Opportunities to serve Piedmont in important volunteer positions!

Be a part of Piedmont’s decision processes!

Application Deadline:

Monday, March 20th – 5PM

Proposed changes to the future waste collection contract include: variable optional charge for backyard pickup (except for disabled customers), trash collection to start at 6 am,  Large Item Collection pickups for multi-family dwelling residents, hazardous waste collection events at an additional fee.  Citizens are invited to comment on the RFP by March 31, before it is distributed on April 11. [Read RFP Here.)

Announcement:

The City of Piedmont is seeking comment on the Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and Draft Franchise Agreement (FA) for solid waste collection services from members of the community. This opportunity to comment is extended to better inform the City of the community’s needs and desires for solid waste collection services prior to the issuance of the RFP.

Please note that these documents are still under review by the City Attorney and City staff. Staff will make changes to the documents and address comments as they are submitted, leading up to the City Council meeting scheduled for Monday, April 3rd. At that meeting, the City Council will be asked to consider approval of the RFP package, which, if approved, will be released on Monday, April 10th.

What Is Included in the RFP Package?

• RFP Document describing the solid waste collection services sought for the City of Piedmont;
• Draft Franchise Agreement for solid waste collection services in the City of Piedmont; and
• Other RFP Attachments, including specified forms bidders must fill out and submit with their proposal, in addition to informational documents bidders are to review.

Potential Changes Under Consideration

• Curbside vs backyard solid waste collection service offerings (RFP, Section 3.2);

  • Curbside collection will be the new standard method of service;
  • Backyard collection will remain a service option for customers who wish to “opt-in;”
  • The additional cost for backyard collection will be a function of cart elevation (change in grade level) and distance from the curb to cover the cost of additional labor related to providing such service;

• Additional recycling and organics carts to be provided at an additional cost (RFP, Section 3.2);

• Disabled customers unable to place carts at the curb for collection will receive backyard service and pay the standard curbside rate. Proof of disability must be provided (RFP, Section 3.2);

• Cell phones and CFL bulbs may be placed on top of carts along with batteries for collection (these items must be enclosed in a transparent plastic bag) (RFP, Section 3.2);

• On-call, door-to-door household hazardous waste pickup service or periodic household hazardous waste collection events may be proposed, if companies wish. Such services will be proposed at an additional fee not included in the rates proposed (RFP, Section 3.6);

• Multi-family dwelling residents will now receive Large Item Collection pickups (RFP, Section 3.3); and

• Collection start time to be earlier, beginning at 6am rather than 7am, to alleviate traffic concerns (RFP, Section 3.9).

  • DRAFT Request For Proposals Dated March 13, 2017
  • Attachment A – DRAFT Collection Services Agreement
  • Attachment B – DRAFT RFP Proposal Forms A-L
  • Attachment C – DRAFT RFP Proposal Forms K
  • Attachment D – Example RRI Calculator
  • Attachment E – Existing Contract with Richmond Sanitary Service
  • Attachment F – Alameda County Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Waste Management
  • Attachment G – Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan
  • Attachment H – ACWMA Ordinance Prohibiting the Disposal of Certain Items in Alameda County Landfills
  • Attachment I – ACWMA Mandatory Recycling Ordinance
  • Attachment J – Chapter 9 of the Piedmont City Code

  How to Submit Your Comments

  Please submit your comments no later than March 31st regarding the potential changes to solid waste collection services to the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@ci.piedmont.ca.us or via US Mail to City Clerk’s Office, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

  Residents with questions are encouraged to contact Associate Planner Jennifer Gavin at jgavin@ci.piedmont.ca.us or via phone at (510) 420-3050.

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

Residents are left out of important planning processes – 

Little known to the general public are big proposed changes to zoning and the building code agendized for consideration by the City Council, Monday, March 6, 7:30 p.m. City Hall.

Some of the proposed changes to the zoning and building code include allowing:

• Apartments on top of Mulberry’s and the three Piedmont banks to a height of 40 feet with no setbacks unless next to a residence
• Reduction in the size and number of parking spaces required for construction projects
• New smaller lots with reduced street frontage in lower Piedmont
• Commercial businesses on public property
• Elimination of  height restrictions and setback requirements on public property
• Land use changes within zones.
• Safety omitted in the intent of Design Review
• Structures built up to the property line in Piedmont’s lower residential zone
• Transfer of certain authority from the Planning Commission to the Planning Director
• Eliminating notice to neighbors or neighborhoods under various circumstances
• No provision for driveways widths, lengths, and turnaround requirements within the ordinance
• Reduction in setback requirements between houses
• Reliance on the Council approved General Plan Document rather than the voter approved City Charter

These bullet points are only some of the proposed changes.        _________________

Council and public questions at the Study Session –

The Council appeared ready to accept recommendations with few questions or concerns making some observers recall a similar attitude preceding taxpayer incurred obligation of the $2 + million private underground utility debacle and the Blair Park proposal and unrepaid “gift” to the City.

Some observers of the January 23, 2017 Council “Study Session” on zoning changes and building requirements were left without answers and without sufficient opportunities to be heard.

Removing the matter from public view and engagement, residents were asked to write their questions or concerns to the Council on the 500 + page voluminous proposals. 

No open interactive approach offered by the City-

A powerpoint explanation at the January 23, 2017 Council Study Session provided an overview of the proposals.   The public participants interested in the proposals were limited to 3 minutes per person to make comments or inquiry on the lengthy and complex document.  Some participants had more than one point or inquiry, but could not make them to the Council. The Council pressed ahead often without asking questions or involving the public during their “Study Session.”

In stark contrast to efforts to solicit input on garbage/solid waste services that will not change until 2018, the Planning Department and City Council have an expedited schedule to adopt far reaching and impactful long term changes to Piedmont laws governing what can be built on Piedmont property.

Some of the Council members seemed overwhelmed by the 535 pages of documents and somewhat ill-informed on important aspects of the proposal. There were basic issues such as variances.  Preparation, reading and understanding of the documents was not obvious to many observers of the meeting. One or more Council members appeared intimidated by the process.

Current Chairman of the Planning Commission, Eric Behrens spoke of the 16 meetings held by the Planning Commission to discuss the proposals and their recommendations (some of which began 10 years ago.)  Many of these meetings included prior commissioners no longer on the commission. The vast majority of the “public meetings” were held at an indeterminate time at the end of very long Planning Commission meetings.  The Commissioners were often visibly weary and ready to accept the staff proposals.  Exceedingly few residents had the time or fortitude to wait through an entire Planning Commission meeting for an indefinite time to speak for 3 minutes. Some speakers felt they were ignored and had insufficient time to make explanations of issues to the Commission.

Mayor Jeff Wieler stated at the January 23, 2017 Study Session that various aspects of the proposal could be considered individually. Later, he raised issues regarding short term home rentals, home occupation permits and commercial zone laws. The staff, legal consultant and Council member Tim Rood discouraged waiting to resolve individual issues prior to adoption.  The advising legal counselor informed Wieler the proposal could not be broken apart to the wonderment of many who recognized that the Design Review Section was considered “Interim” and incomplete. Inconsistencies in language between the Interim and Proposed documents did not deter pressing ahead.

Planning Director Kevin Jackson frequently used the terms “recommended by the Planning Commission” and “mandated by the General Plan” when introducing the changes to Piedmont laws.

Vice Mayor Bob McBain pushed to have the enormous package of changes approved noting it could be amended if appropriate.

New Council member Jen Cavenaugh initially raised a number of questions in the meeting, but soon appeared to hold back on inquiry as Council member Rood stepped in to defend interpretations and intent of the proposed changes.

Council member Teddy King showed concern for short term rentals, proposed to prohibit rentals under 30 days.  The Planning Commission has recommended short term rentals be prohibited.

There have been NO surveys since 2007 and NO community workshops for idea exchanges. 

Many points presented by the public have not been fully explored or responded to in the meetings. Parking requirements have been key to many resident speakers, yet the proposal continues to reduce both the size and number of parking spaces in future developments.

Standards for measuring congestion, traffic, parking needs, and safety are not defined in the ordinance.  Standards are lacking in many of the decision areas.

Rather than an interactive process, public input was closed and the public was not provided an opportunity to respond to what the Council discussed at the meeting. By the end of the over 3 hour meeting and despite Planning Director Kevin Jackson’s public notice stating no action would be taken, Jackson inquired as to any direction the Council wanted to give him. None was given.

Significant land use changes between zones without voter approval:

Previous Councils defined “classification as the use”. –

An example of the established definition of “classification” as “use,” was in 1987 when the Council voted to create two separate single family residential zones, one for single family residential parcels with a minimum 10,000 square feet (Zone A) and another zone for single family residential parcels with a minimum 20,000 square feet (Zone E – Estate).   This was done by the Council without voter approval on the basis that there was no change of use. The Council stated that the use within the zone was not changing, consequently it was not a new zone, even though one zone was reduced, Zone A,  and Zone E, the Estate Zone was created out of Zone A.  In Chapter 17 of the City Code, there are two separate single family residential zones, Single Family Residential (Zone A) and Single Family Residential Estate (Zone E), approved by the Council because the use did not change.  

The current proposal relates to land use changes without voter approval. This questionable process goes against the wording in the City Charter.

The Council is scheduled on March 6, 2017 to consider the first reading of the important ordinance changes and Interim proposals.

City Council Agenda– March 6, 2017 

Click here to view Staff Reports.  (There is an error with the City posting.  The staff report on item 6. states Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 728 N.S. Adopting Revisions to the City Code Including Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use; and Consideration of a Resolution Adopting Interim Design Guidelines and the Repeals of Policies Incorporated into the City Code and Guidelines 0705, 0795 7.  Information can be found at http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/zoning-code-update/) 

 VOLUNTEER for important positions!

Be a part of Piedmont’s decision processes!

Application Deadline: Monday, March 20th – 5PM

2030 Climate Action Plan

The City Council is looking for five volunteers to help update the City’s Climate Action Plan. Resident input is vital to the process of creating the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target and strategies to reduce emissions.

The City is specifically seeking residents who have an interest or expertise in environmental issues and climate science to serve on this Task Force. The City Council will appoint four of the Task Force’s members and the Board of Education will appoint one Piedmont High School Student.  Applications must be received at City Hall on or before the deadline of February 24, 2017. Download application here.

The Task Force will meet approximately once a month, beginning in the end of March, for one year or until a Draft 2030 Climate Action Plan is completed, whichever is earlier.

All meetings of the Task Force will be noticed and open to the public.

Bike lanes to be added to the Oakland Avenue Bridge along with bulbouts.

The Oakland Avenue Bridge designed by architect Albert Farr in 1910 is proposed to undergo changes. – 

Grant funds may be available through “One Bay Area Grants (OBAG2)” supporting focused growth, regional transportation priorities, and the Bay Area’s land-use and housing goals.

OBAG 2 is projected to total about $800 million to fund projects from 2017-18 through 2021-22.  Some $354 million in federal funds will be directed to Congestion Management Agencies.  They are responsible for soliciting, evaluating and selecting eligible projects within their counties.

Piedmont’s OBAG Grant proposal for Cycle  #2 is $169,000 for Oakland Avenue Improvements developed with the help of Coastland Engineers. The Oakland Avenue Bridge construction proposal includes: resurfacing, new bike lanes, relocation of a fire hydrant, a “bulbout” at the corner of Howard and Oakland Avenues.

The Council has heard from public speakers that pedestrians face a perilous walk on the narrow bridge sidewalks, originally 6 feet wide. No proposals have been made to return to the original sidewalk width.  Bike lanes are proposed on the roadway.

Bulbouts often reduce one or two parking slots and are controversial. Some drivers may cut across the bulbout, bumping up over the curb and down as they make a tight turn.

According to the staff report there could be a shortfall of over $200,000 for the project. – 

“The Engineer’s Estimate for the construction cost is $400,000, so the grant will cover approximately 42% of the projected cost. The additional funding will most likely come from Measure B and BB Bike & Pedestrian Funds.

“On a separate but related note, the City is currently working on a pedestrian railing and lighting project across the Oakland Avenue Bridge which was not included in the OBAG2 project application since the goal is to have this installed prior to 2019 when the OBAG2 monies will be available. “

The Alameda County Transportation Commission, which has a Piedmont representation, will announce the projects they select on July 31, 2017.

Read the full report with diagrams of the proposal showing bike lanes and bulbouts  here.

Read agenda for Monday, February 6, 2016 here.

Should elderly and disabled persons be accommodated on the price and availability of  backyard waste can service? Do you want to or like carting all of your garbage cans in and out of your backyard every week?  Would Piedmont look cleaner if everyone had backyard service?

Your input is needed by the City to assist in Piedmont’s upcoming contract procurement for waste disposal.  

You can help by doing the following:

 +     Filling out the City’s online waste survey linked below:

 (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/piedmontcommunitysurvey

(Paper versions of the survey will be available at the Public Works Counter at City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.)

+     Attending the Thursday, Work Session on Waste Disposal:

Thursday, February, 2,  at 7 p.m.

     Veterans Hall, 401 Highland Avenue. 

+       Contacting your council members and letting them know the service you think is appropriate at: >  citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us.

Correspondence between residents and Mayor Wieler.

Thank you for your prompt response Mayor Wieler. There is nothing in law or code to suggest existing homes would be “non-conforming” if Piedmont zoning remains as is- that should not be an impetus and it’s certainly not a rationale.

We are in full agreement with the spirit and most of the substance of the editorial on the January 22, 2017 Piedmont Civic Association website.

1) What is the purpose of this omnibus approach to zoning in our city?  What’s the benefit to us, to our neighbors? Piedmont Planning Director Kevin  Jackson has repeatedly cited historically high variance approval rates as an indication that our zoning rules are outdated. Is it possible those high approval rates are a function of reasonable plans and compromises engendered by the variance approval process itself?

2) Smaller lot sizes (which as you know are already accounted for in the current code), reduced set backs and potentially larger structure footprints will encourage the construction of larger homes and more density which will- over time- change and, in our opinion erode the character of broad sections of our community

3) Absence of material change to Zone E lot sizes and set backs – hmmmmmm.

We hope you and the city council will consider Piedmont Civic Association’s recommendation  for more transparency, clarity and outreach in these matters.  The power to effect changes of this magnitude should not reside with staff and a few select committees. We urge our city government to take the necessary steps to seek formal approval from our citizens before these changes are adopted.

Respectfully,

 Philip & Jean Stein

Piedmont

The City is in the process of developing a Request For Proposals (“RFP”) for a new Waste Collection service provider, and has retained R3 Consulting. My 1/15/2017 letter to Council is attached. I have requested an Age 70 Senior and Disabled “accommodation” to be included in any RFP; the accommodation is backyard service at curbside rate. This would be opt-in and you can default to curbside. I feel the small cost of this minor subsidy can be off-set if needed by (1) an overall slight total contract cost increase (2) a marginally higher backyard rate for non-seniors though overall a larger premium for backyard service is needed than our current contract, or (3) have a higher rate for zone E (> 20,000 to 100,000 + square feet) properties.

My research found the senior age 70/disabled accommodation in nine Marin County cities. On 1/17/17 Councilman Rood asked Garth Schultz of R3 Consulting about this as Schultz had included this in his slideshow to Council. Mr. Schultz stated this senior 70/disabled accommodation is “standard” and is offered in other venues when backyard service is otherwise not provided. The Senior 70/disabled accommodation is evidently quite normal.

While outside of Piedmont controlling costs for fixed income seniors seems nearly universal, Piedmont is entirely devoid of any senior cost considerations. Our School Tax exceeds other School taxes by minimally double to literally one hundred times, and many other school taxes having a senior exemption.

How to support the Senior 70/Disabled accommodation:
1. Attend the Thursday Feb. 2 7pm Town Hall meeting at the Veteran’s Hall to support the accommodation. This is a good opportunity.
2. Take the city survey and include the accommodation as a comment:http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/input-sought-on-waste-collection-contract/   I suggest also supporting curbside service as the default. This will keep overall cost down.
3. Write letters in support to the Piedmonter  jkawamoto@bayareanewsgroup.com or the Post atnews@piedmontpost.org   Keeping to 200 words increases publication chances.
4. Likely Council will approve the RFP early in March as it is scheduled to be issued March 13. A letter or better yet an appearance before Council is most effective.

A few other fundamentals concerning Waste Collection cost: to date the City survey on Waste Collection of 650+ responses shows 67% of residents supporting a curbside default. 45% of residents have been using the backyard service and 46% are willing to pay double for backyard over curbside; the current backyard premium is $5 monthly. On 10/17/2016 City Administrator Benoit reported to City Council that for Republic Services to continue “would require a significant rate increase, perhaps in the range of 30% to 40% (and) Republic Services could not sustain the current level of backyard service and that it would have to be substantially reduced.” Unmistakably, backyard service and the too low premium for it in our current contract is a major cost driver. My survey shows the backyard premium is often in the $15 monthly range or higher in other Cities.

Overall the R3 Consultant found Piedmont’s Waste Collection fee to be 20%+ higher though exact comparisons are sometimes difficult with different service packages in different Cities. While Piedmont’s Trash Collection is expensive, it is a comprehensive and appropriate package of services for Piedmont; I am hopeful most elements can be retained at a competitive cost and continuing good diversion rates for recycling. And the time is well past for backyard service at curbside rates for age 70 seniors and disabled.

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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