The City Council will hold a public hearing March 16, City Hall at 7:30 p.m. to consider ordinances covering the use of residential housing for temporary short-time rentals, similar to a hotel. Airbnb and other internet sites facilitate these short term rentals. The Planning Commission has considered the matter and voiced objection to permitting the rentals.  Kate Black, Piedmont’s City Planning Director, has distributed the following letter:

I am writing to let you know that the Piedmont City Council will hold a discussion and public hearing concerning the use of Piedmont residences for short term rentals at their Regular Meeting of March 16, 2015. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

For purposes of the discussion, short term rentals are those with a duration of fewer than 30 days, sometimes facilitated through internet sites that specialize in matching people who wish to rent their properties (“hosts”) with people who wish to rent for short periods (“guests”). The discussion will cover short term rentals of single-family residences, second units, apartments, and rooms in a residence. The Piedmont Planning Commission discussed this matter on September 18, 2014, and recommended that short term rentals be prohibited in Piedmont.

A staff report on this subject will be available by 9:00 am on Friday, March 13, 2015 on the City’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us. You are encouraged to attend the meeting and express your opinions and ideas. Alternatively, you may wish to watch the City Council hearing on KCOM, cable 27 or by logging on to the city’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us: on the right hand side of the homepage under the “City Council” heading, click on the “Online Video” link, then click on the “March 16, 2015” heading, click on the “Video” or “In Progress” link, and start watching!

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email or call Kate Black, 420-3063.

Written comments may be sent to the City Council, c/o Piedmont City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or by email to: jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us. Correspondence received by the City Clerk is considered part of the public record.

Kate Black, City Planning Director, 420-3063

The Piedmont City Council will meet on Wednesday, February 25 with a closed session in the City Hall Conference Room beginning at 5:30 p.m. to evaluate the City Administrator.  Following the closed session, the Council will have a public meeting with one agenda item in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.

The single agenda item in the public session is consideration of modification to the Conditions of Approval for a new home at 53 Cambrian Avenue. The project was originally approved by the Council in 2009.  Read the staff report.

The meeting will be live streamed and broadcast on KCOM Channel 27.

In my opinion, I also support this project. In talking with the homeowner, I realized how much time and effort was put into remediating the neighbors’ complaints. It is important to note that there is an existing structure on the property, and the new structure would replace that. I feel that the neighbors’ concerns are unfounded based on the revised plans. Not only does the structure blend in with the property, but it is a logical upgrade for the homeowners.

Kevin Shum, Piedmont High School Student

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

The Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Committee will be meeting in the City Hall conference room on Thursday, February 19 at 7 p.m. The meeting will not be broadcast or recorded, but is open to the public. The CIP Review Committee is composed of seven members, 4 appointed by the City Council, chairs of both the Recreation and Park Commission, plus the current President of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation, a private organization benefiting Piedmont.

The Committee  makes recommendations to the City Council on Piedmont’s major improvement projects. Citizens may propose projects on a Citizen Proposal Form, available from City Hall. Many past projects have originated from the City staff and the Piedmont Beautification Foundation.

The February 19 CIP agenda includes:

Public Forum – When anyone may address the Committee on a matter not on the agenda.

1. Welcome and introductions

2. Election of Chair

3. Committee Roster, length of terms – The newly constituted Committee membership has not been made public.

4. Charge to the Committee, process, purpose, structure, objectives, etc.  This will be a staff report with information available at the meeting.

5. CIP project status report –  The project list can change from prior years depending on current preferences, funding, and completion of projects.

6. Review of proposed work schedule and CIP tour –  Last year, a tour was held at various sites resulting in a recommendation to the City Council that Hampton Field should be the priority for the use of Piedmont’s $500,000+ entitlement from the voter approved East Bay Regional Park District bond funds.

In the past, staff proposals have included various projects from curtains to medians.

7. Future meeting dates – Staff has proposed a list of meetings and bench marks.

Hand outs will be made available to those present at the Committee meeting.

For questions or additional information on the CIP Review Committee, contact Mark Feldkamp, Parks and Project Manager at  510/420-3064 or mfeldkamp@ci.piedmont.ca.us

It is the directive of City Council that Piedmont achieves a 75% diversion rate of material from its solid waste stream.  As the staff report indicates, there has been some fluctuation in the estimate of Piedmont’s annual diversion rate by StopWaste. From my time on the Solid Waste Management Authority Board (SWMA), “outliers” were usually found in some years and corrected by StopWaste staff.  To my recollection, the 84% and 69% rates were attributed to a misreporting of tonnage at the landfill and are inaccurate.  When those numbers are excluded, the trend of Piedmont approaching the 75% goal is more evident and is paralleled by diversion rates calculated by Republic Sanitary Services (numbers from the RSS 2013 Annual Report).

 Diversion Rates:

	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
StopWaste	60	63	64	66	73	84	75	69	71	80
RSS						68.5	67.6	68.4	71.3	72.7

Diversion Rates:

The performance audit of RSS should certainly look into this discrepancy but there are likely methodological differences beyond RSS’s control that explain the different estimates.  Both trends are currently capturing the diversion of recyclables and organics.

The adoption of 75% goal was a mandate of the SWMA authority of its members to continue to receive funding and it appears Piedmont is on the way to achieving that goal.  In my last year on the Board, there was an interest in moving away from these calculated diversion rates, which most cities had achieved or were close to, to actual measurement of “divertables” – recyclable and compostable materials – that are in the solid waste. This is the basis for the benchmarking study, which is based on a survey of waste containers and just came out last week. That report showed Piedmont to be an excellent recycler (less that 5% recyclables in the city’s trash) but a below average composter (39% compostable material in the city’s trash).  I think it would useful to evaluate RSS performance in the collection of green waste as part of the performance audit.

Garrett Keating, Former City Councilmember

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Volunteers Wanted To Fill Committee Vacancy

Applications are currently being accepted from individuals who are interested in volunteering to serve on the AC Transit District’s Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC).

The Recruitment Notice and Application, as well as information about the Committee can be found by clicking the links below. The deadline for submitting an application is January 30, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Send the application to:

Office of the District Secretary
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
1600 Franklin Street, 10th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Fax:  (510) 891-4705
www.actransit.org 

About the Committee 

AC Transit is currently seeking volunteers who are interested in serving on the Accessibility Advisory Committee.  All openings on the committee during calendar year 2015 will be filled from qualified applications received during this recruitment.  Please consult the Recruitment Notice for more information.  The deadline to submit an Application is January 30, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.

The Accessibility Advisory Committee was established by the Board of Directors in 1991 to review, comment and advise the Board of Directors and District staff regarding the implementation and enhancement of planning programs and services for seniors and people with disabilities. The AAC consists of 14 members with two members being appointed by each of the seven elected members of the District’s Board of Directors. Committee members serve a one year term.

Any individual that utilizes AC Transit’s fixed-route service, is a senior or an individual with a disability and/or represents such groups, and is willing to devote the necessary hours to attend meetings of the Committee shall be eligible for appointment.

The Board of Directors encourages that membership on the Committee be ethnically diverse and cover all geographical areas of the District’s service area as well as representation by/for seniors and individuals with varying types of disabilities.

The AAC reviews, comments, and advises the Board of Directors and District staff on the implementation and enhancement of programs and services for seniors and people with disabilities. 

For additional information, click on the following link:

2015 Recruitment Notice and Application; Information about the AAC

Note: To contact a member of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, please call Tammy Kyllo, Secretary to the Committee, at (510) 891-7175.

The following is an article written by Piedmont High School student observer Minhong Yang. 

On Monday, November 3, 2014, the Piedmont City Council met in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:30 sharp that evening for its semi-monthly meeting. Acting as the legislative branch of the city government, the council reviewed various proposals on issues that ranged from the street use permit for the annual Turkey Trot Race to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, most of which welcomed the members of the public to participate in the decision making process before the votes were casted by council members.

The major issue discussed at the meeting was the consideration of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (PBMP) as recommended by the Planning Commission. As one of Piedmont’s most comprehensive community based planning projects, PBMP’s goal is to promote safer and more convenient walking and bicycling in the city while paying special attention to the needs of school children. Since the summer of 2013, the City’s planning staffs, particularly Kate Black and Janet Chan, had been preparing this extensive plan based upon inputs received at 9 commission public hearings, 2 special sessions at community workshops, 2 online community surveys, several Piedmont Unified District Board meetings, and a number of other community outreach.

The final draft plan was introduced by Mr. Niko Letunic, the City’s transportation and planning consultant, through a detailed powerpoint presentation. According to Mr. Letunic, PBMP has received a $1.6 million fund from the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Covering a 10-year period, the plan contains a series of projects to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists throughout the city. Those that are the most important and promising physical improvements for improving conditions, such as bikeway network and enhanced street crossings at busy locations, are given high-priority; those that may be implemented if the city obtains additional funding, such as curb ramps and bollard lighting, are given low-priority. Most of these projects target the Civic Center, arterials, and routes to school.

Public testimony for PBMP was received from Sue Herrick, Park Commission Chair, and Nick Levinson, Recreation Commission Chair, who praised the plan for providing an excellent template for clear and consistent safety measures, as well as regulations for both pedestrians and school children with bicycles. They emphasized that the compelling concern is safety, particularly for school areas and major intersections, and voiced strong support for slowing traffic speeds. Tracey Woodruff, a resident of Piedmont, also showed strong support for PBMP, noting specifically how the road diet for Grand Avenue would help to protect school children when they cross this heavily-traveled area. Her opinion was concurred by Margaret Ovenden and Susy Struble, who also noted the need to reduce traffic congestion at school sites and the need to improve pedestrian and bike safety along areas not directly mentioned in PBMP, respectively. Finally, members of the council, including Tim Rood, Jeffrey Wieler and Robert McBain, all complimented the plan, and requested the City to work with the City of Oakland in implementing the Grand Avenue road diet, to pay more attention to sidewalk maintenance, and to work with community organizations in raising more money for improving pedestrian and bicycle pathways within the community. PBMP was then passed unanimously.

I personally support PBMP, mostly for its overall detailed layouts and efforts to improve students’ safety around school areas. In fact, this was the topic that I spoke about during the meeting. I voiced my hope to see street guards at both the middle school and high school to ensure students’ safety as well as to reduce traffic congestion. My concern was well-received by the council members, particularly the mayor, Margaret Fujioka. I was initially a little nervous about speaking in a city council meeting, but afterwards I felt that this experience was not scary but was rather pleasant and refreshing.

In an interview with Ms. Fujioka, she said the council is currently trying to reach out to the community by making announcement during the meetings, regularly putting up posts on the city’s website, and having more articles about city projects on The Piedmont Post in order to encourage more people to participate in the projects that the city is working on. She noted PBMP as an example of great public participation, and expressed her hope to see more of it in the future.

Minhong Yang

A Report on the Special Piedmont Planning Commission Meeting

– by Jordan Wong, a Piedmont Resident and PHS Student

The City of Piedmont Planning Commission met  on Thursday, October 30, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers for a special session.  This meeting’s purpose was to provide an update on the progress  on the state-mandated Draft Housing Element that all cities in California are required to comply with and submit.The Housing Element document’s purpose is to spell out the housing policies for all California cities from 2015-2022.

The City of Piedmont is small and has no land to further develop for any new housing. With the help of a private consultant, Barry Miller, the Planning Commission is able to include the addition of second units as a way to comply with the Housing Element. Part of the draft process is to allow residents to have the opportunity to provide comments or suggestions. There was no opposition from the Commission or audience about the progress and content of the draft at that meeting.

Barry Miller, a consultant  for  the City of  Piedmont, presented a detailed explanation of the draft and the Commission concurred with his findings and recommendations. Director of Planning, Kate Black, reported that she was happy with the working draft with Barry Miller’s work thus far in finding a way to comply with the State and preserving the landscape of Piedmont. Piedmont resident, Dimitri Magganas, from the audience, commended the Commission for their work on the Housing Element draft and wanted to bring to their attention that there was a lot of unused public space. It is unclear if this comment meant public space could be considered to add more housing or if there was a way to open up some of these public spaces for development.

In an interview with the Director of Planning, Kate Black, she said it was important for the public to be informed about the Housing Element’s progress. The special meeting was an update on the progress of the draft and if the public wanted to make any suggestions on what had been presented, that evening was a good time to do it. The next action of the Planning Commission is to present the Housing Element to the City Council for further action.

The topic I presented was on security cameras and the need for guidelines and/or regulations for their placement and installation. This is an ongoing issue in my neighborhood and I really feel that there is a privacy issue that should be addressed by the Planning Commission.  Director of Planning, Kate Black, acknowledged my concern and said that they will be reviewing and updating the Code soon and will add my request to their agenda. I was a little nervous about speaking in public, but the Commission members were very nice and appeared to pay attention to what I had to say about the security cameras. Personally, I think they were surprised that I was there and had an issue to present.

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

The following is the text of Mr. Wong’s comments to the Planning Commission.

“Hello, my name is Jordan Wong, I am a senior at Piedmont High. This is an item that is not on your agenda this evening. I observed the Planning Commission uses design review for home remodeling and fences. Do you foresee adding design review for home security cameras in the future? There is a proliferation of security cameras on so many homes in Piedmont. I suggest there should be some guidelines for placement. They are not only unattractive but they stick out like a sore thumb which some may find interesting because there is so much input needed for a fence but nothing for a camera.  I bring this up particularly as I feel there is an invasion of privacy in my own backyard. A home for sale behind my house, currently unoccupied, had security cameras installed. One in particular looks down into our backyard. As you can understand, I feel it is an invasion of privacy and I would like a review of security camera placement requirements of either a permit or a design review. Thank you.”

The Piedmont Park Commission will discuss the Hampton Sports Field project, Crocker Park garage removal, street tree pruning, the sculpture for the Hall Fenway, Arbor Day, and the Linda-Kingston triangle project at its Wednesday, November 5 meeting in City Hall beginning at 5:30 pm.  The meeting is open to the public and will be broadcast on Channel 27 and the City’s website.

Read agenda of November 5 meeting.

Read minutes of prior Park Commission meeting.

Road diets, designated routes to school, bike lanes, and the crosswalk at Wildwood Avenue and Grand Avenue will be considered. 

The Piedmont Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan will be considered by the Council on Monday, November 3, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Piedmont City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.

One of Piedmont’s most comprehensive community based planning projects has resulted in an extensive Piedmont Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (PBMP). Funding for the plan has come from an Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC;www.alamedactc.org) grant and through the City’s existing funds for pedestrian and bicycle improvements (pass-through Measure B funds), also distributed by the Alameda CTC.

Great interest and participation by Piedmont’s many walkers, bikers, teachers, students, and residents have brought concerns and issues to the discussion.

On August 20, the Piedmont School Board was presented with the plan by planning consultant, Niko Letunic and Director of Planning Kate Black. Board President Andrea Swenson told the presenters that the School District would wait until the City completed their projects to improve sidewalk and street safety before further encouraging families to walk and bike to school.

At their October 13, 2014 meeting, the Piedmont Planning Commission considered the final draft plan.  Based on discussions at the meeting, the Commission recommended the Council approve the plan with specific additions and amendments.

Will “Road Diets” solve a perceived problem in Piedmont?

Road diets:

 The second paragraph on page 79 was amended to read: “While the PBMP includes general concept drawings for road diets (on pages 79 and 81), detailed design and traffic engineering drawings will need to be made before the projects are implemented, and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The design for Highland Avenue could consider the possibility of landscaped islands and it will need to ensure the turn lane accommodates left-turning AC Transit buses at Oakland Avenue.”

Planned road diets would eliminate two lanes of through traffic on both Highland and Grand Avenues.  On Grand Avenue, increased congestion in the area around the ACE Hardware store with vehicles stacking up and blocking traffic, plus a possible elimination of one or more parking spaces are concerns.  On Highland Avenue, the island medians could create problems for large buses making turns and create traffic congestion around the Mulberry driveway entrance. Prior concern was expressed over a median in the middle of Highland Avenue impeding the Fourth of July parade activities and preventing homeowners from turning left to enter their driveways, creating multiple U-turns at the intersections.

According to the Federal Department of Transportation, “Road Diets” became increasingly popular in the 1990’s, “with installations occurring in both rural and urban states such as Iowa and Minnesota. A classic road diet typically involves converting an existing four-lane, undivided roadway segment to a three-lane segment consisting of two through lanes and a center, two-way left-turn lane.”

Hazardous crosswalk at Wildwood and Grand Avenues:

 Last paragraph on page 101 be amended to read: “Coordinate with Oakland staff on the funding, planning, design and implementation of bikeways connecting the two cities, and other roadway improvements of importance to both cities, including the intersection of Wildwood and Grand Avenues.”

Repeatedly mentioned in prior hearings, the crosswalk at Wildwood and Grand Avenues is long, hazardous creating pedestrian difficulties. The crosswalk is actually in Oakland and consequently Piedmont does not have control of the design. The new language requires Piedmont to work with Oakland to improve the crosswalks.

At the November 3 meeting –

The City’s consultant will make a presentation to the Council on the development process of the plan and the contents of the Draft PBMP, and will be available for questions. Members of the public are welcome to speak at the meeting. The City Council may choose to adopt the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration and October 13 version of the Draft PBMP, or may wish to make further modifications.

As with other Master Plans, if conditions change, adjustments can be made to meet changing needs and funding sources.

Read the staff report to the City Council.

Hard copies of the Draft Plan and draft CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration document are available for review between the hours of 8:30 am – 12:00 pm and 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm Monday through Friday at the Public Works counter at City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

The Draft Plan and Draft of the CEQA document can also be accessed at the following links:

Draft Piedmont Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan dated October 13, 2014

Appendices: Comments received through the two online surveys on the needs assessment and on the improvement options

Draft of the CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration

You are invited to attend the City Council meeting and express your opinion.  You may choose to write your opinion and address your comment to the entire Piedmont City Council, c/o City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA  94611 or send an e-mail to jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us. All comments submitted will become part of the public record and may be posted to the City’s web site.

To watch the public hearing on KCOM, cable channel 27. Alternatively, if you want to watch the meeting live or later after the meeting, you can do so by logging on to the City’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us: on the right hand side of the homepage under the “KCOM” heading, click on the “On-line Video” link, then scroll down under the “Sections on this Page” heading, click on the “City Council” link, then on the “October 13, 2014″ link, and click on the “Video” or “In Progress” link and start watching!

Planning staff contacts:

Janet Chang, Assistant Planner, 510-420-3094      janetchang@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Kate Black, Director of Planning, 510-420-3063        kblack@ci.piedmont.ca.us