Every home, apartment, commercial property, and public property in Piedmont is potentially impacted by the broad proposals before the Planning Commission.

Changes of use in the public zone, reduced parking requirements, buildings permitted in setbacks, reduced setback requirements, new descriptions of zone uses, changes in lot coverage requirements, etc. have or will be considered by the Planning Commission as they review staff proposals prior to making recommendations to the City Council, the deciding body.  The changes proposed are entirely too numerous to be listed here; however at the end of this article is a list of official documents related to the proposals.

The proposals currently being considered by the Planning Commission call for a new description of Piedmont’s predominate zones, the single-family residential zones, A and E.

The Planning Commission thus far has undertaken consideration of proposals at the end of their regular meetings. Typically, there have been few, if any, public participants at these meetings. The proposals are lengthy, fragmented and, likely, difficult for the average resident to follow. Awareness of government requirements generally only occur when property owners attempt to build a project or when a neighbor builds or proposes a project.

Piedmont’s foundational law is the Piedmont City Charter < .  Piedmont is a Charter City, and, as such, is governed differently than California General Law cities.

Piedmont’s original Charter intent was to maintain Piedmont as an independent residential city and to control commercial development within the city. To preserve Piedmont’s residential character,  a key provision was included in the Piedmont City  Charter  < requiring any change of classification or reclassification of zones to be done only with voter approval.

The Zoning System as outlined in Piedmont’s  City Charter states:<

“SECTION 9.02 ZONING SYSTEM

“The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgement be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a single family dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.”  Emphasis added.

Use change in ZONE D – PIEDMONT’S COMMERCIAL ZONE

During planning processes and action by the City Council Zone D was reclassified by expanding its uses to incorporate the use of Zone C multiple units/apartment/multi-family units.   Zone D is better know as Piedmont’s business or commercial zone. Expanding the use of Zone D to include the Zone C multi-family usage was done by the City Council without voter approval in 2013.   An explanation or legal justification for this relaxed interpretation of the Charter requirement has not been provided.  If a legal interpretation is provided, it will be printed on this website.

The test, if any, on voter avoidance for Zone D, will likely occur only through legal action brought by unhappy neighbors to Zone D development projects. Recently, residents near the Shell Station on Grand Avenue at Wildwood Avenue objected to development proposals presented to the Planning Commission and City Council at a unique joint meeting to hear a presentation from an architect and developer of the property.  Many of the proposed regulations relate directly to this property in Commercial Zone D.

Some Piedmonters encouraged the change of use in Zone D and have accepted the lack of voter approval because of a desire for more housing in Piedmont.  Perhaps, most voters in Piedmont would agree to the change, if given an opportunity to cast a vote per the Charter language.

Zone D has always permitted single-family homes in the zone.  Based on the Council’s pre-emptive use change in Zone D, new rules are proposed.

The Planning Commission will consider changes to the Zoning Code Chapter 17 on Tuesday, July 26, 5:30 p.m – 7:30 p.m.  The meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 27 and from the City website.  

The July 26 Special meeting at City Hall in the Council Chambers will be the first meeting that is separate from routine Planning Commission matters.  This meeting includes rules for Zone D, the commercial zone and how development can be permitted on commercial properties.

Some of the recommendations for Zone D include:

• reduction on the number of parking spaces required
• requirements for only housing on the second floor of commercial buildings
• zero setbacks in the zone
• setbacks only when adjacent to Zone A the single-family zone
• reduction on the size of a parking space
• increase in the height of a building from 35′ to 40′
• etc.

Read > agenda for the Planning Commission’s special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 26, 2016.

Read the full  >  staff report for the July 26^th Planning Commission meeting.

You can submit comments to the Commission by sending an email to kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or on paper to the address: Kevin Jackson, AICP Planning Director, City of Piedmont,  120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611    (510) 420-3039   Fax: (510) 658-3167

To read all of the staff produced documents, click items on the list below. These are links to various documents related to the proposals and are found on the City website. You can find ongoing information on this project by visiting the City’s website.:

Crosswalks and Stop Signs on the Agenda

A proposal to improve public safety at Piedmont “known problematic intersections” will be presented at the City Council meeting on Monday, July 18 at 7:30 p.m..  The Council will consider the installation of crosswalks and “All Way Stop Signs” at 10 Piedmont intersections to improve pedestrian and traffic safety. In some cases neighbors have been asking for these safety measures for years. The 10 proposed intersections are considered the highest priority and were vetted by the Police Department and the Public Works Department.

The intersections with significant pedestrian and traffic conflicts are:

• Magnolia, Nova and Wildwood Avenues
• Magnolia and Park View Avenues
• Magnolia and Jerome Avenues
• Magnolia and El Cerrito Avenues
• Wildwood and Prospect Avenues
• Wildwood and Highland Avenues
• Mountain and Dormidera Avenues
• Hampton Road and Sea View Avenue
• Hampton Road and Glen Alpine Road
• Blair and Scenic Avenues

The total expense is estimated at $55,857, including a 15% contingency to be funded by Measure B and BB funds. Read the staff report here.

Written comments should be directed to the City Council, c/o Piedmont City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or by email to:jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS, PARKING SPACE SIZES, ZONE USE CHANGES, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, SETBACKS, INCREASED STAFF APPROVALS , ETC. –

Monday, July 11, 2016 at the end of the regular Planning Commission meeting, proposed changes to Piedmont’s zoning ordinance Chapter 17 of the City Code will be considered.

In general, the proposals reduce restrictions and requirements for building in Piedmont, easing approvals. Planning Staff is proposed to play a larger role in approving building permit design review and various applications currently determined by the Planning Commission. Reduced parking requirements, accessory structures permitted within setbacks, variances, zone use changes, in ground improvements eliminated as lot coverage, and other permissive changes are being considered.

The Chapter 17 hearings have all been scheduled at an undetermined time at the end of lengthy Commission meetings.  

Each consideration by the Planning Commission has been labeled a “Public Hearing.” Those requesting notice of the hearings have been advised.

“two special [future] sessions of the Planning Commission have been scheduled for the evenings of Tuesday, July 26 and Tuesday, August 30, 2016, both of which will be dedicated to discussions of Chapter 17 revisions.”

The Planning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council, who will determine what changes should be made to Chapter 17.

Below is the Staff report Conclusion prepared for the July 11, 2016 Commission meeting.

CONCLUSION: There are many reasons to make amendments to Chapter 17. Some revisions, such as eliminating barriers to housing and allowing reasonable accommodation for persons with special needs. are mandatory in order to bring the Code into compliance with the General Plan and Housing Element. Other revisions are more discretionary but equally important to better serve the community. In the preparation of this report, staff’s intent was to continue the discussion on topics that may lead to the improvement of the Code, and to seek direction from the Commission on those revisions it would like to see incorporated into the Code.

NEXT STEPS: During Planning Commission meetings in the next few months, staff will return with subsequent reports outlining additional potential revisions to the Code, including but not limited to: changes to the uses and/or regulations for Zone D; refinement of the design review criteria for multistory and upper level additions; and expanded list of projects that would be exempt from design review or that would be subject to Administrative Design Review; modifications to the regulations of wireless communications facilities.

As the Commission provides direction on the revisions it would like to incorporate into the Code staff will create a draft revised Chapter 17. Once all topics have been discussed and directions provided, staff will bring the draft to the Commission for review and request that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council or direct staff to make further refinements to the revisions and return again with the draft.

Once the Planning Commission has made its recommendation, staff will bring the draft revised Chapter 17 and the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council for its consideration.

The discussions related to this project have occurred and will continue to occur at regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings. In addition, two special sessions of the Planning Commission have been scheduled for the evenings of Tuesday, July 26 and Tuesday, August 30, 2016, both of which will be dedicated to discussions of Chapter 17 revisions.

The project may also be discussed at a special joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council before a draft of the ordinance is considered by the Council. During the coming months in which revisions to Chapter 17 will be considered, there will be multiple opportunities for public input, and staff will continue to try to reach out to as many Piedmonters as possible.

Staff has already assembled a list of residents who wish to receive notices and staff reports directly via email. Anybody who wishes to be added to the list may contact the planning office by calling 510-420-3039 or by emailing kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us. This report and other staff reports and minutes of Commission meetings at which this project to revise Chapter 17 was discussed can be found on the City’s website at: http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/planning-commission-to-consider-changes-to-planning-code/

READ the full staff report for the July 11, 2016 meeting here.

See bottom of this article for additional links.

PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS –

City Code Chapter 17 Modifications

DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2016.  Emphasis added.

Interim Planning Director Jackson began the discussion by reviewing the Chapter 17 revisions that the Commission directed Staff to make at the April 11 Planning Commission meeting. He also noted the topics for immediate discussion.

Prior to the discussion on each topic, Interim Planning Director Jackson provided the Commission with context for the comprehensive revisions to the zoning code. He explained that some revisions are proposed to address the goals and policies of the General Plan and other policy documents, but that a host of other revisions are proposed to better serve the public interest. He referred to research on the approval of variances in Piedmont to question whether the public interest is being served with the current code.

Interim Planning Director Jackson reported that 80% of the variances acted upon since 1996 have been approved. He pointed out that this figure required a review of the City’s current code requirements. He also noted that applicants have to pay a fee for variance applications. He explained that during the 2009 General Plan update and the 2015 Housing Element Update, Staff recognized that the public would be served by modifications to the Municipal Code.

Correspondence was received from: Michael Henn, David Hobstetter. Interim Planning Director Jackson led the Commission through the following discussions of various potential changes to the Municipal Code:

Reduce Parking Space Dimensions

At the April 11 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners directed Staff to draft code language for the reduction in the parking space dimensions, but they were not yet ready to choose what those dimensions might be. Upon direction from the Commission, Staff conducted a survey of parking space sizes required by other jurisdictions and collected more information regarding parking variances in Piedmont. Interim Planning Director Jackson reported that the survey of other jurisdictions does not provide a clear indication of what size parking space might be appropriate, but that variance research from Piedmont shows a 90% approval rating in variances for parking space size. He suggested that the Commission might consider reducing the minimum parking space size to 8.5 feet by 18 feet.

The Commission unanimously directed Staff to move forward with the code modifications related to revising the parking space dimensions to 8.5 feet by 18 feet.

Relax the Requirements on the Number of Parking Spaces Required

Interim Planning Director Jackson reported that many jurisdictions simply require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit or allow additional parking spaces to be uncovered or tandem. He also reported that variance research from Piedmont shows an 85% approval rating in variances from the required number of parking spaces. He suggested that the Commission might consider allowing a parking exception for up to four bedrooms, allowing tandem or uncovered parking to comply, or relaxing the parking requirements in other ways.

The Commissioners discussed the topic at length, and questioned whether the parking requirements should be based on the number of bedrooms, the house square footage, the intensity of use, the parking situation in the neighborhood, or other site characteristics. Commissioner Theophilos acknowledged the Commission’s leniency, but was hesitant to make changes to the code for fear that the 15% of projects that are currently not approved would be permitted. He argued that the decision should be subjective and based on the parking situation in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Ramsey suggested that the current regulations are similar to those you would find in a more auto-oriented community, and he warned that strict compliance with these regulations would slowly change the neighborhoods. He expressed concern for the high approval ratings of variances, which he said indicates that the Code is not in line with the built environment. He suggested that innovative solutions, such as tandem parking, would help to keep the historic character of Piedmont while still accommodating the intent of the code.

Commissioner Jajodia questioned whether adding a fourth bedroom was really intensifying the use of a property and argued that the threshold for adding another parking space should be much greater than adding one bedroom. She also suggested that regulations that are too restrictive can sometimes preclude good design.

Ultimately, the Commission came to a consensus and directed Staff to move forward with the following code modifications:

 – Allow a property owner with nonconforming parking to add bedrooms, up to 4 total, if

uncovered and/or tandem spaces exist on site that are not in the 20-foot front (street) setback. The total number of spaces should be that required by code: two.

– Modify Section 17.16.1 to allow consideration of available street parking and existing street width as criteria in determining as to whether to strictly apply the parking requirements. Such a modification would provide flexibility to require covered non-tandem parking if on-street parking is congested and the proposed construction is seen to have an adverse impact on neighborhood congestion.

Allow Accessory Structures within the Side and Rear Setbacks

Interim Planning Director Jackson asked the Commission for direction on whether to allow limited-sized Accessory Structures within the side and rear setbacks. He explained that this change would allow small garages to be located along alleys and rear and side property lines.

The Commission unanimously directed Staff to move forward with the code modifications related to measuring setbacks to Accessory Structures.

Amend Structure Coverage to Not Include Site Features

The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Planning Commission re: July 11 Agenda Item 9; City Code Chapter 17 Modifications proposals. 

Honorable Commission,

       The City Charter states “no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election (p. 22).” The staff report recommends allowing in Zone B “for-profit entities because the City may want to allow a community-serving business, such as a local newspaper or beverage stand, to operate out of a City building (p3 of 2016-07-11 Report)”. Currently for-profit entities are not allowed in Zone B in the public zone. As zoning is the critical mandate in controlling land use, I believe a City wide vote is needed to allow this fundamental change to allow for-profit in Zone B.

     I ask for clarification and I ask the Commission to obtain clarification from staff as to what is the threshold and definition of zone reclassification and why the addition of “for-profit” is not reclassification.

     Should a for-profit business be allowed, there are deserving segments of our community that have been identified in the General Plan. The 801 Magnolia building might be ideal for a teen or senior center.  Additionally, a café for the Piedmont Center for the Arts also has wide appeal.

     The term “community-serving business” must also embody that all segments of the community are given equal treatment. The reference in the staff report to “local newspaper” can only be the wholly Piedmont serving local newspaper, the Piedmont Post. While the Post does a proper job of reporting sports and social events, Piedmont Post publishing ethics do not include objective reporting on the passage of taxes, potential taxes and how tax dollars are used. The Piedmont Post has a sharply skewed editorial bias in support of City Hall actions. Those who oppose city taxes are shut out from virtually any space in the Post and/or opposition comments are grossly misreported. The many who opposed the partially taxpayer funded “no taxpayer cost” Blair Park Sports Complex were denied equal access in the Post.

     I suggest removing the recommendation for a “local newspaper” in Zone B. Another option in the interest of transparency is to substitute “Piedmont Post” for “local newspaper” and remove “community-serving business.”

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

Following is a letter sent to the Piedmont Planning Commission regarding a proposal to allow for-profit uses of public properties.  The matter will be considered at the July 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.

Staff is recommending that you consider language changes to “Zone B: Public Buildings – Uses and Regulations” of Chapter 17 to allow for-profit businesses in city buildings.

As rationale, staff suggests that these businesses be “community-serving” businesses.  I recommend you direct staff to not adopt such language and if any changes be proposed, that explicit language be added to encourage the location of non-profit organizations into city buildings, specifically the 801 Magnolia Building.

First, the general requirement for Conditional Use Permits that businesses provide services used by city residents has always had little teeth and past Commissions have struggled to define what such businesses are.

Secondly, the examples of such businesses offered by staff, a newspaper and beverage stand,  need not be located in the Civic Center and are already operating within the city limits and Civic Center area.  And most importantly, such for profit businesses would block out the development of important non-profit community services that residents have been calling for for years.

For a discussion of those services, I suggest you read the 2007 General Plan Community Survey to which over 1200 residents responded indicating their preferences for policies and capital improvements in town (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/whatsnew/gp_survey_report.pdf), specifically Tables 5 and 7.

Two of the highest requested community improvements in that survey are the development of more gathering spaces in the Civic Center area and the development of a teen/senior center.  The 801 Magnolia Building is the best suited of any of our civic buildings for the development of these community services and should be encouraged through Chapter 17 code revisions.

For-profit businesses, while of some utility, will not lead to optimal use of this limited space for all of the community, nor at no cost.  Space in Zone B is quite limited so leave the development of new for-profit businesses to Zone C, which also happens to be in the center of town, just across the street from Zone B, where the community can just as easily avail themselves of these for-profit services.

Garrett Keating, Former member of the Piedmont City Council

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

During its regularly scheduled and broadcast meeting on Tuesday, July 5, 2016, at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, the City Council will receive a report titled:

Informational update on Climate Action Plan implementation, a 2014 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, and implementation of Environmental Task Force actions

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2016-07-05/CAP-ETF_update.pdf

The Piedmont Planning Commission’s action on rejection of the proposed BESO law is not noted in the report.

The majority of the Commission members favored a voluntary program rather than the mandatory proposed BESO ordinance.

Below is an excerpt from the staff report which does not take into consideration the Planning Commission’s BESO recommendation to the Council.

“ Building Energy Savings Ordinance (BESO): The purpose of a BESO is to increase property owner awareness of energy savings potential, increase the value of the home through a green-rating system, and reduce GHG emissions through voluntary adoption of efficiency upgrades by property owners. A more stringent version of this ordinance, called a Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO) is recommended in the 2005 CAP as having the largest potential to meet the GHG reduction goals. After research, public input, and Council direction, staff has developed a draft ordinance that will be taken to Council for its consideration in the months ahead. Similar measures have been already been adopted in cities including Austin and Berkeley. Based on their results, approximately 12% of homes would adopt energy efficiency measures within the first year and estimated GHG savings from the draft BESO would be approximately 139 metric tons of CO2e by 2020. This program would fulfill CAP Measure BE 2.1.”

You can also follow the link below to find more information on the City’s website regarding Piedmont’s Climate Action Program.

The Piedmont Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council that the proposed Building Energy Savings Ordinance (BESO) not be adopted.  

The online survey yielded considerable opposition to the ordinance from residents.

Voluntary rather than mandatory….

A new ordinance proposed by the City Planning Department to require an energy audit of Piedmont homes and properties prior to being sold did not receive approval by the Planning Commission on June 13. The ordinance, intended to support Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan, was considered by the Commission for approximately an hour and half at the Planning Commission meeting as the Commission listened to public testimony and deliberated on the matter.

An online survey that had been conducted by the Piedmont Planning Department showed overwhelming opposition to the proposed ordinance.

Most of the public participants at the meeting supported the ordinance. Former Council member Garrett Keating and members of Piedmont CONNECT, including Margaret Ovendeen spoke in favor of the ordinance indicating a desire to make the ordinance even broader, more comprehensive and rigorous.*  Debbie Fitzgerald, a real estate agent, argued that when properties are sold many reports are done – termite, roof, chimney, etc. – and adding another report would not be burdensome to home sellers.

Speaking against the ordinance was Piedmont real estate agent Nancy Lehrkind, who detailed her negative experiences with Berkeley’s BESO law.   She explained that energy information from PG&E can readily be provided on properties without a new law requiring the added expense and complications of a consultant.

A letter from Piedmont resident Rick Schiller pointed to another cost being placed on seniors who were already heavily burdened with local taxes.

Commissioners opposing the law and the use of energy consultants preferred audits on a voluntary basis for individual homes, further noting that information can be obtained through PG&E, which actively provides not only energy usage information but information on ways to reduce energy consumption. Mentioned was that reports prepared prior to the sale of property are voluntary rather than required by law making the ordinance contrary to market driven practices.

Heat source replacement, caulking, solar panels, double pane windows, insulation, roofing, etc.

Ordinance requirements:

The proposed ordinance requires energy consultants to complete an energy audit paid for by property owners prior to the sale of property.  The consultant would inventory an entire home or building looking for ways to reduce energy use.  Projects identified in the professional audit could range from heat source replacement, to caulking, to solar panels, to double pane windows, to insulation, etc. An energy grade would then be assigned to the building accompanied by a list of projects and qualified contractors to do the work.  The audit  itself would cost approximately $300 to $500.  The completed audit would then be filed for a fee with the City and become public information.

 The State of California establishes building construction requirements to reduce energy use.

Commissioners pointed out that when remodels are permitted by the City, they are required to reduce energy usage through the permitting process.  Since only approximately 150 of the 3,800 Piedmont homes sell each year, to accomplish a change in energy usage by the proposed sales method would not meet the 2020 goals in the Climate Action Plan.

The Planning staff was asked about the actions already taken through the more prevalent remodeling permit process and the impact on achieving energy goals.  Statistics have not been kept  by the Building and Planning Departments regarding the ongoing achievements made through the course of the permitting process.

The Planning staff was encouraged by Commissioners to come up with ways to promote energy reduction through information services, perhaps at festivals or other public information methods.

Preferring market driven, voluntary actions, Commissioner Tony Theophilos, an attorney, was vigorous in his opposition to the proposed law to be imposed on homeowners as being ineffective and problematic.  He was joined by Commissioners Tom Zhang and Aradhana Jajodia both of whom are architects, who felt the approach would yield few results towards reducing Piedmont’s carbon footprint, while imposing more costs on home sellers by an unproductive law. The three Commissioners voted to not recommend adoption by the City Council.

Supporting the proposed ordinance were Commissioners Eric Behrens and Tom Ramsey, who wanted to work towards meeting Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan goals and saw the requirement as a small way to encourage reduced energy usage.  Although supporting the ordinance as a first step, Ramsey, an architect, wanted a stronger ordinance that was more comprehensive.* The two Commissioners voted against the motion.

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

The proposed ordinance and Commission recommendation to not adopt the ordinance will be agendized at a future Council meeting.   

Read Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan > here.

Read the staff report and proposed ordinance > here.

Click the link below to send an email  to the City Council via the City Clerk, John Tulloch at > jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us 

*Revised 6/19/16

The proposed energy saving ordinance has met with strong opposition from Piedmonters.

Most respondents to a City Survey did not encourage the Council to adopt Building Energy Savings Ordinance (BESO) mandates in a new ordinance. Even real estate agents largely opposed it.

In April, 2016 the City invited real estate agents, contractors, residents “who had previously indicated interest in Climate Action Plan updates” and others to complete an online survey about possible Building Energy Savings Ordinances (BESO) for Piedmont. The survey was intended to help City staff develop a BESO ordinance.

The BESO would require a home energy assessment at homeowner expense whenever a house is sold, at a certain date for every owner, or at the time of renovation to a yet to be determined extent.

The assessor would prepare a Home Energy Report on the property which would result in an official Home Energy Score (HES) from the Department of Energy.

Piedmont homeowners who responded to the survey were overwhelmingly opposed to a BESO ordinance.

Real estate agents who are not Piedmont residents were inclined to support a BESO ordinance that was only triggered by renovation, not by sale of the home. Real estate agents who are Piedmont residents opposed BESO triggered by either renovation or sale.

The matter will be considered at the Planning Commission, meeting Monday, June 13, 2016 starting at 5 p.m. at 120 Vista Avenue, City Hall.  The meeting is open to public participation and will also be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and on the City website under “online video.”

Agenda for the June 13, 2016 meeting <

Read the staff report and the BESO survey here.<

The proposed ordinance is part of the City’s Climate Action Program agreed to by the City Council in their efforts to reduce Piedmont’s carbon footprint.  Since Piedmont does not have factories or large polluting facilities, energy reduction in housing has been turned to as a way to control energy usage in Piedmont.

Notification about the proposed homeowner energy retrofit requirements was sent to some of those requesting information, as follows:

“You are receiving this email because you had asked to be notified of any activity by the Planning Commission or City Council related to the City’s climate action program.

“Item 3 on the agenda for the June 13, 2016 meeting of the Piedmont Planning Commission is the consideration of revisions to City Code Chapter 17F to include requirements for a Building Energy Report and Score at the time of sale of a residential building. Posted on the City’s website are information on this topic and a link to the staff report, Exhibit A of which outlines the proposed code changes.

“Planning Commission will consider whether to recommend that the City Council adopt the code changes, known as a Building Energy Savings Ordinance (BESO). The recommendation will be brought to City Council at a meeting later this summer.

“You are encouraged to provide your comments on the Code changes under consideration by attending the meeting and/or by submitting written comments. You can submit your written comments to the Commission by sending an email to Assistant Planner Emily Alvarez or on paper to the address below.”

Kevin Jackson, AICP

Interim Planning Director

City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

Tel: (510) 420-3039

Fax: (510) 658-3167

The Piedmont Planning Commission will hear and consider a presentation by staff on proposed revisions to the City’s Zoning Code (Chapter 17) on Monday, June 13, 120 Vista Avenue, City Hall.  The report by Kevin Jackson, Interim Planning Director is available here.<

Variances are Likely to be Granted

In response to requests from the Commission, staff researched several areas. (Read the City staff report here.)  The Commission wanted to know the rate at which variances are granted. Between 1996 and 2015, variances were generously granted at a rate of 81% for the whole decade. The leniency increased to an annual rate of 88% in the years 2013 -2015.

Staff advises that modifying the Code could reduce the necessity to request a variance. 

For example:

• Parking requirements could be reduced to allow fewer parking spaces and smaller off-street parking spaces.
• Setback requirements could be reduced and/or accessory structures might be allowed in side and rear yard setbacks.
• Lot coverage limitation of 40% might be changed or differently expressed.

Threshold for Commission Review

In 2000, the exterior construction threshold for Planning Commission review was increased from $10,000 to $75,000, greatly increasing the numbers of building permit applications authorized for review by the City staff. Staff proposes increasing the threshold to $100,000 or $125,000.

At the public hearing the Commission will take testimony from members of the public on the revisions under consideration. The Commission may then provide comments or direction to the staff on updates and revisions to the City’s Zoning Code  and Residential Design Review Guidelines.

Read the June 13, 2016 Planning Commission agenda here.<

The meeting is open to the public and will be live broadcast on Channel 27 and webcast on the City’s website.   Consideration of the zoning changes are Item 16 on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, June 13, 2016.  The hearing is item 16 on the agenda, scheduled at the end of the meeting at an undetermined time.

City Code: Current Chapter 17, the Zoning Code.

The following letter was written to the Piedmont Planning Commission opposing a Building Energy Saving Ordinance (BESO). 

June 9, 2016

Piedmont Planning Commission
c/o Asst Planner Emily Alvarez

Re: June 13 Hearing on BESO 

Dear Planning Commission,

The June 13, 2015 Staff report summarizes at page three 72% of residents and 72% of Real Estate professionals are opposed to any form of BESO. Additionally the most onerous form of BESO, the “date-certain” requirement for all homes had a low 1 in 14 approval rating. Considering the overwhelmingly negative community response to BESO, this matter should be tabled.

PG&E provides a wealth of free information. Double paned windows, adequate insulation and other energy conservation issues are easily and readily understood and available; most of us know how to make our homes more energy efficient and have taken steps in that direction as family budget allows. A separate Energy Audit at owner expense is not needed. While the City of Berkeley BESO includes buildings by a certain date, the Berkeley BESO phase-in schedule applies to all “building(s) except houses 1-4 units.”

(http://www.cityofberkeley.info/BESOschedule/).

This is a regressive ordinance that would potentially place considerable increased costs on fixed income seniors in older homes. If required at time of sale, those seniors in older homes will now have a report on home energy efficiency used against the sales price. Another layer of government is not needed in an already complex landscape.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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