On Thursday, June 22, the BART Board approved a paper ticket surcharge of $0.50 to encourage Clipper card use. Youth and Senior Clipper cards are free. Adult Clipper card costs $3 unless it is purchased online with Autoload payments from a credit card.

On July 1, AC Transit will increase the cost of fares and passes, ending its six year fare freeze.

Fares paid with Clipper cards will increase for local rides from $2 to $2.15 for adults and from $1 to $1.05 for youth, seniors and the disabled.  Youth (5 – 18) 31 day passes as well as senior and disabled calendar month passes will increase from $20 to $26.50. Local day passes will continue to be $2.50 for youth, seniors and the disabled. The Adult Local 31-Day Pass will increase from $75 to $81.

See the complete list of new fares and passes here.

Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan Task Force (CAPTF) will meet at 6:30 pm on June 27, 2017 in the Piedmont Police Department Emergency Operations Center (403 Highland Avenue.) The CAPTF is a temporary advisory task force to assist staff in the development of a 2030 Climate Action Plan. The meeting will not be broadcast or recorded.

Agenda:

1.  Review of Previous Task Force Discussions (5 minutes)
2.  Review of Draft Climate Action Plan Outline (15 minutes).
3.  Discussion of Proposed Transportation Sector Measures for the 2030 Climate Action Plan (60minutes).
4.  Discussion of Outreach and Community Engagement Strategies (20 minutes).
5.  Consideration of Future Agenda Items (10 minutes).

All Task Force materials are posted here: http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/committees/captf.shtml

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

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

The staff reports for the meeting are:

06/05/17 – Approval of a Modification to a Conditional Use Permit for Sarah Baldwin, DMD at 1375 Grand Avenue, Suite 101

06/05/17 – Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 732 N.S. Making a Technical Correction to Section 8.1 of the City Code to Clarify that the 2016 California Fire Code is in Effect

06/05/17 – Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Letter of Support Authorizing Participation in the 2017 East Bay SunShares Program

06/05/17 – PUBLIC HEARING Regarding the Proposed Budget and Fee Proposals for FY 17-18 and the Levy of the Municipal Services Tax and Sewer Tax

a. Presentation of Report from the Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee

b. Report on the FY 17-18 Budget Proposal

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

06/05/17 – Report from the Chief of Police Regarding Diversity Education and Outreach as well as Collaboration with PUSD and Other Stakeholders (Oral Report)

06/05/17 – Consideration of the Award of Contract for the Linda Avenue Crosswalk Improvement Project to Bay Construction in the Amount of $328,672.80 and approval of an Overall Construction Budget of $406,515

06/05/17 – Consideration of the Operational Analysis for the Aquatics Center Master Plan Conceptual Design

The agenda for the City Council – Monday, June 5, 2017   < meeting.

Nine proposed antenna wireless communication facilities to be located generally around Piedmont Park and Piedmont High School will be considered by Piedmont’s Park Commission on June 7, 2017. and Piedmont’s Planning Commission on June 12, 2017.

Planning Commission confronts applications for additional bedrooms without off-street parking and high fences next to sidewalks. 

by Leah Kochendoerfer, Piedmont High School Senior –

 On Monday, May 8th, 2017 at 5:00pm, the Planning Commission met in order to consider approval of projects proposed for property in Piedmont. Between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., the members of the Planning Commission discussed four specific cases: 419 Moraga Avenue, 156 Wildwood Avenue, 139 Lexford Road, and 361 Moraga Avenue. Four projects were conditionally approved; however, each had their own set of adjustments necessary to ensure approval.  

The resident of 419 Moraga Avenue submitted an application seeking the approval of modifications to her windows, as well as the approval of a room conversion into a bedroom without providing the necessary parking ratio. The application had previously been denied under the Small House Policy, in which bedroom count cannot exceed a certain number without simultaneously increasing parking. However, the resident argued that similar construction had taken place in neighboring homes in which bedroom to parking ratios had been consistent with her plans, and thus her construction should be approved. When asked why she could not create more parking in order to make the increase in room count legal, she suggested that her driveway was too steep for a car to park, and a garage could not be added without demolishing the entire house, thus indicating the Variance criteria of unusual physical circumstances. Susan Ode and Eric K. Behrens, members of the Planning Commission, both rejected the resident’s argument by stating that no house should be compared to another, as each is in a unique circumstance. Another commissioner introduced the consideration of traffic on Moraga, noting that creating another unit would only increase car flow down the already busy street. Ultimately reflecting the Planning Commission’s decision, Tom Ramsey noted the importance of being consistent and supported the variance under the condition that the driveway could be modified in order to supply an additional parking spot.

 The subsequent resident submitted an application for the construction of a new six foot wooden fence with two gates on their Wildwood Avenue property. The resident expressed the need of a new fence after having experienced several incidents of stolen property, and also commented on the benefits of adding more room to the property, the convenience of having access to the home through a side yard, and the general aesthetic of a new fence.

Responses from the Planning Commission included Commissioner Eric Behrens who stated that the fence was out of character and not, in fact, aesthetic.  Commissioner Susan Ode noted that the horizontal planks would not match the vertical ones. Additionally, Commissioner Jonathan Levine suggested that neighboring houses along Wildwood Avenue do not have these fences and a fence this tall would look imposing from the street. Similarly, Commissioner Aradhana Jajodia stated that the fence calls attention to itself and takes away the otherwise open feeling. Commissioner Tom Ramsey worried about the precedent this situation would set in allowing people to set up six foot tall fences when desired. Thus, the Planning Commission came to the conclusion that the fence would be approved only if it followed the four foot maximum outlined in the Design Guidelines.

I personally believe that the four foot maximum fence height is a valid code, as the City of Piedmont should be a relatively open space that makes neighbors feel welcome. A tall fence would definitely separate the house from the otherwise community feel, and make surrounding residents less comfortable when walking alongside it.

Next, the Planning Commission discussed the application for a new house and fence design submitted by Paul Simonetti wanted to install a gate and fence along his property.  Simonetti stated his concern about recent break-ins. He was also looking to plant a new maple tree. Commissioner Behrens was  concerned with the sight-lines when exiting the driveway, to which Simonetti ensured that the fence would slowly decrease in height when backing out of the driveway, allowing for an unobstructed view of the street and potential cars.

Commissioner Ramsey brought up the code involving a foot-wide section between the fence and the sidewalk, which the Commission and Simonetti agreed could be used for landscaping plants. Lastly, while Commissioner Levine agreed that the arbor would distinguish the house entrance, it needed to be a more modest size. Therefore, the project was approved under the conditions that the tree would not be planted and that a foot wide landscaped section would be installed between the sidewalk and fence.

The residents of 361 Moraga Avenue, sought approval for the construction of additional office space in order to increase living space for their family of four. After having two storage rooms built, the owners stopped the project in December in order to ensure the project was up to code. The owners gathered signatures from neighbors approving the variance and now only needed permission from the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Levine addressed his concern that the office space could be transformed into a bedroom when sold in the future and advertised as a five-bedroom house with two bedrooms sharing one bathroom. This would go against the Small House Policy, as the property only holds one parking spot currently. When Levine asked the residents about the possibility of increasing the garage size, an owner stated that the garage was surrounded by concrete and any modifications would thus be infeasible.

On the other hand, Commissioner Behrens assured that access to the bathroom was not direct and thus the house could not be advertised as five-bedroom. Additionally, Commissioner Aradhana Jajodia stated that if someone truly wanted to do illegal construction with the intent of increasing the bedroom count in a house, they would not have come to the Planning Commission to seek approval in the first place. The application consideration concluded with the Planning Commission approving the plan with the condition that the framing of the door be removed, confirming that the space is purely office space, not a bedroom.

 Amy Shen, attended the Planning Commission meeting seeking approval for a home remodel as well as a variance on her lot size. Because the City of Piedmont only allows residents to have structures on 40% of one’s lot, plans to exceed this limit require the approval of a variance by the Planning Commission. When asked what she learned through the process of these meetings, she responded that she “learned that design is subjective and that because of the limitations of speaking time, you have to be direct in presenting what you want to say as well as in the documentation you present prior to the meeting.” Because the Planning Commission did not authorize the proposed remodel, she will now have to begin the process again with a new design, addressing the changes advised by the Planning Commission members.

The Planning Commission meets once per month on the second Monday of the month at 5:00 p.m., to discuss the alteration and construction plans of Piedmont homes.

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.