Mar 19 2017

Zoning: Conflict with City Charter Explained in Declaration by Former Mayor

According to former Mayor Alice Creason, the “revision” of Chapter 17 of the City Code includes zoning language and intent contrary to the 1980 voter approved Piedmont City Charter requiring changes of use/classifications and zone sizes to be approved by Piedmont voters. Voter approval for proposed zoning changes is not being sought by the City Council.

On March 17, 2017 Creason submitted a notarized declaration to the City Council and others showing the correct interpretation of the City Charter, as approved by voters.  See detailed explanation below.

Creason a former Piedmont mayor (1982-84), Planning Commissioner (1976-78), liaison to the Planning Commission, participant in the development of the revised City Charter (1977 – 1980), and Council member (1978 -1986) states that the City is not adhering to the intent and actual language of the City Charter which requires Piedmont voter approval for specific zoning changes. The City Council has been or desires to change uses within Zone B (public) and Zone D (commercial) without Piedmont voter approval.

In a cover letter to the Council, Creason states that the City Council can:

  1.  Submit the proposed zoning changes to Piedmont voters for approval OR
  2.  Revise the City Charter to allow the Council to make the desired changes without voter approval.

The Creason cover letter to the City Council can be read by clicking > img023 .

The Creason Declaration explaining the City Charter intent and required voter approval can be read by clickingimg025.

The opposite interpretation by Piedmont’s new contract attorney can be read by clicking > img026 .

Actual zoning language in the City Charter below:

ARTICLE IX. General Provisions

SECTION 9.01 GENERAL PLAN The City Council shall adopt, and may from time to time, modify a general plan setting forth policies to govern the development of the City. Such plan may cover the entire City and all of its functions and services or may consist of a combination of plans governing specific functions and services or specific geographic areas which together cover the entire City and all of its functions and services. The plan shall also serve as a guide to Council action concerning such City planning matters as land use, development regulations and capital improvements.

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 singlefamily 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.

 Read the > City Charter 

Mar 19 2017

Zoning: Increased Housing in Lower Piedmont, Reduced Parking Requirements, For Profit Uses in Public Buildings, Structures Up to Property Lines

An underlying goal of the building code changes (Chapter 17) is to increase housing density in lower Piedmont and provide more affordable housing.

On Monday, March 20, 2017, the Council plans to approve an ordinance that will mean more houses, more apartments, and reduced parking requirements in Piedmont. The City Council on March 6, approved the first reading of the massive rewriting and changes to Chapter 17 of the Piedmont City Code.  The second reading is planned at the March 20 Council meeting.

Council members are convinced that Piedmonters have been informed and engaged in the process.

In a cursory survey of Piedmonters, few had any substantive knowledge of the proposed changes with the exception of changes to Grand Avenue and short term rentals.

On March 6, the Council members decided to remove consideration of short term rentals and commercial property regulations on Grand Avenue pending further input from the public.

The Grand Avenue neighbors have been active and organized in attempting to make new regulations compatible with the neighborhood.

Civic Center Apartments

One citizen, Ted Kinch, referred to the 92% of Piedmonters who responded to the heavily relied upon 2007 Survey, who expressed their preference to keep the small town feeling of Piedmont.  Kinch emphasized the potential problems from adding apartments in the Civic Center – above the Wells Fargo Building and Mulberry’s.  He mentioned that watching children walk to school was refreshing and should not be threatened by increased traffic and parking.

Council approved the proposed building code changes for apartments to be permitted in the Civic Center.  There has been no organized opposition from any neighborhood group, school representative, or emergency service person in regard to traffic, safety, or congestion next to emergency services and schools in the Civic Center.

Inquiry

Only a few of the numerous code revisions received inquiry by the Council members.  The exception was Council member Jen Cavenaugh, liaison to the Planning Commission, who questioned reduced off-street parking requirements for residences and businesses, structures allowed to be built up to the property line, and for profit businesses in public buildings, amongst other issues.

Cavenaugh questioned the likelihood Estates Zone residents would want their neighbors building up to the property line, “Not wanting people to be on top of each other in that way.”

There has been no indication that Piedmont residents in lower Piedmont (Zone A) would accept their neighbors building a structure up to the property line. Planning Director Kevin Jackson claimed the intent was to encourage property owners to build garages and structures at the back of the lot to leave more open space.

Mayor Jeff Wieler was concerned about the reduction in Zone A (residential) lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet.  He stated,  “Our lords and masters in Sacramento… we’re suddenly changing our zoning to satisfy some bureaucrat up in Sacramento. I resent it.”

Council members Teddy King and Tim Rood quickly defended the reduction in parcel size in lower Piedmont as an effort by Piedmont to assist in supplying the area with more housing plus more affordable housing.

King stated, “This is actually a component of the entire revision process (Chapter 17) so that we meet the requirements and spirit of the housing needs in the Bay Area. … To the extent that some of the controversial elements in this proposal have caught the attention of Piedmonters, it is important to explain that many of these changes we didn’t dream up. They are tied to other efforts put in place by State and Federal authorities. We don’t conceive of our own housing and density in a vacuum.”

Parking

Although a lack of adequate off-street parking has been a major issue in numerous Planning Commission applications, King and Rood liked reducing the off street parking requirements to encourage a reduction in automobile usage and an increase in transit ridership. Bedroom additions will no longer necessarily trigger the need to provide off-street parking.

The Planning Commission has been responsible in the past for determining if traffic, parking and safety impact applications, yet traffic and parking studies are not required by the process potentially leaving the matter to subjective opinions.

Short term rentals deferred once more.

A short term rental (under 30 days) prohibition was held for further consideration maintaining the status quo of no City enforcement of ongoing short term rentals. According to Piedmont’s existing Home Occupation Ordinance, all home businesses, including airbnb, require homeowners to obtain a business license and Home Occupation Permit. Short term rentals currently do not qualify for a home occupation permit because the home business owner cannot use a residential property addresse in advertisements or for client access. Organized interest by promoters of short term rentals has been active. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to prohibit short term rentals.  Seeking further input, the Council has not acted on the pending short term rental issue during a three year period.

The Council meeting will be held on Monday, March 20, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber to act on the ordinance changes.  Viewing is available on Channel 27 and from the City website.

Staff report for Item #7 on the agenda.

Draft minutes of March 6, 2017 Council meeting when zoning issues were previously considered.

Agenda for March 20, 2017 Council meeting

 

Mar 5 2017

ANALYSIS: Zoning Changes at March 6, 2017 Council Meeting

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

Mar 4 2017

Public Limited on Zoning Decisions While Council Poses Few Questions Regarding Significant Changes

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/) 

Jan 25 2017

Opinion: Residents Opposing Omnibus Approach to Piedmont Zoning

Correspondence between residents and Mayor Wieler.

Thank you for your prompt response Mayor Wieler. There is nothing in law or code to suggest existing homes would be “non-conforming” if Piedmont zoning remains as is- that should not be an impetus and it’s certainly not a rationale.

We are in full agreement with the spirit and most of the substance of the editorial on the January 22, 2017 Piedmont Civic Association website.
1) What is the purpose of this omnibus approach to zoning in our city?  What’s the benefit to us, to our neighbors? Piedmont Planning Director Kevin  Jackson has repeatedly cited historically high variance approval rates as an indication that our zoning rules are outdated. Is it possible those high approval rates are a function of reasonable plans and compromises engendered by the variance approval process itself?
2) Smaller lot sizes (which as you know are already accounted for in the current code), reduced set backs and potentially larger structure footprints will encourage the construction of larger homes and more density which will- over time- change and, in our opinion erode the character of broad sections of our community
3) Absence of material change to Zone E lot sizes and set backs – hmmmmmm.
We hope you and the city council will consider Piedmont Civic Association’s recommendation  for more transparency, clarity and outreach in these matters.  The power to effect changes of this magnitude should not reside with staff and a few select committees. We urge our city government to take the necessary steps to seek formal approval from our citizens before these changes are adopted.
Respectfully,
 Philip & Jean Stein
Piedmont
On Jan 23, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jeffrey Wieler <jswieler@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for your email.  I urge you to come to tonight’s meeting to express your concerns and ask questions.  Concerning the lot size issue, I believe one impetus for the change is the fact that most Piedmont homes sit on lots under 10,000 sq. feet in size, and it makes no sense to deem  them non-conforming.  As a practical matter, I doubt anybody would find it economical to tear down a large home on a large lot to sub-divide.

However, we are having multiple meetings on the rewrite precisely to answer questions like yours.
Jeff Wieler

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Philip Stein <treehousephil@gmail.com> wrote:

Editorial ALERT: Changes Impacting All Piedmont Houses and Properties Obscured in Proposal Documents

Hi, Neighbors,

Have you read the 535 page staff description of proposed changes to Piedmont’s zoning?  

Rather than simply affecting the commercial and “civic center” zones, this proposal has become a massive set of changes affecting essentially every Piedmont single family residence (SFR).

The changes appear to include:

  • reducing minimum square footage required Single Family Residence lot size by 25% (8,000 sf  to 6,000 sf)
  •  reducing frontage – reduced by 33% (90 feet to 60 feet)
  • reducing side setbacks by 50% (to as little as 2 feet (using language that falsely appears to expand the setback!)
A simple proposal for “Grand Avenue zoning fixes” appears to have expanded exponentially. If this proposal moves forward, it could potentially significantly increase the density of Piedmont’s residential areas.  It would allow substantially larger structures next to your home . . closer to your home, allow many larger lots to be subdivided, and allow much larger second homes on one lot.

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

Unfortunately, no effective executive summary of the 535 pages is provided, nor any effective notice of specifics in this massive mission creep.
Changes having the potential to transform Piedmont should not be obfuscated within a 535 page document.  It now seems to cover everything from Airbnb rules . . to parking . . . to 4-story civic center buildings with zero (0) setbacks . . . to increasing density for virtually every Single Family Residence lot.   All important issues – and in some cases “hot-button” issues for Piedmont.

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

Staff was initially simply working on clean up language in the ordinance and a few zoning changes affecting the Grand Avenue commercial or civic area. Why have Single Family Residence changes been slipped in? Does the citywide impact on single family residences, commercial, and public property make a citywide vote necessary . . . . or at least desirable?

For those who have a few spare days to review it, the 535 page staff report is here:

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/publicworks/docs/planning/ch17revisions/2016-11-10_report.pdf

 

Jan 8 2017

Concerns over City Council Consideration of Significant and Expansive Revisions to the Planning and Zoning Provisions of the City Code

Wednesday, January 11, 7:30 p.m. in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center is the first Study Session.

Concerns:

  • Lack of usable/comprehensible public information and citizen input
  • Eliminating requirements for construction on public property
  • Changing land uses without voter approval per the City Charter
  • Charging the Planning staff with approvals for projects under $125,000 rather than the Planning Commission
  • Allowing construction up to a property line
  • Reducing the number and size of parking places required
  • Leaving the Appeal process uncorrected
  • Handling of short term rentals
  • Neighborhood and emergency concerns over density and commercial increases next to homes, schools, and public property

No broadcast or recording of the Council meeting will be available.

The Council is to be educated on proposed zoning changes on January 11, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center.  This room has no equipment to visually memorialize or broadcast the proceedings.   Meetings regarding the City budget are typically held in the room, also without public broadcasting. 

The meeting is open to the public.  How the public can participate in the discussions, navigate the proposals, or query the presentation by Planning Director Kevin Jackson is unannounced.  

The volume and organization of the content is not listed under staff reports on the City website. The proposed changes are unclear relative to existing law.  Some members of the public have asked that specific items be identified and publicized so the public can come and speak to items as they arise.  No public workshops, surveys or study sessions have been organized. 

The factor most often mentioned regarding the Chapter 17 changes has been lack of public involvement in the Planning Commission recommendations, which were not unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. Surveys for recreation facilities and waste management have been widely publicized unlike the impactful changes to Chapter 17.  What the City, you, your neighbors, developers, can do with public and private property in Piedmont fall under Chapter 17.   The proposed changes generally originate from the staff. 

A few Piedmonters, the City, and developers have pushed to further densify the City, change zoning, and remove restrictions on use of public property.  A few knowledgeable Piedmonters have voiced objections to rezoning and changing land use without a public vote, allowing fewer and smaller parking spaces, encouraging buildings next to property lines, and removing approval processes from public consideration.  Voices expressing the preference to uphold Piedmont’s small town feeling appear to have been negated.  Appeal processes, Planning staff decision increases, commercial development intensity next to emergency facilities, homes and schools, involvement of the residents on a broad base have been issues.

Read City documents on the proposed changes here.

_____________________________

PUBLIC NOTICE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Study Session, 7:30 p.m.,Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Study Session, 6:30 p.m., Monday, January 23, 2017

Regular Meeting, Monday, March 6, 2017

At Study Sessions on January 11th and 23rd, 2017 the City Council will begin the process of considering a recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding updates to the Planning and Zoning Provisions of the City Code, the City’s Design Guidelines, and Policies and Procedures related to Planning matters in early 2017. No action will be taken at the study sessions.

Study Sessions:

7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 11, 2017, EOC, 403 Highland Avenue – [This location typically precludes broadcast of the session.]

6:30 p.m., Monday, January 23, 2017, City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue – [There has been no announcement regarding broadcast of the session.]

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

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

Background

The City of Piedmont General Plan, adopted in 2009, and the 2011 and 2014 updates to its Housing Element include actions and programs that mandate revisions to Chapter 17 of the City Code, otherwise known as the Zoning Code. Additional revisions to consider are voluntary but equally important to improving and streamlining planning services in the city. Beginning in 2012, the Planning Commission and City Council held a series of meetings resulting in the adoption of planned revisions in 2012 and 2013. In addition, in 2014 and 2015, the Planning Commission and City Council separately discussed regulations of short term rentals.

Current Effort and Planning Commission Recommendation

The larger goal mandated by the General plan is a comprehensive update of the zoning code. In 2016, in a concerted effort to achieve this goal, the Planning Commission has held and completed discussions about a variety of topics related to potential revisions during five regularly scheduled meetings and two special meetings. At a subsequent special meeting held on November 10, 2016, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a revised Chapter 17,

Planning and Land Use, adopt an Interim Design Guidelines, and repeal policies incorporated into the Code or Guidelines.

Documents on the City Website

The staff report to Council dated March 6, 2017 and other documents related to this project are available on the City’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us. The webpage also contains links to previous staff reports, meeting minutes, the General Plan, the current Zoning Code (Chapter 17) and the Zoning Map.

Public Engagement

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

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

As noted in previous email notices, the City Council will be considering the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions to Chapter 17 of the Piedmont City Code, which contains land-use and planning regulations, including regulations of short term rentals. The Planning Commission also recommended adoption of an Interim Design Guidelines. Prior to its consideration of the revisions for adoption, the City Council will hold two study sessions regarding the matter. The meeting dates are as follows

  • Study Session: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 – 7:30 p.m., EOC, 403 Highland Avenue
  • Study Session: Monday, January 23, 2017 – 6:30 p.m., City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue
  • Regular Meeting: Monday, March 6, 2017 – 7:30 p.m., City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue

Members of the public are encouraged to attend the study sessions and the regular meeting. Written comments may be submitted to the Council via email at citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us or via US Mail addressed to City Clerk John Tulloch at 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

Please visit the City’s Webpage dedicated to the proposed revisions to Chapter 17 and Interim Design Guidelines for more information, including the report to Council and my recommendation on how to navigate the report.

Sincerely,

Kevin Jackson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

Tel: (510) 420-3039  Fax: (510) 658-3167

Nov 9 2016

Big Changes to Piedmont Building and Zoning Code

Do Piedmonters understand the proposed changes impacting their property, the City’s property, or neighboring properties?

Chapter 17 of the City Code is the controlling legal document for building in Piedmont. 

Momentous changes are proposed.

Confusion and some concerns:

  • How many parking spaces are going to be required?
  • What are the new required sizes of parking spaces?
  • Who gets to decide on building applications – permits, design review and variances?
  • Are zone uses being changed without a public vote?
  • Will roofs and other buildings be allowed to extend further into side yard setbacks?  
  • Are variance requirements being changed?
  • Wireless communication requirements decided by staff?
  • Calling application requirements a permit rather than design review?
  • Planning Commission decisions on proposals turned over for staff decisions increased from $75,000 to $125,000?
  • No building restrictions on Public Property?

On Thursday, November 10, 2016, the City Council Chambers, City Hall, the Planning Commission at 5:00 p.m. will continue their work on changes to Piedmont’s building and zoning code, Chapter 17. 

The Piedmont Planning Commission has been meeting for some months on changes to Chapter 17 of the City Code with little public input. Changes to Piedmont building requirements found in Chapter 17 will have far reaching impacts.  The latest version of the changes will be considered at the November 10, 2016 Planning Commission “workshop.”

Community Engagement Requested:

A call for community workshops oriented toward expanded public input has been suggested; however, as of this writing none have been scheduled by the City.  The Planning Commission meetings have had limited public participation where comments to the  Planning Commission have a 3 minute limit, as opposed to an open exchange of ideas with the community.

The usual procedure in proposing changes to legal documents is to strike out language proposed for elimination and color or italicize new language. Following this common procedure would help Piedmonters understand the changes under consideration.  The Planning Commissioners, City Council, and public are being asked to comment on changes only hinted at in the Staff’s abstract revision table.  The revision table only notes whole sections that have been moved or deleted; but does not indicate precise changes within the sections.  

Buried in the moved sections are fundamental changes in single lines, such as moving Chapter 17.6 Zone B: Public facilities to Chapter 17.22 and adding use “by a for-profit commercial entity.” This innocuous single line is a fundamental use change not authorized by the City Charter without a city-wide vote.

The changes essentially amount to a rewrite of Chapter 17 with extensive new language not previously seen.  A city wide notification has been noted as prudent before concluding Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council.

Examples of proposed changes are:
  • – Page 45 – Chapter 17.6 Zone B changed to Section 17.22 Zone B: Public facilities Section 17.22.030 – Conditional Uses.  The following are allowed as Conditional Uses in Zone B:  A. City building used by a for-profit commercial entity.  Comment: this is not highlighted.
  • WCF (wireless communication facilities). This is one of the many topics taken up in the “public meetings” relative to Chapter 17. The proposal recommends that the City Council only review WCF in Zone B, all others in right of ways around town are decided on by the Planning Director. WCF is getting put on poles rather than towers so it is likely that many homes may see one of these out their windows. The Planning Department and the wireless company would agree WCF locations. There appears to be no mention of a process for a resident to object. http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/publicworks/docs/planning/ch17revisions/2016-08-30_report.pdf
  • Control of what citizens can build on their property has migrated from the Planning Commission to decision-making by City staff as the threshold for review by the Commission increased to $75,000.  In June Planning Director Jackson suggested the cost threshold for review by the Planning Commission should be increased from $75,000 to $125,000. 

To understand where changes are being proposed to the existing ordinances, a lined through and changed version would help readers.

Staff report for the November 10 meeting can be read here. 

The volume of planning documents can be read here.

Notice regarding the meeting from the Planning Director Kevin Jackson is below:

Activity by the Planning Commission or City Council related to revisions of City Code Chapter 17, the Zoning Code.

Item 1, and the only item on the agenda for the Planning Commission’s special meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2016 is the Consideration of a Resolution Recommending Updates to the Planning and Zoning Provisions in the City Code and City Council Policies, as well as Actions to Update Planning Commission Policies.

You can find more information on this ongoing project by visiting the City’s website. It is there that you can also find links to past reports and meeting minutes as well as a link to the staff report for the November 10, 2016 Planning Commission special meeting.

You are encouraged to provide your comments on the topics under discussion by attending the meeting and/or by submitting written comments by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. You can submit your comments to the Commission by sending an email to me, kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or on paper to 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

Kevin Jackson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Piedmont

The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and from the City website under videos, Planning Commission.  A video recording will be made of the meeting for future viewing.

Sep 27 2016

REPORT: Stop Signs, Mosquitoes, Zoning, Beach and Coaches Field Considered by Council

“Council discussion of zoning was difficult to understand” –

On the evening of September 19 at 7:30, after the Pledge of Allegiance and a brief introduction, the Council approved meeting minutes, approved a contract with Miracle Playsystems Inc. to replace the protective surfacing at Dracena Park, and approved a replacement license plate reader unit for the Police Department.

Next, the Council opened the floor for public comments and opinion. The hot topic of the night was stop signs; specifically the 16 newly added stop signs across town. Some were in favor and spoke for the “pros” of stop signs because they reinforce safety as a priority. However, there were others who were bittersweet on the new traffic signs. “Is 16 too many?” One community member asked, “I think a study is necessary.”

One community member enlightened the crowd on the effect stop signs have on the environment. Brake dust and emission is emitted with every break and go. Therefore, the more stop signs means the more brake-and-gos which ultimately mean more pollution. The man suggested a traffic engineer come and inspect.

I personally believe the stop signs are a great addition to the community. I live on Mountain Avenue and have found the new stop signs located at Hampton and Seaview avenues to be highly effective and impactful.

Next was a ceremony to honor departing planning staff member Matt Anderson for the work he has done with Piedmont on environmental studies to enhance environmental awareness and conservation. Anderson has encouraged Piedmont to install more solar panels, make street lights more efficient, and reduce greenhouse gases.

Then there was a personally unexpected presentation on mosquitoes by the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District. The audience was taught the biology of mosquitoes, mosquito management in Piedmont, and effect of disease carrying mosquitoes. Prior to this meeting, I had no previous knowledge on what helps regulate the number of mosquitoes in Piedmont.

The Council then went into discussing zoning provisions. In addition, they talked about an agreement with the local government commission for the Civic Spark Internship Program; costing a total of $5,000. It was at this point in the meeting where I wish I had done some homework. I can honestly say I do not know anything about “Zoning” or the “Civic Spark Internship Program” and the Council members were throwing around numbers and unfamiliar words making it very difficult to understand the issue and conclusion. The council also spoke about working with Coastland Engineers for property assessments of City Hall, the Veterans Hall, the Recreation Center, and the Community Hall.

I think the major properties in Piedmont such as the venues listed above should be a priority for the city because they are so popular and so widely used.

 Next on the agenda were announcements, old business and proposals for future agenda items. There were several speakers, however, the focus of this cluster seemed to revolve around the Shell Gas Station located in the center of town. With hopes of new development and maintaining Piedmont’s residential character, alternatives such as a cafe were discussed. Yet, the Council reminded the public that no plan has been proposed and right now this idea is simply nothing more than an idea.

Then the council transitioned into the topic of Beach and Coaches Field. Two men came and proposed a plan that costing $35,000 for Beach and $25,000 for Coaches Field. The goal is to improve the venue and use it for more events and functions. Jen Cavanaugh, a woman running for City Council, spoke out and said “I think this is a great opportunity to partner with the school.” Similarly, Council Member Teddy King said “I think it is time to move this project forward.”

Although I was pleased to see the city trying to improve local fields and playgrounds, I was amazed by the large sum of money that was being spent in less than 10 minutes!

Unfortunately there were times when the meeting was a bit hard to hear. If possible, I would love to see more effective microphones or speakers so that the public can clearly hear everything that is being said.

The meeting wrapped up with a cheerful “this is a big weekend for Piedmont.” Festivities such as the movie in the park, the Fall Fest 5k, and the Harvest festival will all take place in the center of town.

Afterwards, I had the privilege of speaking with Acting Mayor Jeff Wieler. I began by telling him my opinion on the new stop signs. He graciously thanked me for attending the meeting and for relaying my reaction to the stop signs. Then I asked him “What’s your favorite part about being Mayor?” He responded, “I get to set the agenda and have paper instead of iPads.” We then talked about how he got involved in politics, specifically the City Council. He said that before he ran for a seat on City Council, he was part of many committees and saw the council as a place to apply what he knew. He admitted “things are running pretty well here in Piedmont,” but one particular concern Acting Mayor Wieler would like to see addressed is the Piedmont swimming pool. He believes the pool is undersized for its use and that we need to have a pool that “better serves the people of Piedmont.”

   Overall, it was a great experience to get a closer look into Piedmont government. I encourage the public to sit in or participate; even if it is just one time! City Council is a great medium to see how government is run in Piedmont and speak for or against certain issues in the community.

Every 1st and 3rd Monday of each month, the Piedmont City Council congregates in the Chamber of City Hall.

Hanna Marcus, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Aug 28 2016

Planning Commission Considers Commercial Zoning Changes for Civic Center and Grand Avenue Tues August 30

Are Piedmonters going to be surprised by the new building requirements and zoning changes?  Few residents have participated in the meetings as the Planning Commission has deliberated changes.  Read the staff report  < here for details of  proposed changes.

The Planning Commission will discuss on August 30 revisions to Piedmont’s Building requirements in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code,  the Zoning Code. The Zone D parcels are occupied by commercial or single family residential uses at present.

The new proposals include increasing the height limitation for the Civic Center commercial parcels at Highland Avenue and Vista Avenue next to Havens School across from the Emergency Fire Department Services adjoining City Hall to 40 feet, and for the Grand Avenue parcels to 35 feet, plus eliminating setback requirements for both areas. This would appear to allow further densification. (See the chart of proposed Zone D requirements on page 5 of the staff report.)

Special Session

1. DISCUSSION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 17 MODIFICATIONS

The Planning Commission will continue its discussion of potential amendments to provisions of Chapter 17 (the City’s Zoning Code). This session’s discussion topics include, but are not limited to: the regulations for Zone D regarding building height, setbacks for upper levels, and parking for commercial uses; the regulations of signs; the regulations of wireless communications facilities; projects eligible for expedited design review; various changes to the administrative regulations; definitions and measurements; and the composition of an interim design guidelines. The purpose of the discussion is to take public testimony on the subject, and to provide an opportunity for the Commission to consider the subject matter, make comments and give direction. The Planning Commission may give direction to staff, but no formal action will occur.

Also under discussion are reduced parking requirements, signing regulations, wireless communications facilities, expedited design review, as well as numerous definitions and measurements.

Read the August 30 staff report here.

The August 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting in the Council Chambers, City Hall is open to the public. The meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. and will be broadcast on Channel 27 and from the City website.

Aug 21 2016

OPINION: Neighbors Concerned About Proposed Zoning Regulations Are Circulating a Petition

Citizen Opposition to Increased Height of Commercial Development Adjacent to Residences and Other Issues –

Neighbors near the Shell Station at Wildwood and Grand Avenues are circulating a petition to gather support for their proposals to protect Piedmont residents. The pervasive zoning matter, originating in the Planning Department, attempts to increase the height of commercial buildings next to Piedmont homes to 40′, reduce the size and number of parking spaces required, permit eaves and overhangs on all Piedmont buildings to extend to the property line, and require housing on upper levels of new commercial buildings.

The petition does not address the dormant breach per the City Charter precluding Piedmont voters of their right to control land use changes. The breach was proposed in 2012 and later approved by the Council.  No development has occurred while awaiting the controversial 2016 proposed regulations.

The Planning Commission meetings covering consideration of zoning changes has been found by some to thwart community input while proposing consequential negative impacts on residential properties near the commercial zones located on Grand Avenue and in the Civic Center on Highland Avenue, and thus impacting all of Piedmont.

Below is the petition being circulated:

https://www.change.org/p/piedmont-planning-commission-and-piedmont-city-council-maintain-zoning-regulations-that-protect-piedmont-residents    Don Dare and Miguel DeAvila Piedmont Residents

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed in the petition are those of the authors.