Agenda item for January 17, 2023 –   >council-agenda 1.17.23

Staff report:

“Consideration of a Change to the Regular Meeting Time of the City Council to 6:00 p.m.”

RECOMMENDATION

By motion, approve changing the start time of regular City Council meetings from 7:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and authorize the City Clerk to amend all documents which refer to this time.

BACKGROUND

State law and the City Charter require the City Council to hold regular meetings at a set time, place, and date to ensure the public’s ability to participate in city government decisions. Currently, by resolution, the City Council’s regular meetings are scheduled for the 1st and 3rd Mondays of the month at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

Shortly after the beginning of the pandemic, the Council temporarily adjusted the start of its meetings to 6:00 p.m. to better accommodate the changed work environments of the community, Councilmembers and staff. This change has continued for the duration of the pandemic and received compliments from the community. Staff is recommending that it be made permanent.

Should Council approve this change, staff will update the appropriate documents and publicize the new time.

By: John O. Tulloch, Assistant City Administrator / City Clerk”

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

The time change is a good idea IF City Council maintains the current teleconference access to all public meetings so the public can participate in meetings and comment remotely.  If not, this time change would reduce community participation in public meetings.  The 6:00 time is not optimal for in-person attendance, and it appears the pandemic is not going away.

The traditional 7:30 meeting time was intended to accommodate the family dinner hour and help with homework, late SF commuters and councilmember work schedules.  A 6:00 start time will conflict with much of that but if the public has teleconference access to all city meetings, it can juggle those commitments and still participate in meetings.

Council direction on continuing to teleconference public meetings appears later on Monday’s agenda which is unfortunate.  It would be a more fruitful discussion to have both issues addressed in the same agenda item.  Staff understandably wants the 6:00 start time but that will interfere with prime family time.  A 7:00 start time might be more attractive to younger community members who want to participate in meetings and potentially serve on Council.

Being on the Consent Calendar, this item won’t be open for public discussion unless a councilmember or member of the public requests that it be taken off the Calendar.  That can be done by attending the start of the meeting at 6:00 and requesting this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar.

Attend the Council meeting via Zoom:  https://cdn5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf?v=5Zo1Ykv8r&v=5Zo1Ykv8r

Whatever time the Council selects, hopefully it will stay in the 21st century and maintain public participation in all city meetings through teleconference.

Garrett Keating, Former Member of the Piedmont City Council

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

Hello City Council:

I’ve reviewed the staff report and draft RFP for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) and submit the following comments and questions. Hopefully you can delve into them.

The MCSP is good planning, but clearly the RFP is being developed to expedite a City application for Measure A funds by 2024.  Perhaps for that reason, the RFP is short on explaining how the plan addresses important city policies.  Table 2 list these policies but the RFP states that these policies “may” be considered and only stipulates that the consultant team will demonstrate “professional experience and knowledge of the personnel general principles and background law applicable to specific plans, land development and affordable housing development requirements”.   There are important sustainability policies outlined in the General Plan and Climate Action Plan and the City should stipulate this a credential it seeks on the consultant team.  Does the team have a sustainability expert like our City does?  Traffic safety is another core credential that should be requested.

The staff report and RFP suggests that additional environmental review beyond the programmatic EIR will be conducted based on the impacts of the specific projects in the MCSP.  That makes sense but is predicated on a robust programmatic EIR which has yet to be released.  Without the programmatic EIR being public at this time, the generalities of that assessment may be used to gloss over specific impacts of the projects at a later date.  One way to alleviate this concern is to assure that the programmatic EIR will have a response to comments process as a project specific EIR does.  Staff should confirm this publicly.  Subsection m. in scope of services should clarify this point as well.

One important EIR consideration is whether an assessment of GHG emissions will be undertaken in the MCSP.   This assessment may occur in the “built out” programmatic EIR so this may not be a factor but without that document, who can say?   To resolve this question, staff should clarify whether these GHG emission calculations are being conducted as a part of the programmatic EIR.  According to state guidance, GHG emissions are to be part of a CEQA analysis: CEQA GHG.  However, based on certain criteria, affordable housing projects under 100 units are exempt from CEQA and staff should clarify this as well CEQA Housing. Indeed, staff should clarify whether CEQA is applicable to all the projects being considered in the MCSP, particularly the low-income housing projects.

The staff report and RFP do not clarify whether the relocation of the Corporation Yard will be studied as part of the MCSP.  The only possible reference to this is that “replacement” of the Corporation Yard be considered.  The City should clarify this in the RFP so as to provide consultants the widest latitude to develop creative proposals for the canyon.  Indeed, this latitude may provide for the subdivisions of parcels and development standards that are attractive to builders of housing at all income levels. As staff envisioned with civic center sites, the City could leverage better housing for the project if the Corporation Yard is moved to less desirable building site in the canyon.

Following are more specific comments/questions to the RFP:

The project timeline on page 5 of the staff report is particularly short on detail.  The City seems not to have identified the type of public process it intend to conduct. 

Under “Specific Plan for Success” there is no mention of field lighting as part of the recreational facilities to be developed.  Is it the intent of the City and this Council not to proceed with the installation of lights at Coaches Field?  There is some precedent for this.

The landscape plan makes no mention that it is to comply with the City’s municipal Bay Friendly Landscape Ordinance which has specific criteria for vegetation and water use.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member

Moraga Canyon Plan Consultant 1.17.23

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

Another Consultant is proposed to be hired at an unspecified cost to produce a Moraga Canyon specific plan.

“The RFP does not set a price, but … [in 2019]  … the preparation of a specific plan cost an average of $544,237.”  according to ABAG.

On the Council Agenda, Tuesday, January 17, 2023 the City of Piedmont returns to the previously unexamined, controversial legal opinion of the Piedmont City Charter when the City Attorney dismissed the specific language within the Piedmont City Charter of requiring voter approval of proposed zoning changes. Agenda > >council-agenda 1.17.23

 This program requires an amendment to the City’s General Plan and the preparation of a specific plan to accommodate the density and create development standards for the unique site conditions. The required amendments would be reviewed by the City Attorney for conformance with the City Charter and other legal requirements. If it is determined that it is infeasible to develop this site during the planning process, the City will consider utilizing other City-owned properties as alternative sites (see Appendix B).

Funds generated by General Plan Maintenance fee instituted by the City on July 1, 2019 will provide significant funds for General Plan costs – plans and zoning changes. 

Currently, the fee is $0.013 x the construction cost valuation on building permits. The fee  generated $427,000 in FY 21-22 and the City expects a similar amount this fiscal year. The funds must be spent on updates and amendments to the General Plan and other auxiliary  documents (e.g., Climate Action Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Hazard Mitigation Plan, and a  specific plan). The City Council might consider increasing this fee to help cover the rising costs of land use planning.

READ the full staff report in the link below:

Moraga Canyon Plan Consultant 1.17.23

Stay Informed about the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan

After the City adopts a 6th Cycle Housing Element, a key piece of the implementation process will be the creation of a Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. This initiative will study all City-owned land in Moraga Canyon with the goal of creating a detailed plan for how to maintain and improve existing amenities while also incorporating new housing in the area.

The City expects to issue an RFP in late January seeking professional services to lead this process. Stay informed by subscribing to our Moraga Canyon Specific Plan email list.

Piedmont Pool Complex Costs Continue to Rise Beyond the Bond Package Fund Approved by Voters –

The Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) is seeking $2.1 million additional funds for the project.  The City Council will receive an update on the fundraising campaign and authorize staff to develop naming agreements for contributions of $250,000 or greater to the project. Consideration will be at the Tuesday, January 17, 2023 Council meeting. council-agenda 1.17.23

Staff report linked below:

1.17.23

Will the Council revert back to not recording, broadcasting, or archiving video recordings of certain public meetings?  The cost of transparency via video broadcasts has proven to be minimal given the City budget. On the council-agenda 1.17.23

The California Brown Act has been amended and provisions changed.

NEW REQUIREMENTS:

If members participate remotely using the just cause or emergency provisions, the following additional rules apply:

• The legislative body must provide a way for the public to remotely participate in the meeting and must provide notice of how to access the meeting and offer comments

• The public must also be permitted to attend the meeting in person

• The body cannot require public comments to be submitted before the meeting but rather must be allowed in real time.

• Remote members must participate through both visual and audio (i.e. cameras and microphones on)

• Before any action is taken, remote members must disclose whether any other people over 18 years old are present in the room at the remote location and the general nature of the member’s relationship with the individual

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association has long advocated maximum adherence to Brown Act applicable public meetings such as commissions, committees, and City Council.  The Piedmont City Charter prescribes these meetings are to keep minutes, which has not been adhered to for even critically important Council appointed committees such as the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee. 

The Public Safety Committee during the COVID protocols was newly recorded and live streamed.  Some meetings, the Annual City Budget Workshop and the interviewing of candidates for City Council, commission and committee appointments have historically not been recorded, broadcast, or archived leaving access to only those present at the meeting.

Transparency and accountability are important to the public and should be maximized by the City Council by improving the archiving of recordings, providing minutes, and live streaming of public meetings.

READ the staff report linked below:

Changes to Brown Act and Next Steps 1.17.23

League of California Cities – report > https://www.calcities.org/news/post/2022/12/15/brown-act-changes-are-coming-to-cities-in-2023.-here-is-what-to-expect

The City of Piedmont encourages residents to take steps to prepare for the ongoing storms:

• Clear basement drains, gutters, and outdoor debris around your property
• Check submersible pumps and sump pumps to make sure they are working
• Have flashlights and spare batteries on hand in case of power outages

During the storms, use extra caution when driving and call to report issues:

• Fallen trees, clogged drains, and other infrastructure damage: Call (510) 420-3050 during business hours (8:30am-5pm, M-F) or (510) 420-3000 after hours
• Downed power lines: Call (510) 420-3000

• Sparking or smoking power lines: Call 911

Attached is a press release providing anticipated key dates for the City’s Housing Element update in January. Staff expect to bring Piedmont’s 6^th Cycle Housing Element to the Planning Commission for review on January 12, 2023 and to the City Council for adoption on January 30, 2023.

Additionally, staff intend to issue an RFP in late January seeking professional services to lead the preparation of a Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. Once a consultant has been selected, the Specific Plan process is expected to take 18-24 months to complete. The City has created an email list community members can subscribe to for updates about the Specific Plan. Also attached is an informational poster about the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan that we shared with community members at the Housing Element Open House in November.

12.22 Poster+3+Moraga+Canyon+Specific+Plan+Study  Map

Morga 2022-12-20 Housing Element Update Key Dates in January Press Release

City of Piedmont Special City Council Meeting –

Monday, December 19, 2022 6:00 p.m.

Community Hall, 711 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA

Reception and Swearing In for New Piedmont Elected Officials

The City of Piedmont invites all community members to a reception celebrating newly elected officials and honoring outgoing Mayor Teddy Gray King following a special meeting of the City Council on Monday, December 19th at 6:00 p.m.

Both the meeting and reception will take place at the Piedmont Community Hall in Main Park (711 Highland Avenue) with the reception commencing immediately after the meeting concludes. Light refreshments will be provided.

Following the Council’s certification of the election results, Mayor Teddy Gray King, who is leaving office after two terms on the City Council, will share farewell remarks. Next, Piedmont’s new Board of Education and City Council members will be sworn in, formally assuming their new offices. The City Council will then elect a Mayor and Vice Mayor.

Everyone is invited to join in this celebration of our democracy!   The City looks forward to seeing many community members in attendance.

This meeting will NOT be broadcast live due to bandwidth limitations at the Community Hall, but will be recorded and available for viewing online and on KCOM-TV afterwards.

> 12.19.2022 council-agenda

> 2022 Certification Documents of Election Results for the General Municipal Election of November 8, 2022