showed to reduce our greenhouse gas footprint. Every day on this job reminds us all what a special community we serve, and the community’s dedication was especially apparent on November 7.

On that note, the City set a very ambitious goal for the Challenge – 200 households signed up in six months – but Piedmonters have gone above and beyond again. Residents have already met the goal, just a month and a half into the Challenge. Congratulations!!

With support, the City has decided to take even more ambitious action. We are increasing the goal to 300 households by March. If you have friends or neighbors who have not yet joined the Challenge, please tell them about it and encourage them to join!

We are also turning our attention to emissions reduction. We’re asking residents to reduce emissions by 450 tons of CO2 by March 2020. This will be a tough goal to meet, even considering the amazing work being done to reduce emissions. The City is here to help – Assistant Planner Mira Hahn and I are at City Hall (120 Vista Avenue), ready to brainstorm ideas, and we will be sending out tips to reduce emissions once a month between now and March.

In the end, though, it will be up to all of you to meet this tough goal. Luckily, Piedmonters are an incredibly dedicated and conscientious lot – we have full faith that you will rise to this challenge and greatly reduce Piedmont’s emissions, to secure a better future for coming generations.

Why Join?

Go to > https://www.piedmontclimatechallenge.org/

Let’s give this everything we’ve got.

Sincerely,

Justin Szasz

CivicSpark Climate Fellow, City of Piedmont

Phone: (510) 420-3085 for more information.

Council relents and removes the language change in the  proposed Special Municipal Parcel Tax Ordinance to be voted on at the March 3, 2020, Primary Election.

On December 2, 2019, Piedmont’s contract City Attorney, Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, continued to maintain her opinion that the proposed language change was not substantive.  Her opinion was disagreed with by many in Piedmont.

Vice Mayor Teddy King noted her concern over changing the language if the result was the same, for it added voter confusion. She stated many residents had stated the change from INCLUDING  to MAY INCLUDE was substantive.

Speakers Hedi Gerken, Kathleen Quenneville, and Liane Campodonico agreed with King, that the language should not be changed, while voicing it would be a substantive change allowing services to be dropped by the Council.  The Council had also received opposition to the language change by  emails, letters, and comments.

Council member Betsy Andersen, an attorney, stated she had proposed the change to clarify language, but withdrew her proposal upon believing flexible options would be available, and there would be no guarantee of funding for the named services.  

Questions were raised as to whether or not the 9 listed service items would be funded, if funds were available.  The answer appeared unclear. Some had  assumed that the parcel tax funds were delineated as a funding source for specific services; however, it has been Council practice during their May budget sessions to pool funds rather than specifically assigning the parcel taxes to specific services. During the budget sessions, the Council makes a determination on whether or not the parcel tax needs to be levied to support city services.

Services named in the ordinance are:

• police and fire protection,
• street maintenance,
• building regulations,
• library services,
• recreation,
• parks maintenance,
• planning and public works
• and similar services.

The Special Election for the parcel tax will held on March 3, 2020. Mayor Bob McBain and Council member Jennifer Cavenaugh will write the supporting arguments in the “Voter Information Guide.”  

Opposition arguments for the “Voter Information Guide” are due to the City Clerk on December 13, 2019, with rebuttals due on December 20, 2019.  For specific information contact the City Clerk, John Tulloch at 510/420-3040. 

Click > Notice of Election – 2020 Special Municipal – Measure for official ballot language and election protocols.

“Agenda Insight” to be presented before December 2, 2019 City Council meeting:

Item 3, the first item on tonight’s regular agenda, is the second reading of Ordinance 746 N.S. to renew the Municipal Services special Tax for 4 years effective July 1, 2021, and to place this before voters in a special election on March 3,2020, consolidated with the California Presidential Primary on that date….

Although most aspects of this renewal reflect no change, there is a word change that appears to have an impact. The wording of the present parcel tax says, “If in any fiscal year the City Council shall determine that municipal services INCLUDING but not limited to…” and then it names 9 services which must be included in general fund expenditures, with support from the parcel tax if other city income isn’t sufficient to cover them.

At the first reading of this ordinance, last meeting, that language was changed to, “municipal services which MAY INCLUDE but are not limited to..” and then lists the same 9 services. The staff report calls this a non-substantive change, but many people read it as a very substantive change because it gives Council the flexibility to remove any service from this list. The 9 services are police, fire, street maintenance, building regulations, library, recreation, parks maintenance, planning, and public works.

If the Council wants to put this on the March ballot, they must pass the second reading tonight because they are up against a deadline for submitting the final ballot language to the Registrar of Voters…..

Item 4 is consideration of a resolution approving procedural details for the Special Election of March 3… Of particular interest to voters, this item also sets the 75 word ballot question to read, “Shall Ordinance 746 N.S. which maintains essential police, fire, and paramedic services, prevents the reduction in maintenance of City parks, greenspaces and other public areas, and prevents the loss of recreational and other public services, by renewing the City of Piedmont’s expiring parcel tax for four years… be adopted?”

….Interestingly enough, this ballot language is almost the same language we voted on in 2016, so all 9 services were not mentioned last time around either. However, in both 2016 and 2020, it is the language of the resolution we are voting on, not the 75-word summary, and the language of the resolution has changed.

Ann Chandler, Piedmont Resident

Proposed Municipal Services Special Parcel Tax has key language changes allowing elimination of services previously funded by the Piedmont parcel tax. Some have called the parcel tax proposal a “blank check.”

The Piedmont City Council in haste is expected at their, Monday, Dec. 2, 2019, 7:30 p.m. meeting  to approve the second and final reading of Ord. 746N.S. which will place a renewal of the Municipal Services Special Parcel Tax, effective July 1, 2021, before the voters at a Special Municipal Election consolidated with the upcoming Presidential Primary Election on March 3, 2020. 

On November 18, 2019, the City Council approved a first reading of Ord. 746N.S.  At that meeting, the Council, according to the staff report, made what is called a “non-substantive” amendment to the language of Section 20B.2.on the first page of the ordinance.  Vice Mayor Teddy King objected to changing the existing language of the parcel tax proposal which states how the funds are to be spent. However, the rest of the Council and the City Attorney indicated the new language is not significantly different.

Apparently, the councilmembers and the City Attorney did not realize the language change no longer stipulates required uses of the parcel tax funds. For, the language changes from “including, but not limited to” to  “which MAY include, but are not limited to” were viewed by councilmembers as “essentially the same.”  

Voter concern has consequently arisen regarding the proposed new parcel tax language pointing to the change as considerable and  substantive in stating: “which may includeing,” rather than the current word “including.”

The newly proposed change to the parcel tax language would no longer require the Council to use the parcel tax money for the longstanding list of services and permits the Council to eliminate parcel tax funding for:

• police and fire protection,
• street maintenance,
• building regulations,
• library services,
• recreation,
• parks maintenance,
• planning and public works
• and similar services.

Some have stated the language change gives the Council a “blank check” by allowing the deletion of previously supported parcel tax funding for the named services.

The amended parcel tax language is indicated below in context. Deleted text is in strike through and new text is in italics.

“If in any fiscal year commencing on or after July 1, 2021, the City Council shall determine that municipal services, which may includeing, but are not limited to, police and fire protection, street maintenance, building regulations, library services, recreation, parks maintenance, planning and public works and similar services, are necessary for the public good, welfare and safety, and that the cost of making available such services will exceed the amount of funds generated through other revenue and income of the City for such services, then it may levy a special tax for such fiscal year on each parcel of real property within the City in a manner provided herein.”

READ the agenda HERE.

READ the three staff reports* on the tax proposal below:

https://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16243381

https://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16243385

https://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16243387

*Editors Note: The newly revised  City of Piedmont website has become more difficult for Piedmonters to access information on specific agenda issues. Example, the subjects of the staff report no longer appear in the links. Only a file number is provided.

The November 18, 2019, Council meeting went on for hours as numerous residents appealed to the Council to reject the proposed wireless sites.  At the beginning of the meeting, speakers were surprised by Mayor Robert McBain’s declaration limiting speakers to 2 minutes rather than the standard 3 minutes forcing last minute rewrites of prepared statements. 

Opponents noted serious health concerns, destruction of views, harm to Piedmont  aesthetics, loss in property values, lack of demonstrated need for the proposed sites, improper surveys, need to wait for court resolution of pending lawsuits relevant to Piedmont, and incomplete application information. 

Although pleas and great concerns were expressed by neighbors living near the Crown Castle proposed wireless installations sites, the Council unanimously approved all the proposed sites while adding new conditions for their approval.

A potential ongoing lawsuit with Crown Castle weighed heavily on Council members decision who saw better ways to spend Piedmont funds than legally challenging the large corporation.  Some Council members extensively questioned the proposals and were concerned by the many communications the Council received opposing the sites.

Led by Piedmont’s contract attorneys and the Piedmont Planning staff,  the Council was convinced to approve the sites based on compliance with Piedmont laws, despite the Planning Commission’s vote recommending denial of the proposals.

Since the sites are essentially  governed by the Federal Communication Commission, state laws, and are a part of the public utility system, the Council feared the next proposal could be less advantageous than the current proposal.

The Council predicted that numerous future proposals are virtually guaranteed with 50 sites in other areas of Piedmont. Driving the installation of the wireless communication systems, is the notion that landline communications will soon be replaced by cellular service, even though during emergencies landlines have been essential.

After three years of debate and discussion, the disappointed opponents left the Council Chambers indicating they did not feel that the City Council was standing up for Piedmont’s greater good.