The current solid waste collection and disposal agreement with Republic Services ends on June 30, 2018 and the City of Piedmont has begun the process of selecting the next solid waste services provider. Community members are invited to participate in a workshop to discuss waste disposal services for  garbage, recycling, and composting.

Workshop on Waste Services

Thurs., Feb. 2nd – 7 p.m.  – Veterans’ Hall

In 2007 the City contracted with R3 Consulting Group to investigate service providers, obtain bids and make a recommendation to the City.  Waste Management (“WMI”) and Republic Services (“RSS”) submitted bids. RSS had the lowest customer rates for both backyard and curbside collection for 20 and 32 gallon collection.  Curbside pickup service was the default rate, but once Piedmont customers sign up for the optional backyard pickup rate, they are automatically continued in it.

Is there any description in the voluminous city documents of the total eventual impact on our city?  Will these proposals, in combination, lead to a tear down of many old Piedmont homes? Will residents only find out what’s really in this massive proposal after the Council passes it?

The multiple issues encompassed in this hydra-headed proposal should be dealt with separately, with appropriate opportunity for public input for each.

Did you know the City is considering big changes to what you, your neighbors, developers, and the City can construct in Piedmont? Once proposed Piedmont laws are approved, resident concerns can become moot. 

Some of the issues:

• No surveys of Piedmonters’ preferences
• Scant public input
• Short term rentals recommendations (airbnb, etc.)
• Zone use changes without citizen vote
• Numerous building rule changes 
• Reduction in parking requirements
• Zero lot line construction
• City Staff review and decisions on projects rather than control by citizen commissioners who know the community standards best
• Building requirements for public property removed
• No public workshops
• Exclusion of public input in staff documents.

Study Session: 6:30 p.m., Monday, January 23, 2017, City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.  Viewable from the City website and on cable Channel 27.

Ask your neighbor, friend, or any resident if they are aware of the zoning and building changes being considered for Piedmont and you will likely get a shoulder shrug.  Despite the fact that the Planning Department and the Planning Commission have spent enormous amounts of time reviewing Chapter 17, engagement with the residents of Piedmont has been minimal.  The mammoth amount of documents present challenges to even a hardy observer of Piedmont zoning and construction rules.

Recently, the City Council on January 11, 2017 held a “Study Session” in an unrecorded meeting in the Emergency Operations Center of the Piedmont Police Department.  The purpose of the meeting was to educate the City Council about staff driven changes to Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code. Piedmont residents could not watch the proceedings from their computers or TVs because the meeting was not broadcast or recorded. Relative few residents attended that meeting or other prior meetings.

When is the public going to be educated on the proposals? 

Were hundred or thousands of Piedmont residents expected to go to the Piedmont Planning Commission meetings and wait for hours to be heard or to learn about the proposed changes?  When was the opportunity for an open exchange of ideas between policy makers and Piedmont residents? The residents who attended a Planning Commission meeting often found the allowed 3 minute time snippet for input often ignored rather than engagingly discussed?

Some changes purport to clean up Chapter 17, the ordinance controlling construction in Piedmont, other proposals change rules: allow the City to build whatever it wants on public property, change zone uses without voter approval, increase density, reduce parking requirements, and so forth.

The changes are too numerous and undelineated to list here.  All changes have not been listed by the City in a cohesive and manageable form. The voluminous public documents overwhelm the reader. Rather than small pieces considered in an orderly manner, interested residents are faced with about 500 pages of documents to slog through.  Yet the City presses on without surveying residents or setting up workshops as done with garbage, recycling, and recreation.  No round table discussions, extensive outreach to residents, or on line surveys have been provided by the City.

One speaker at the recent “Study Session” suggested minimally sending a comprehensive and specific letter to all Piedmont residents. An announcement was subsequently sent on January 17 to all Piedmont addresses.  The City announcement is brief and does not alert or inform the recipient of the numerous significant changes proposed.  Readers are directed to the mountains of information online without issues enumerated. The “public hearings” held by the Planning Commission praised in the announcement received little publicity and little public attendance or engagement.

The City relies on unfounded legal documents, an outdated poll, and the obscure generally unknown Piedmont General Plan, which was approved following limited public input with contradictory internal statements and inconsistencies.

Public Engagement During the Election –

Public engagement was frequently mentioned during the recent 2016 Piedmont election, however thus far the public has been largely screened out of the zoning and construction change decisions by indeterminant consideration times, difficult or no broadcast of considerations, unclear documents, and confusing data.  Organization of the material for ready residents understanding has been lacking.

As of this writing, the City has planned no further actions to inform and engage the Piedmont public.  The planning staff is pushing ahead for a prompt adoption of the voluminous ordinance on March 6, 2017.

Is the public intentionally being disregarded by a lack of clarity and opportunities for meaningful involvement?

The following letter from the Planning Director was sent to those who took the initiative to ask to be informed.  The links lead to complexities difficult for most residents to sort through.   _______________________

You are receiving this email because you had asked to be notified of any activity by the Planning Commission or City Council related to revisions of City Code Chapter 17 (the Zoning Code) and/or revisions to regulations of short term rentals.

Notice

As noted on the City of Piedmont’s website, the City Council has undertaken the process of considering a recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding updates to the Planning and Zoning Provisions of the City Code, the City’s Design Guidelines, and Policies and Procedures related to Planning matters in early 2017. The Council held a study session on January 11^th and will be holding another study session as follows:

Study Session: 6:30 p.m., Monday, January 23, 2017, City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.  [This session is evidently going to be broadcast from the City website and on cable channel 27 as it is being held in the Council Chamber where video streaming is available.]

The City Council will not be taking action at the study session.

Following the study sessions, the Council is tentatively scheduled to take the first step in considering the recommendation for adoption at its regular meeting of March 6, 2017.

      Regular Meeting: 7:30 p.m., Monday, March 6, 2017, City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue

Documents on the City Website

The staff report to Council dated March 6, 2017 [It is unknown why this 522 page report has been produced and dated prior to hearing from the Council or public.], the Planning Commissioner’s Summary and Navigation Tips, and other documents related to this project are available on the City’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us. The webpage also contains links to previous staff reports, meeting minutes, the General Plan, the current Zoning Code (Chapter 17) and the Zoning Map.

Public Engagement

The opportunity for public input is available throughout this process. Interested members of the public are encouraged to attend the study sessions and regular meetings at which the City Council will consider this item. Questions about the project and requests to receive email notification of activities related to Zoning Code revisions should be directed to Planning Director Kevin Jackson at kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or (510) 420-3039.

Written comments to the City Council on this matter may be submitted by clicking the following link > citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us  or 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

Please let me know if you wish to be removed from this email distribution list.

Sincerely,

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more City produced information, click here.

Article updated on January 21, 2017

The following letter was sent to the Piedmont City Council on January 15, 2017.

Mayor Jeff Wieler
Piedmont City Council
c/o John Tulloch, City of Piedmont

January 17 Agenda Item 7: R3 Presentation on Waste Collection Services

Dear Mayor Wieler and Council,

The current Piedmont 32 gallon service which includes 1 each refuse, green waste and recycling is $54.80 for curbside service. The equivalent 32 gallon Oakland service is $36.82. In Tiburon this same service is $39.02 for flat areas and $46.47 for hill areas; in Mill Valley the rates are $41.61 and $47.73.  Small affluent bedroom community San Marino with its excellent school system has been used as a comparable City to Piedmont. Their rate is $42.05 monthly and is backyard service only, plus 2 cans each for refuse, recycling and green waste (source: 10/26/2016 Irene in S.M. City Clerk’s Office).

Piedmont’s rate is then 15% more than the similar topography hills of Mill Valley to 49% higher than surrounding Oakland.

The Piedmont service includes unlimited green waste and recycling, others may not. Piedmont has 4 bulk pickups annually. Tiburon and Mill Valley are serviced by Mill Valley Refuse Service (“MVRS”) which serves nine Marin County cities. No City MVRS serves has less than two annual bulk pickups. There may be other inconsistencies in the services provided; comparing Waste Collection contracts is sometimes like comparing rotted apples to moldy oranges.

While the current package of services is appropriate for Piedmont, perhaps limiting to two annual bulky pickups from four will keep costs down. Regardless, the current Piedmont contract was neither researched nor negotiated as vigorously as the renewal contract is apparently being done. Piedmont is no longer an “Easy Mark” by service providers; the mainline sewer work and excellent bids received by J. Howard Engineering being one example.
The current Republic Services contract excludes Ivy. In Ivy infested Piedmont it is difficult to understand how this was allowed.

For Seniors 70+, disabled and blind all nine cities served by MVRS have a curbside rate for backyard pickup. Normally backyard pickup by MVRS is charged either an additional $5 monthly for “on premise” service or $15 monthly for “on premise plus.” Seniors receive no financial consideration in Piedmont by City Hall or the School Board. The MVRS model of backyard service at curbside rate for seniors & disabled should be incorporated into the new contract RFP.

I propose homes in Zone E pay a slightly higher overall fee. All lots are over 20,000 square feet and generate larger and more frequent green waste pickup; additionally all backyard services in Zone E require more work by the refuse company. This Zone E slight increase would easily cover any small subsidy for a reduced backyard service fee for seniors, blind and disabled.

Sincerely,

Rick Schiller

Cc: Paul Benoit

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Climate Change

Volunteers will be needed if Council approves plans to appoint a committee to advise on Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan for 2030.  The matter will be considered at the Tuesday, January 17, 2017, Council meeting. The full staff report can be read here.

Public Notice ______________________

Piedmont City Council will be considering two climate-related items at their regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall’s Council Chambers. Council will receive a report on Piedmont’s 2015 Greenhouse Gas Inventory and will vote to establish a temporary, advisory task force to assist staff in the development of a 2030 Climate Action Plan. We invite you to attend the hearing to express support for either of these items. You may view the City Council agenda for Tuesday’s meeting here http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/agendas/2017-01-17.pdf. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Emily – Emily Alvarez, LEED AP BD+C
Assistant Planner | City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue | Piedmont, CA 94611
T: (510) 420-3094 | F: (320) 223-0537
E: ealvarez@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Do residents have an appropriate opportunity to be heard during Planning Commission and City Council hearings?

For weeks Piedmonters have noticed the story poles that seem to double the height of a house on Moraga opposite the Mountain View Cemetery.  This proposed enlargement has struck some as controversial.  However, it was approved by Piedmont’s Planning Commission and the neighbors’ appeal was denied by the City Council. Council found no procedural error and denied the appeal of neighbors objecting to building an additional story on top of a house.  The construction will more than double the size of the house.  The Planning Commission action was upheld on the basis that no error had occurred in the process when considering the house extension application.

The objecting neighbors thought their view was supposed to be protected but were told that Piedmont only protects views which are “panoramic”, not the ridgeline view from the Ronada house.  Most Piedmonters do not have “panoramic” views, but value their views of hills, parks, or the Olmsted landscape of the cemetery, etc. Since few Piedmont homes have “panoramic” views, this limited view protection  is a benefit for only a minority of Piedmont property owners. Chapter 17 requires consideration of any proposed constructions effect on “… neighboring properties’ existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect light …” but does not  limit consideration to “panoramic” views.

17.2.79: View. “View” means an existing significant view involving more than the immediately surrounding properties, including, but not limited to, any of the following: city skylines, bridges, distant cities, geologic features, hillside terrains and wooded canyons or ridges. (Ord. 656 N.S. 8/05)

Piedmont has a narrow appeal process that eliminates an evaluation by the City Council of the full merits of an application.  The appeal ordinance has been publicly challenged for an inability of the Council to fully consider various aspects of the Planning Commission actions. If there was an error during the consideration process by the Planning Commission or the City Planners, the responsibility of identifying any such errors falls on an objecting appellant who is required to pay approximately $700 to seek justice and right the error.

Reimbursement by the City to appellants for their expenses including the City fee or their legal costs because of an error or omission by the Planning Commission is unknown and has not been announced.

Appellants face a difficult task when presenting their case to the City Council. The judgement of the Planning Commission in applying Piedmont laws and the actual judgement of the decision cannot be considered.  Time limits imposed, although not found in Piedmont law, further restrict the public or opposing party, typically neighbors, to present their concerns.

At the December 19 appeal, Planning Commission Chair Eric Behrens and Planning Director Kevin Jackson explained to the Council that the applicant had made some adjustments in their plans, but the applicant indicated they could not lower the second story by 4 feet. The vote by the Planning Commission was unanimous as was the City Council’s vote.

To read the full staff report on the appeal click below:

12/19/16 – PUBLIC HEARING Regarding an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve with Conditions an Application for Variance & Design Review at 108 Moraga Avenue

Given the significant responsibility and credibility bestowed upon the Planning Commission by the City Council, every detail, fact, and public point becomes vital to any decision.

The City is currently looking at changes to the ordinance known as Chapter 17 governing construction in Piedmont.  Some proposed changes are controversial, but the major complaint heard in the City revolves around no knowledge and no timely engaging community meetings to discuss changes or gain adequate input from the residents.

Under proposed changes governing construction in Piedmont, a greater number of applications will fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning staff rather than the Planning Commission further removing the public from open hearing processes.

Should the City seek a new solid waste collection and disposal services provider beginning July 1, 2018?

WORKSHOPS

Friday, January 20^th, 7:00 pm – 8:00 pm, Community Hall, 711 Highland Avenue

Thursday, February 2^nd, 7:00 pm – 8:00 pm, Veteran’s Hall, 401 Highland Avenue

TAKE ONLINE SURVEY HERE

The City of Piedmont is seeking resident input at community workshops and via an online survey on a new waste collection and disposal agreement, which would come into force on July 1, 2018.

The current solid waste collection and disposal agreement with Republic Services ends on June 30, 2018 and the City of Piedmont has begun the process of selecting the next solid waste services provider. Community members are invited to participate in two workshops to help assist the City in securing quality garbage, recycling, and composting services. Community input is sought to assess the community’s opinion of the current solid waste service offerings, and to determine the most appropriate garbage and recycling services for Piedmont customers for the next ten years. The goal of this effort is to reduce waste sent to the landfill while continuing to provide quality services to the Piedmont community.

To learn more about solid waste services in Piedmont visit: www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/recycling-waste.shtml

For more information on the current procurement effort and to add your name to an email notification list for the solid waste services procurement process, please contact Jennifer Gavin at jgavin@ci.piedmont.ca.us or 510-420-3054.

Background

On November 7, 2016 the City Council approved a consulting services agreement with R3 Consulting Group (R3) in the amount not to exceed $87,240 to help the City with the request for proposals for a new solid waste services agreement. R3 will conduct the two workshops, educating the public on the procurement process and soliciting community input.

The deadline for participating in the survey is February 20, 2017.

   I went to the City Council meeting on Monday, November 21 at 7:30 p.m. in Piedmont’s City Hall.  The City Council meets every first and third Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m.  The members of the Council and various citizens meet to discuss and solve prominent issues within the community.

    Throughout the course of this meeting six major issues were discussed, the first of which was a report by the Chief of Police regarding recent crimes in the neighborhood.  The Chief of Police highlight a recent series of break-ins, robberies, a pig’s head being left at the doorstep of a resident, and remarks about deportations written in chalk on Linda Avenue. In response to the series of break-ins and robberies the Chief of Police assured the citizens that they review their patrolling patterns and devise a cohesive plan.  After a short investigation, the police discovered that the pig’s head was meant for another former resident as a joke.  The police have no further leads on the remarks written on Linda Avenue, though this leaves troubling thoughts in my mind as a resident of Piedmont living on Linda Avenue.  It deeply troubles me that someone living in what I viewed as an inclusive environment could justify in any way using language regarding deportation.  Even more troubling is its proximity to Beach Elementary School where the language used could show younger children that what was said was socially acceptable.

    The second issue discussed was the consideration of a fee waiver request for the residence of 42 Craig Avenue.  The residents received a design review which lasted for twelve months, after which it would become void.  After twelve months and the review becoming void the claim was submitted by the residents in addition to a request for the payment required for the submission to be waived.  The City Council ruled that the second fee would not be waived as the work done to clear the waiver needed to be paid for even though the work had already been done in the past.

    The next issue discussed was the elimination of the parking restriction of the 700 block of Highland Avenue from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m.  This restriction was initially put into place in 1971 due to complaints of young people convening there and creating noise.  Removal of this restriction would in turn create sixteen parking spots.  The daughter of a current resident spoke out against the removal of this restriction stating that in the short term its removal could increase noise and crime, while in the long term home value could drop.  The City Council ruled to accept the motion, removing the parking restriction from the 700 block of Highland Avenue.

    The fourth topic discussed during the meeting was whether to refute or remain impartial on the subject of Alameda County Waste Management’s new 2016 ordinance that would ban the use of plastic bags in Piedmont stores and restaurants.  Choosing no action would only impact McMullins and Ace Hardware, forcing them to remove plastic bags and charge ten cents for paper bags in an attempt to push for reusable bags.  Piedmont High student Keith Sibal spoke in favor of choosing no action, drawing on his knowledge of the dangers of plastic bags pooling into the environment stating that the small cost of their removal will be outweighed by the protection afforded the environment.  The City Council ruled in favor of no action.

    The subsequent topic was authorizing the implementation of a community choice aggregation program.  The City Council approved the aggregation program, stating that it would give the people of Piedmont more choices and freedom to choose.

   The final topic covered during the City Council meeting was considering the agreements with Computer Courage for IT support services and Client First Technology Consulting for IT management services.  This was primarily to discuss the proper compensation for the work the two companies have done and will do in the future.  The City Council approved a budgeted compensation for the two companies.

   With the scheduled topics coming to a close and the City Council meeting being adjourned I had the opportunity to interview Jen Cavanaugh.  Ms. Cavanaugh stated that her presence was due to a letter she helped write from the School Board revolving around inclusion in schools that the City Council read.  She then explained that her next step is to meet with the School Board in an attempt to get real change going, stating, “There’s talk and then there’s action”.

Jacob Watson, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

   On November 14, 2016, I attended the Planning Commission meeting.  The Commission meets on the second Monday of every month at 5:00 p.m. to make decisions regarding proposed modifications or construction to homes and buildings in Piedmont. Some of the major issues that were brought up at the meeting were modifications that people wanted to make to their homes requiring the Planning Commission’s approval. The first project brought up was at 26 Littlewood Drive, where they wanted to add a second unit, enlarge a deck, and make modifications to windows and doors at the back and left side of the house. This was approved by the Planning Commission.

The second modification that was brought to the meeting for approval was at 108 Moraga Avenue.* The project was the most controversial one that was brought up because these homeowners wanted to build a second story onto their home, however it would obstruct the views of the neighboring home. The owners that wanted to build the second story did as much as they could to compromise with their neighbors by making several changes to their design as to not block their neighbors views. The project was approved because the homeowners did so much to try to compromise and in reality the only windows where views would be obstructed were two windows in a hallway and one in a bathroom. The homeowners, the architect, and neighbor all spoke on this topic. The homeowners explained the project and their reasoning for it. The architect was able to provide more specific details about the project and answer questions about the design. After the owners spoke and all of the questions were answered, the neighbor spoke and explained her concerns about the project. After this was done, the Planning Commission discussed what they thought of the project, keeping both sides of the argument in mind and came to the decision to approve the project.

    During the dinner break between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m., I interviewed Paki Muthig. Muthig attended the meeting seeking approval from the Planning Commission for the addition of a basement to his home at 306 Magnolia Avenue. He is both the owner of the home as well as the architect. Muthig said that if the project is approved, he will move forward with the project but if it is not he will “address the reason and come back.” After presenting his proposal to the Planning Commission they discussed his project and reviewed his designs and approved his project.

Josh Wood, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. * The 108 Moraga Avenue Planning Commission decision was appealed by a neighbor at the Dec. 19, 2016 City Council meeting.  The appeal was denied by the Council thus allowing the renovation to the house as approved by the Planning Commission.  The Council staff report can be read here.