FY18 Fare Increases on BART Board Agenda Thursday 9 am

The fare increase proposals presented to the BART Board on Thursday, March 9 would reduce discounts for seniors, youth aged five through 12 and people with disabilities from 62.5 percent to 50 percent. Proposed minimum fare would increase from $1.95 to $2.25 in 2018.  In addition, paper tickets would cost more than digital tickets.

Ridership began declining in 2015. In January 2017, weekday trips declined about 4 percent, and weekend trips declined 2 percent over 2016.

The BART Board will hear the staff’s proposed fare changes for the first time during their meeting on Thursday, March 9. The public is invited to attend the 9 am meeting in the Kaiser Mall, 344 20th Street, Oakland, on the third floor.  The “FY18 Possible Fare Modification Options” will be item 5 on the agenda. This is the best opportunity for the public to offer their recommendations and solutions to decreasing ridership before the Board takes a position or becomes committed to a particular approach

Agenda for March 9, 2017 BART Board meeting

More information here.

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/) 

In a unanimous decision on Thursday, March 2, the California Supreme Court ruled that texts and emails sent by public employees on their personal devices or accounts are a matter of public record if they deal with official business.

“A city employee’s communications related to the conduct of public business do not cease to be public records just because they were sent or received using a personal account,” Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote for the court.

Read the court decision here.

Read more.

“Unity in Community Rally”

Community members feeling a need to express inclusiveness have organized a Piedmont event for this Saturday, March 4, between 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. in Piedmont Main Park at 711  Highland Avenue.

For more information on the event go to:

Piedmont Appreciating Diversity Committee http://www.padc.info/ 

and http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/01/piedmont-rally-set-saturday-to-promote-inclusivity-for-all/

Television viewers will often see commentators and reporters broadcasting from the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The following message can be found on a wall at the Newseum.

_________________________________________

THE FREE PRESS IS A CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRACY

_________________________________________

People have a need to know.  Journalists have a right to tell.

Finding the facts can be difficult.  Reporting the story can be dangerous.

Freedom includes the right to be outrageous.  Responsibility includes the duty to be fair.

News is history in the making.  Journalist provide the first draft of history.

___________________________________________

A FREE PRESS, AT ITS BEST, REVEALS THE TRUTH.

___________________________________________

    On February 15th, 2017, the Piedmont Recreation Commission held its monthly meeting to discuss the updates and planning for construction projects around the city of Piedmont. The meeting covered construction of Hampton Field, the plan for the Piedmont Pool, Linda Beach Playfield restrictions, and various other proposed projects to improve Piedmont.

    The meeting was called to order and it was announced that the memorial service for Wildwood Elementary School teacher, Andy Weidcamp, would be held on March 8th. Shortly after announcements, a report was given about the Piedmont Community Pool by Aquatics Coordinator Tyler Waespi. The report involved details of activities the pool will be offering throughout the coming year. The medium pool will soon be opening and the Piedmont High School Swim Team will start practice beginning early March, marking the beginning of the pool’s spring season. Additionally, over Spring Break lifeguard training will be held to recruit lifeguards in preparation for the busyness of the pool over summer. Activities such as water polo, water aerobics, and swim lessons will be offered as summer approaches.

    Next, Recreation Director Sara Lillevand brought to discussion the Linda Beach Playfield restrictions, which set limits on when the field could be used by the public. These restrictions were made to allow time for sports programs to use the field that previously used Hampton Field which is currently under construction. It was proposed that public use of the Beach Playfield on Sundays be made permanent and that an additional four hour block of time for public use would also be allowed. Given that there have been no complaints about these changes to the Playfield access, the proposal was passed unanimously by the commissioners.

    The meeting next moved on to an update on Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) given by Commissioner Betsy Smegal Anderson. The CIP is a committee that residents can send ideas to about projects to better the city. It was suggested that the lights along the Piedmont Bridge along Oakland Avenue over Beach Playfield be extended. This project is currently being funded by the CIP and will soon undergo installation.

    Lastly, Director Lillevand gave an update on the construction of Hampton Park and the Aquatics Master Plan Concept. Four to five trees came down behind the basketball courts at Hampton Park during several storms and will delay the target opening date by one week. Hampton Park is set to have its grand opening on March 25th and all are welcome to attend the celebration. The Aquatics Master Plan requires a cost-operative test before a budget can be submitted to the City Council for their consideration.

    After the meeting had come to a close, Recreation Director Sara Lillevand was kind enough to share some of her thoughts about the meeting. She enjoys being a part of these meetings and being able to influence projects that bring positive changes to the city. Having discussed the Hampton Park project on several occasions, she is very excited for its completion and looks forward to the grand opening.

By Ian Dickson, Piedmont High School Senior

Recreation Commission discusses Linda Beach Playfield Restrictions, the progress of the Hampton Park Improvement Project, and progress on the Aquatics Center Design.

    On the evening of February 15, 2017, I attended the monthly meeting of the Piedmont Recreation Commission at the Piedmont City Council Chambers (120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA, 94611), where they discussed the upkeep of the City’s recreational facilities. On this particular night, the commission covered such topics as the Linda Beach Playfield Restrictions, the progress of the Hampton Park Improvement Project, and a price estimate for the Aquatics Master Plan Conceptual Design.

    The meeting began with Tyler Waespi, the Aquatics Director at the Piedmont Pool, giving a presentation about the the programs and opportunities that the pool would be offering in the coming months. Waespi covered information regarding the seasons of Fall, Spring, and Summer, and what each season would offer. Swim lessons would be available on Monday thru Thursday during all three seasons for anyone interested with the exception of Spring Break. During which time the pool will be offering the Spring Break Aqua-Camp for any youth that are interested.

    Following the presentation on the Piedmont Pool, Recreation Director Sara Lillevand discussed the success of the restrictions on the Linda Beach playfield that were implemented during the Hampton Park construction to address noise complaints from the surrounding residents. Due to the success of the restrictions, Lillevand proposed making these restrictions permanent with a motion made by Commissioner Steve Roland and passed unanimously by the commissioners.

    Lillevand then updated the commission on the progress of the Hampton Park Improvement Project in light of recent weather related setbacks. The final steps in the completion of the field, the pouring of the concrete, may need to be postponed due to the weather in order to ensure that the concrete is able to set properly. The extreme wind also caused four of the trees towards the back of the park to fall, which must be removed by a cleanup team before construction can continue. At the time of the meeting, construction was a week behind but estimated to improve due to the weather forecast over the next few weeks.

    Finally, Lillevand concluded the meeting with an update on the Aquatics Master Plan Conceptual Design. Since no members of the audience were prepared to speak about the topic, the details of the plan were not repeated from last meeting.  An “operational cost analysis” will be acquired and presented to the Council at their second meeting in March or first meeting in April according to Lillevand.  The commission could then continue with the implementation of the plan.

    After the meeting came to a close, I approached Director Sara Lillevand to ask her a few questions about her time as Director of Recreation. For Ms. Lillevand, “working on projects such as Hampton Park allows [her] to have a direct positive impact on the community”, something that few other jobs can offer. When asked about her reaction to the meeting that just took place, she responded saying that she enjoyed the meeting like she does with the majority of her Recreation Commission meetings. Lillevand stated, “It is always exciting when a project is nearing completion,” and for a project such as the the Hampton Park Improvement Project where weather has caused some unpredictable issues, it is important to stay in the right state of mind and not let the issues go without acting on them. Overall, she is happy to be working with a group of people that are so involved with the betterment of the community, and cannot wait to see the finished Hampton Park project.

by Geoffrey Burge, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.