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. 

At the July 5, 2016 Council meeting, Bob McBain was chosen unanimously to become Piedmont’s Vice Mayor.  Jeff Wieler will continue as Piedmont’s “Acting Mayor.”

Following the November 2016 General Municipal Election, the Council will elect from the Council a Piedmont Mayor and a Vice Mayor to serve for two years.

Nomination papers for prospective candidates for November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election will be available from the City Clerk, John Tulloch – 

Beginning Monday, July 18, 2016 and must be returned no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 12, 2016

If an eligible incumbent fails to file, the deadline is extended to August 17, 2016 (Elections Code Section 10225.)

State law requires that nomination papers be issued in person by the City Clerk. Also, papers must be returned to the City Clerk, who will stamp the documents as received. Because of these requirements, the documents required for candidacy will not be posted to the web site.

The purpose of the General Municipal Election scheduled for November 8, 2016 is election of two (2) members of the City Council, for a regular term of four (4) years, and three (3) members of the Piedmont Board of Education for a regular term of four (4) years.

Also, on the November 8 ballot is a bond measure for the Piedmont Unified School District.

Candidate Deadlines –

• Monday, July 18, 2016 First day to File Nomination Papers for the November 8, 2016 General Election <
• Friday, August 12, 2016 Last day to File Nomination Papers for the November 8, 2016 General Election <

• School Bond Measure Deadlines –

• Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Last day to File Direct Arguments For/Against a Measure for the November 8, 2016 General Election <
• Monday, August 22, 2016 Last day to File Rebuttal Arguments For/Against a Measure for the November 8, 2016 General Election <

Read City staff report here. <

For more information, contact City Clerk John Tulloch at 510/420-3040.

After many years of planning and community participation, the Piedmont City Council approved the construction and implementation of the long awaited traffic, pedestrian safety and beautification project at Linda, Rose and Kingston Avenues.  Ray’s Electric, a misnomer for the construction company, was awarded the contract to fully construct the project with hardscape, electrical work, plantings, and irrigation. Former Mayor Craig Lundin of Tree Sculpture is donating trees for the project.  The total cost authorized is $ 283,594.

Residents involved in the project development and fundraising gave a round of applause to the Council for their foresight and approval of the project at a Piedmont entry providing both safety and beauty.

Read the prior PCA article for details on the project here. <

Should the Council elect both a Mayor and a Vice Mayor to serve until December 2016?

As a result of the resignation of Mayor Margaret Fujioka, effective at 11:59 p.m. on  June 21, 2016, Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler became Acting Mayor, a temporary position. 

City Charter: “SECTION 2.05 VACANCIES; FORFEITURE OF OFFICE; FILLING OF VACANCIES (A) VACANCIES. The office of a Councilmember shall become vacant upon his/her death, resignation, removal from office in any manner authorized by law, or forfeiture of office.”

City Administrator Paul Benoit recommends that the Council elect a new Vice Mayor at the July 5 meeting, to provide for the absence or disability of the Acting Mayor.

Piedmont City Charter states:

“SECTION 2.08 MAYOR Following each general municipal election, the City Council shall elect from among its member officers of the City who shall have the titles of Mayor and Vice-Mayor, each of whom shall serve at the pleasure of the Council. The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council, shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes and by the Governor for the purposes of military law, but shall have no administrative duties. The Vice-Mayor shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the Mayor. In case of the temporary absence or disability of both the Mayor and Vice-Mayor, the Council shall select one of its members to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore.”

There is no provision in the City Charter for a long-term, five month “Acting Mayor” to fill a vacancy.

The  Charter  refers to an absence. The resignation by Mayor Fujioka creates a vacancy under the Charter not an “absence.”  The word absence is used officially in Council minutes and documents.  For a Vice Mayor to be “acting” the Charter calls for an “absence” not a “vacancy.” 

City Charter states:

“The Vice-Mayor shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the Mayor. “

The remaining Council members are: Teddy King, Bob McBain, Tim Rood, and Jeff Wieler (Acting Mayor and former Vice Mayor.)  Both the Mayor and Vice Mayor serve at the pleasure of the Council.

The agenda item will be considered at the July 5, 2016 Council meeting that starts at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall.  The meeting will be broadcast live.

Read the Administrator’s recommendation here.

The vacancy on the Council created by Fujioka’s resignation will be filled by the City Council following interviews with candidates on July 19.  (Applications must be delivered to the City Clerk’s Office by 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, July 13, 2016. )

Council Asked to Authorize Contract with Ray’s Electric

The Kingston-Linda-Rose Triangle is on the City Council July 5 agenda.  The Council will receive a report recommending authorization of a contract with Ray’s Electric for their “base bid of $207,362. ” Three ornamental street lamps will be a feature of the Triangle.

The Capital Improvement Project Review Committee stated in their June 2016 recommendation to the City Council the following:

Linda/Kingston Triangle: $175,000 (As proposed by the CIP Review Committee)

This project was conceived many years ago and began to gain traction with the increased neighborhood involvement in 2013. The execution of this project will benefit the local residents and the City of Piedmont in many ways. It will foster increased safety for pedestrians, help mitigate traffic speed, increase awareness of drivers, remove unnecessary paving, and create an improved gateway into Piedmont. It should be noted that this project is the focus of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation’s spring fundraising efforts, thus promoting another public/private partnership for improvements that benefit the residents of Piedmont.

The Linda-Kingston Neighborhood has pledged $4,610, Piedmont Garden Club has pledged $2,000, and the Piedmont Beautification Foundation (PBF) has pledged a total of $31,305 toward the current estimated construction budget for the Triangle of $283,594.

• CIP Fund: $ 140,650 
• Measure B Bike/Ped (Fund #131): $ 65,689
• Gas Tax Fund (Fund #121): $ 39,340
• Private Pledges: $ 37,915
• Total Available Funding $ 283,594

The project provides a pedestrian triangle for pedestrians crossing from the City of Oakland side of the intersection to Piedmont along the southwest side in order to approximate the short pedestrian crossings across Rose and Kingston Avenues on the northeast side of Linda Avenue. It is hoped to also auto traffic.  The traffic study by traffic engineer consultant Kittelson & Associates, Inc. “made a stronger justification for the installation of “stops” at each intersection where there currently were none.” Following extensive Piedmont staff coordination with the City of Oakland, Stops were installed in October 2015.

The “current estimated construction budget ” in the staff report does not include the scope of services, leaving it unclear who will provide the masonry work, the landscaping and installation of the irrigation system.

The expense of the staff time devoted thus far and continuing is not included in the project budget presented.  For example, extensive staff negotiations with the City of Oakland and the new Parks and Projects Manager developed the Final Landscape Plan and  is coordinating “the design of the irrigation system with our consultant…”

Read the staff report here.

Read the Kittelson & Associates, Inc Kingston-Linda-Rose Triangle report here.

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.