Regular Agenda
1. Mid-Year Financial Review – Fiscal Year 2022-2023
2. Discussion of the Municipal Services Special Tax (Parcel Tax) and Consideration of the Committee’s Review of the Parcel Tax Pursuant to Resolution 120-14.
Ceremonial Items Proclamation of Black History Month
Introduction of New Employees
Public Forum This is an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda.
3. Consideration of the Acceptance of the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant in the Amount of $410,117 and Approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Justice to Disburse Grant Funds to the City
4. Consideration of the Award of a Contract to Provide Professional Services Related to the City of Piedmont’s Clean Water Program and Municipal Regional Permit Compliance to Kimley-Horn in the Amount of $174,913
5. Consideration of the Award of the Contract for the 2022 Striping Project to Chrisp Company in the Amount of $71,665.50, Approval of an Overall Construction Budget of $89,332.50, and a Determination that the Project is Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
6. Consideration of FY 2022-23 Mid-Year General Fund Appropriations and FY 2022-23 Mid-Year Fiscal Report
Read Staff Reports here
Following the 6 pm Call to Order in Council Chambers, the Council will adjourn to a Closed Session in the Conference Room for one agenda item:
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
“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.
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).
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:
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.
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:
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Publicly-owned land is designated for low-income housing in the Piedmont Housing Element (HE) because it provides the City with the greatest potential to develop such housing – the City owns the land and can work directly with developers to see that affordable housing gets built on it. The publicly-owned sites in Piedmont are in Moraga Canyon, swaths of land around Coaches Field and the Corp Yard and all of Blair Park. Sixty low-income units and 73 above-moderate income units are proposed for >Moraga Canyon. A > depiction of this area shows that housing types are proposed to be dispersed throughout this canyon area.
Anyone familiar with Moraga Canyon will know instantly how unsuitable much of this land is for development. The sites east and west of Coaches Field, initially designated for low-income housing, are steep sloped and would require a massing of building to generate the proposed density and parking. The area to the west is particularly prohibitive for building; the required storm water permit is infeasible and would likely not be granted given the proximity of the site to the adjoining wetlands on cemetery property. As for the other Coaches sites, both are very steep, probably prohibitively so for the construction of low-income housing and would probably eliminate what little public parking is now available at Coaches. Unfortunately, the feasibility of these sites for housing has never been publicly addressed at the Planning Commission or City Council since the draft was released in April, 2022.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) will conduct this feasibility analysis, especially for the low-income sites, and find the draft HE deficient. This is the direction HCD gave to Atherton regarding the publicly-owned sites in its HE:
“Publicly Owned Sites: The element identifies multiple publicly-owned sites including the Public Facilities and Schools District, the Menlo School, and Cal Water Bear Gulch Reservoir sites. The element must include additional discussion on each of the publicly owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).”
Piedmont will most certainly receive this same direction in the HCD response letter to its first draft. The highlighted text suggests fundamental considerations of the canyon sites that should have been presented months ago. Instead, between now and May 2023, as part of the Moraga Canyon Specific Site Plan study, the City will likely conclude that one if not both of the low-income sites at Coaches are not compatible for housing and conclude that Blair Park be used for the 60 low-income units and some fraction of the above-moderate units.
The City should include relocation of the Corporation Yard to Blair Park in the Moraga Canyon Specific Site Plan so as to improve the quality of low-income housing in the canyon. The Corporation Yard offers the only flat housing site on the north side of Moraga Avenue and, on a square foot basis, provides better sites amenities than Blair Park. Judging by similar densities staff assigned to the Coaches sites, 60 housing units could be located at the Corporation Yard.
But beyond the housing goal, relocation of the Corporation Yard could dovetail with General Plan goals of building walkable neighborhoods, preserving open space and others as well. There are broad planning questions that should have been raised well before the site plan analysis but the General Plan has been virtually absent during the HE process. The HE proposes three uses for the canyon – housing, city operations and recreation. How best should these be dispersed to achieve General Plan goals? Housing and recreation on the Coaches side with city operations in Blair Park? HCD does not care about these goals but our Planning Department and City Council should and, depending how they conduct the Specific Site Plan analysis, could achieve a “win-win” for Piedmont with the HE.
Garrett Keating, Former Member of the Piedmont City Council
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane
