Dear Planning Commissioners:

On the top of page 4 of the staff report, staff cites several goals, actions and policies from the 2007 General Plan as rationale for the zoning proposals it has brought before you. In particular the statement is made “The report stressed that the intent behind the General Plan directives is to have regulations and procedures that do not act as barriers to low-density commercial and mixed use development in Zone D.”

As a city councilman involved with the drafting and approval of the General Plan, I can say that Council did not intend such a broad interpretation of the General Plan to accommodate mixed use development. To the contrary, there is specific language in the Plan that new development be in character with Piedmont and in particular with the neighborhood for which is it slated. 

As with all new development in Piedmont, there is direction in the General Plan that NEW development not be impactful on the neighborhood. I provide below the sections from the General Plan that you should consider when evaluating staff’s proposed changes. I think you will find the proposed revisions to Chapter 17 are not in line with the intent of the General Plan.  In particular, I call to your attention that Policy 4.2 says nothing about the constraining of MULTI-FAMILY housing.

That said, I understand that staff is attempting to be responsive to a broad community sentiment expressed in the 2007 General Plan Survey for more pedestrian-friendly commercial services in Piedmont. I think that sentiment can be best addressed by implementing the zoning policies staff proposes for future development in the Civic Center. That is the closest, most walkable pedestrian center for all of Piedmont and a logical place to encourage community gathering.  Such policies for the Grand Avenue commercial district are too impactful on that neighborhood and I encourage you to direct staff to return with different development policies for this section of Zone D.

Staff has attempted to mitigate impacts by proposing to lower the building height in the Grand area however I think that lack of parking is a bigger impact on the neighborhood.  Direct staff to undertake a thorough parking and traffic analysis of the neighborhood before considering additional revisions.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member

L A N D  U S E

Goal 1: Residential Character

Maintain the character of Piedmont as a residential community.

Policies and Actions

Policy 1.1: Encroachment of Non-Residential Uses

Maintain zoning regulations which strictly limit the encroachment of non-residential uses into residential areas, and which support residential uses on private land throughout the City.

Policy 1.2: Neighborhood Conservation

Sustain the balance between homes, private yards, and public space that defines Piedmont’s residential neighborhoods. The essential form of the city’s residential areas—including the scale and appearance of its homes, the mature vegetation, the views and vistas, the appearance of streets and public places, and the street layout—should be maintained for the long-term future.

Policy 1.3: Harmonious Development

Maintain planning and development review procedures which ensure that new development is harmonious with its surroundings and will not conflict with adjacent properties. New development and home alterations should be consistent with established standards for setbacks, height, and bulk, thereby conserving the low-density, pedestrian-friendly character of the city’s neighborhoods.

Goal 2: Commercial and Mixed Use Areas

Provide for a limited range of commercial uses which serve the basic needs of the community.

Policies and Actions

Policy 2.1: Local-Serving Emphasis: On the city’s limited commercial land supply, strongly encourage activities that meet the needs of Piedmont residents rather than region-serving activities. By supporting local-serving businesses in these areas, Piedmont can advance its goals of reducing driving, promoting walking, and creating a more balanced and well-rounded community.

Policy 2.2: Mixed Use Development

Within the Grand Avenue commercial district, encourage mixed use development that combines ground floor commercial uses and upper story residential uses.

Policy 2.3: Office Development

Support limited office development in the city’s commercial districts to accommodate businesses serving Piedmont residents, and to provide rental office space for Piedmont residents with small businesses.

Policy 2.4: Commercial Parking

Resolve parking problems in the city’s two commercial districts in a way that balances the needs of local businesses with those of immediately adjacent residents and the community at large.

Policy 2.5: Off-Site Impacts

Maintain a conditional use permit procedure for commercial uses which ensures that off-site impacts such as traffic, noise, parking, and odor are disclosed and mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Buffering and screening should be required between commercial development and adjacent residential properties to minimize the potential for land use conflicts between the two uses.

Policy 2.6: Commercial Uses as Gathering Places

Recognize the importance of Piedmont’s commercial land uses as community gathering places. Any new commercial projects should be designed in a way that contributes to pedestrian vitality and safety, and provides a clean, attractive, and welcoming environment for the public.

Action 2.A: Allowing Multi-family Residential in Commercial Zones

Amend City regulations so that multi-family housing becomes a conditionally permitted use in the Commercial zone (Zone D). However, such uses should only permitted when they are part of a mixed use project that includes ground floor commercial uses.

Action 2B: Commercial Development Standards

Review the development standards for commercial uses to ensure that they support the goal of promoting pedestrian-oriented development and attractive streetscapes.

HOUSING   ELEMENT

As noted in Program 1.E, the City will be amending its Zoning regulations to permit mixed use and multi-family development in Zone D (the Commercial zoning district). As further noted in Program 4.G, the City will also amend the regulations for Zones C and D to allow fewer parking spaces for smaller multi-family units. Additional steps to incentivize multi-family and mixed use development in Zone D will be established. This should include the following specific zoning changes:

a)     Raising the maximum lot coverage allowed for two story buildings in Zone D for projects which include housing.

The limit is presently 50 percent for one-story buildings and 25 percent for two-story buildings. Given that most multi-family and mixed use buildings are two stories, it would be difficult to do such development in this zone without a Variance for lot coverage. The ordinance should be amended to allow 50 percent lot coverage for mixed use and multi-family buildings in Zone D

Goal 4: Elimination of Housing Constraints

Minimize constraints to the development of additional housing without compromising the high quality of Piedmont’s neighborhoods.

Policies

Policy 4.1: Communicating Planning and Building Information

Encourage public understanding of the planning and building processes in Piedmont to facilitate permit processing and reduce project costs and delays.

Policy 4.2: Planning and Building Standards

Ensure that planning and building standards, development review procedures, and fees do not form a constraint to the development, conservation, and rehabilitation of housing, or add unnecessarily to the cost of building or improving housing.

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.

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.

2. Trees, whether growing singly, in clusters, or in woodland situations, produce a wide variety of significant psychological and tangible benefits for both residents and visitors to the City. Trees contribute to the natural environment of the City by modifying temperatures and winds, replenishing oxygen to the atmosphere and water to the soil, controlling soil erosion, and providing wildlife habitat. Trees contribute to the visual environment of the City by providing scale, color, silhouette and mass, and by creating visual screens and buffers to separate land uses, and promote individual privacy. Trees contribute to the economic environment of the City by stabilizing property values and reducing the need for surface drainage systems. Trees contribute to the cultural environment of the City by becoming living landmarks of the City’s history and providing a critical element of nature in the midst of urban congestion and settlement.
3. Views, whether of the San Francisco Bay with its vistas of the City of San Francisco, the varied bridges of the Bay Area, numerous islands and ships, or of the Piedmont Hills with its vistas of trees and the hills themselves, also produce a variety of significant and tangible benefits for both residents and visitors to the City. Views contribute to the economic environment of the City by substantially enhancing property values. Views contribute to the visual environment of the City by providing inspiring panoramic vistas, and creating distinctive supplements to architectural design. Views contribute to the cultural environment of the City by providing a unifying effect, allowing individuals to relate different areas of the City to each other in space and time.
4. It is recognized that trees and views, and the benefits derived from each, may come into conflict. Tree planting locations and species selections may produce both intended beneficial effects on the property where they are planted, and unintended deleterious effects on neighboring properties of equal or higher elevations. It is therefore in the interest of the public welfare, health and safety to establish standards for the resolution of view obstruction claims so as to provide a reasonable balance between tree and view related values.
5. An objective of the Design Review Element of the 1984 Piedmont General Plan is to “preserve and enhance the aesthetic character of Piedmont”. The policy for implementing this objective is to “encourage cooperation between property owners and/or the City to prevent vegetation from obstructing views”. (Piedmont General Plan, 1984, p. 148)

3.22.2 Definitions For the purposes of this Section, the meaning and construction of words and phrases hereinafter set forth shall apply:

1. Claimant: Any individual who files a bona fide claim as required by the terms and provisions of this Section.
2. Obstruction: Any blocking or diminishment of a view required by the terms and provisions of this Section.

c. Public Agency: Any City, County, district, other local authority or public body of or within this State.

4. Public Utility: Any person or entity supplying power, light, communications, water, sewage or similar or associated services to the public or any portion thereof.
5. Restorative Action: Any specific requirement to resolve a view claim.
6. Tree Owner: Any individual owning real property in the City upon whose land is (are) located the tree(s) that form the basis for the filing of a view claim.
7. View Arbitrator: Any landscape architect registered and licensed by the State of California, or any arborists registered and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.
8. View Claim: The written basis for arbitration or court action under the terms and conditions of this Section, submitted by the claimant, which clearly establishes the following:

1. The precise nature and extent of the alleged view obstruction, including all pertinent and corroborating physical evidence available. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, photographic prints, negatives or slides.

2. The exact location of all trees alleged to cause a view obstruction, the address of the property upon which the trees are located, and the present tree owner’s name and address. This requirement may be satisfied by the inclusion of tree location, property address and tree owner information on a valid property survey or plot plan submitted with the view claim.

3. Any mitigating actions proposed by the parties involved to resolve the alleged view claim.

4. The failure of personal communication between the claimant and the tree owner to resolve the alleged view obstruction as set forth in Section 3.22.12. The claimant must provide physical evidence that written attempts at conciliation have been made and failed. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, copies of and receipts for certified or registered mail correspondence.

3.22.3 Exemptions The following classes of trees are categorically exempted from the provisions of this Chapter:

• Quercus agrifolia (California or Coast Live Oak)
• Umbellularia californica (Bay California Laurel)
• Acer negundo (Box Elder)
• Aesculus californica (California Buckeye) –
• Arbutus menziesii (Madrone)
• Lithocarpus densifloris (Tan Bark Oak)

b. All trees located on property owned or leased by a Public Agency or a Public Utility. View claims relating to trees located on property owned or leased by the City of Piedmont, while exempt from the provisions of this section, shall be subject to the review of the Park Commission acting pursuant to procedures, standards and conditions approved from time to time by City Council resolution. Decisions of the Park Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the view claimant or any interested party filing a written appeal stating specifically the reasons therefore with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the decision of the Park Commission, and the determination of the City Council on such appeal shall be final and non-appealable.

3.22.4 View Protection – A person owning property in Piedmont shall have the right to establish a view claim and obtain restorative action according to the terms of this Section.

3.22.5 Standards for Resolution of Claims The following standards shall apply to measure the quality of the view and the character of the view obstruction for the purposes of determining what, if any, restorative action is necessary.

1. The view claimant shall have no right greater than that which existed in 1980 or at the time of the claimant’s subsequent acquisition of the property involved in the view claim, whichever is later, and shall provide evidence documenting the extent of said view.
2. The character of the view shall be determined by evaluating:
   1. The vantage point(s) from which the view is obtained.
   2. The existence of landmarks or other unique features in the view.
   3. The extent to which the view is diminished by factors other than the treesinvolved in the claim.
3. The character of the view obstruction shall be determined by evaluating:
   1. The amount of the alleged view obstruction, measured to arrive at a percentage of the total view. Measurement of the alleged view obstruction shall be calculated by means of a surveyor’s transit, or by photography, or both.
   2. The quality of the view which is allegedly being obstructed. The quality of the view obstructed shall be determined by comparing the items within the scope of the view with the types of factors listed in the definitions of View set forth above.

d. The extent of benefits derived from the tree(s) in question shall be determined with consideration given to the following factors:

1. Visual screening provided by the tree(s).
2. Wildlife habitat provided by the tree(s).
3. Soil stability provided by the tree(s), as measured by soil structure, degree of slope and extent of tree(s) root system.
4. Energy conservation and/or climate control provided by the tree(s).
5. Visual quality for the tree, including but not limited to species characteristics, size, growth, form, vigor, and location.
6. The economic value of the tree(s) as measured by the criteria developed by the International Society of Arboriculture.
7. Other tree-related factors, including but not limited to: Indigenous tree species, specific tree quality, rare tree species, and/or historic value

e. Where present due to natural regeneration, the trees listed below shall be specifically identified and be given special consideration in the resolution of the view claim:

• Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple)
• Alnus rhombifolia (White Alder)
• Fagus sylvatica (Copper Beech)
• Heteromeles arbutifolia (Toyon)
• Salix lasiandra (Yellow Willow)
• Salix lasiolepis (Black Willow)
• Sambucus caerulea (Blue Elderberry)
• Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood)

3.22.6 Restorative Action. Restorative action shall be limited to: pruning, thinning, minor topping, or tree removal with or without replacement plantings. Each type of restorative action shall be evaluated based on the above findings and with consideration given to the following factors:

1. The effectiveness of the restorative action in reducing the view obstruction.
2. Any adverse impact of the restorative action on the benefits derived from the tree(s) in question
3. The structural and biological effects of the restorative action on the tree(s) in question.
4. The cost of the restorative action, as determined by consultation with a certified arborist.

3.22.7 Mitigation of Action. All restorative actions shall be undertaken with consideration given to the following factors:

1. Restorative actions shall be limited to the pruning or thinning of branches, or both, where possible.
2. When pruning or thinning of branches, or both, is not a feasible
   solution, minor topping shall be preferable to tree removal if it is determined that the impact of topping does not destroy the visual proportions of the tree, adversely affect the tree’s growth pattern or health, or otherwise constitute a detriment to the tree(s) in question.
3. Tree removal shall only be considered when all other restorative actions are judged to be ineffective and may, at the tree owner’s option, be accompanied by replacement plantings of appropriate plant materials to restore the maximum level of benefits lost due to tree removal. Replacement plantings, if used, may be on the tree owner’s or the claimant’s property in
4. In those cases where tree removal eliminates or significantly reduces the tree owner’s benefits of visual screening or privacy, replacement screen plantings shall, at the tree owner’s option, be established prior to tree removal; notwithstanding the provisions of (3) hereinabove, the tree owner may elect tree removal with replacement plantings as an alternative to trimming, thinning or topping.
5. All trimming, topping, thinning and tree removal required under this Section must be performed by a certified arborist.

3.22.8 Resolution Without Action. A view claim may be resolved by the determination that no restorative actions are required.

3.22.9 Apportionment of Costs The cost of all restorative actions, replacement plantings, and arbitration shall be apportioned between the view claimant and the tree owner as follows:

1. The view claimant and tree owner shall each pay 50% of such costs in those cases involving any tree planted by the tree owner subsequent to the effective date of this Section (October 3, 1988).
2. The tree owner shall pay 100% of such costs in those cases where:

1. The tree owner has refused to participate in good faith in the initial reconciliation (Section 3.22.12) or voluntary arbitration processes (Section 3.22.13) and where the view claimant has prevailed at trial or judicial arbitration, or
2. In any subsequent dispute between the same parties, to restore any view obstructed by the same tree or trees or any of the plantings substituted for the original offending tree or trees described in Section 3.22.9(a).

c. In all other cases, the view claimant shall pay 100% of such costs.

3.22.10 Attorney’s Fees. Each party shall pay his/her own costs and attorneys’ fees except in the case where the dispute goes to trial or judicial arbitration. In the event that an action under this Section is resolved after trial or judicial arbitration in Municipal or Superior Court, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

3.22.11 Civil Penalty. A tree owner shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this Section if judgment in favor of a view claimant is obtained after trial or judicial arbitration in either the Municipal or Superior Court. The civil penalty for each violation of the ordinance, which shall be paid to the City, shall be $1,000.00.

3.22.12 Initial reconciliation. A claimant who believes in good faith that the growth, maintenance, or location of trees situated on the property of another diminishes the beneficial use, economic value and enjoyment of views naturally accruing to the claimant’s property may notify the tree owner in writing of such concerns. The submission of said notification to the tree owner should be accompanied by personal discussions, if possible, to enable the claimant and the tree owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution to the alleged view obstruction under the terms and conditions of this Section.

3.22.13 Arbitration. In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails, the claimant and the tree owner may elect binding arbitration to resolve the alleged view obstruction.

The view arbitrator shall be fully qualified under the terms and conditions of this Section and shall be agreed to by both the claimant and the tree owner, who shall indicate such agreement in writing. The arbitration agreement may provide for employment of experts representing the parties or may be limited to an investigation of the view claim conducted by the arbitrator. The view arbitrator shall follow the terms and conditions of this Section to reach a fair resolution of the view claim. The view arbitrator shall submit a complete written report to the claimant, the tree owner and the City, which shall make copies of all view arbitrator reports available to any person who so requests and pays for the costs of reproduction. Said report shall include the view arbitrator’s findings with respect to all standards listed in Section 3.22.5 of this Chapter, a complete listing of all mandated restorative actions, and at least three (3) price bids for said restorative actions received from certified arborists. All mandated restorative actions shall be implemented within thirty (30) days of the filing of an arbitration report to the claimant and the tree owner. The findings of the view arbitrator shall be final.

– EBMUD’s assigned water use reduction target reflects residents’ conservation patterns –

Every California urban and suburban water district with more than 3,000 customers was given a mandatory water conservation target for its residential customers by the  State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) beginning June 1 and continuing until February, 2016. Based on each California water district’s Residential Gallons Per Capita Day (R-GPCD), the Water Board assigned residential water use reduction requirements, that range from 8% to 36%. In general, industrial and commercial customers are instructed to reduce water consumption by 25%. Local governments’ water use is limited not by targets, but by prohibitions on various uses, such as watering public street medians and outdoor landscapes.

Understanding R- GPCD

In California Residential Gallons Per Capita Day is the total residential water use billed in a district divided by the residential population. Some water districts are limited to a single urban district which combines commercial, industrial, government, multi-family residential and single residential household customers. The water supplied for shared public open space is not included.

EBMUD is a large, diverse district –

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Piedmont’s water district, includes a number of communities with different land use profiles. Piedmont is a single family residential community, while Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, San Ramon, Walnut Creek and others have significant commercial and industrial customers. EBMUD’s R- GPCD combines lower water consuming households, such as Piedmont, and higher level water users such as Danville, Lafayette, etc among the 1.3 million residents served in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. As a result, EBMUD was assigned a 16% mandatory reduction. In contrast, a very near neighbor, the Contra Costa Water District has a 28% target, reflecting its higher R-GPCD over some months of the past year.

Water districts must also “produce” (make available) less water in 2015 than they produced in 2013 by their assigned target percentage (16% for EBMUD). However, urban water districts that provide water to commercial agriculture may exclude that water from their monthly reported water production. The Water Board established targets for levels that widen as the reductions increase, based on urban water districts R-GPCD of less than 65 to more than 215 in the summer of 2014.

Target Reduction Levels

Urban water suppliers whose residential customers used an average of less than 65 gallons per person per day in July, August & September, 2014 are required to reduce their use by 8% from June 1, 2015 through February, 2016.

Urban water suppliers whose residential customers used an average of: 65- 80 RGPCD will reduce their use by 12%.

Urban water suppliers whose residential customers used an average of: 80 – 95 RGPCD will reduce their use by 16%.  EBMUD’s mandatory reduction

Urban water suppliers whose residential customers used an average of: 95- 110 RGPCD will reduce their use by 20%.

Urban water suppliers whose residential customers used an average of: 110- 130 RGPCD will reduce their use by 24%.

Urban water suppliers whose residential customers used an average of: 130- 170 RGPCD will reduce their use by 28%.

Urban water suppliers whose residential customers used an average of: 170- 215 RGPCD will reduce their use by 32%.

Urban water suppliers whose residential customers used an average of: 215 or more RGPCD will reduce their use by 36%.

Support for Conservation and new Voluntary Restrictions

The Bay Area has generally been supportive of the new restrictions on water use. In April San Jose outlawed home swimming pools and car washing. Santa Cruz imposed a rationing system of 10 units of water a month per house.

Read about Protests of differential treatment

EBMUD Rate Increase Hearing: June 9

– No environmental studies and little public input – 

With few questions by policy makers on short and long term impacts of housing increases in Piedmont, Piedmont’s Housing Element will likely become known to most homeowners when a neighbor develops an additional housing unit.

The City Council will consider the Housing Element Draft at their meeting on Monday, July 21, City Hall, Council Chambers starting at 7:30 p.m.  The meeting will be broadcast.  Cities are required to adopt Housing Elements to cover the period 2015-2023 by January 31, 2015.

Piedmont’s draft Housing Element is based on adding secondary units (apartments) within existing homes or allowing a second house to be build on properties in the single family residential zone.

Piedmont’s planning staff and consultant have performed no studies per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)  to assess the impacts of increased housing on schools, public services, police, fire, parks, emergency, or recreational facilities.  CEQA is specifically required under State law.  Piedmont intends to approve a “Negative Declaration” for the CEQA requirement without the initial step of actual environmental studies.

Every 8 to 10 years the State comes out with new housing need projections which are divided up throughout the State by region. Some communities have no objection to the housing increases as developers and land owners are eager and ready to develop property. Piedmont has for a century kept inappropriate development at bay due to the City Charter and requirement of voter approval prior to zoning changes.  The result has been a well established, well maintained, viable city.

Piedmont is significantly constrained by the lack of available land and high property values.

The State’s current housing increase round will end on December 31, 2014, yet Piedmont has already exceeded its quota, approving 44 new units when its quota was 40 units. In addition, more applications for new dwelling units have been received by the City this year, so the excess could increase. For the State’s next round of housing increases for 2015 – 2023, Piedmont is required to provide the opportunity for 60 new housing units.

Piedmont has not only complied with the spirit and letter of the law, but has taken significant steps to increase housing units.

Piedmont’s origin was based on keeping Piedmont a single family residential area. This origin is reflected not only in Piedmont’s voter approved City Charter, but in the zoning laws controlling buildings and land use in Piedmont.

The State has preempted cities’ zoning laws by pressing for additional housing in every city. Being landlocked and built-out, is insufficient to relieve a city, such as Piedmont, from the demands of more and more housing particularly very low and low income housing. In an attempt to balance income levels within cities, perhaps for social engineering, Piedmont is being pressed to increase housing for very low and low income units.

Piedmont is noteworthy for its longevity as a city, its numerous historic homes, its economic viability, and quality of life.  The State law states that housing is to be maintained rather than eliminated, yet as the character of Piedmont changes due to enforced requirements from the State, will the city be able to continue the current quality of life?

The planning staff, Planning Commission, and City Council have accepted the State and regional goals.  Developers and public interest organizations have legally challenged cities that did not establish a pathway for increased housing units especially for very low  and low income individuals.

Despite declining populations in Piedmont and Oakland since 2000, Piedmont, responding to State demands, continues on its drive to increase housing units. On July 14, the Piedmont Planning Commission readily recommended to the Piedmont City Council a draft Housing Element to be forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) staff as Piedmont’s working draft for preliminary review and comments. In the previous round, the draft Housing Element was modified to conform to DHCD staff suggestions.

Raising Piedmont’s profile with DHCD, Planning Director, Kate Black, and Piedmont outside consultant, Barry Miller, treated DHCD staff to a tour of  Piedmont.  Did the tour include any of the City’s many empty housing units? (The 2010 census recorded 123 unoccupied housing units in Piedmont and 6,718 in neighboring Oakland.)

Considering the danger posed by vacant housing units correlated with increased crime rates, Oakland and other cities have a program of demolition of vacant housing with federal funds. In March, 2014, the U.S. Treasury announced new funding of $30 million for housing demolition to avoid neighborhoods with vacancies becoming blighted.  Burglaries, arson, and drug-dealing are a few of the crimes associated with vacant housing.

Few comments on the draft Housing Element have come from Piedmont residents.

Several people attended the presentations on the Housing Element Planning Commission “work sessions”.  The “Town Hall style” meeting held in the Police Emergency Operations Center was attended by approximately 2 dozen residents most of whom had received personal letters from the Planning Department because they either resided in or owned a second unit.  No letters were specifically sent to property owners adjacent to or living near a second unit, who might have expressed pleasure or concerns.  The “Town Hall” meeting was not broadcast and the comments were not made available.

Unlike communities that can expand into undeveloped land, Piedmont is completely landlocked, surrounded by Oakland, with no room to expand.  Additionally, Piedmont’s very economic viability is established on its desirability as a place to purchase a home.  Piedmont has its own schools, police and fire departments and public services.  As more and more properties in Piedmont are subdivided or turned into duplexes per the State decrees, property values and willingness of voters to support extraordinarily high taxes comes into question.

Piedmonters, in general, favor providing housing for very low income individuals and others, however, some have expressed their desire to have this done in a manner that does not erode the character and stability of the City’s housing stock.

When the old PG&E building below and adjacent to the Oakland Avenue Bridge was sold for housing development, many thought this was an opportunity to address some regional housing goals.  Piedmont, however, did not take advantage of this opportunity.  The old PG&E site has some of the best access to Piedmont’s very limited public transportation bus routes.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recommends siting low income housing near available jobs, public transportation education, social services, and counseling. Piedmont is poorly served by public transportation and lacks social services.

Following are some questions posed:

Will Piedmont eventually become a city of multiple units, renters, and transient residents? Who will pay for the schools or will they be merged by the State with surrounding school districts?  Will property values continue to grow?   Will those desiring a single family residential area go elsewhere? Will City government and the School District need to grow to provide services found in other communities, such as social services?

There have been no long term assessments of services costs and the general impact of increased housing units in Piedmont.

The 2011 Housing Element created an exception to single family Zone A minimum lot size requirements to enable lot splitting. The current draft Housing Element identifies more than 10 properties in Zones A & E (Estate Zone) that could be split in order to add a second house to an existing lot.

Read the City Administrator’s report and the draft Housing Element. 

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

Comments may be communicated to the City Council:

Margaret Fujioka, Mayor, mfujioka@ci.piedmont.ca.us, (510) 463-7821

Jeff Wieler, Vice Mayor, jwieler@ci.piedmont.ca.us, (510) 428-1648

Teddy Gray King, tking@ci.piedmont.ca.us, (510) 450-0890

Robert McBain, rmcbain@ci.piedmont.ca.us,(510) 547-0597

Tim Rood, trood@ci.piedmont.ca.us,   (510) 239-7663

At 7:30 p.m. July 7, 2014, the Council will designate Mayor Margaret Fujioka as Voting Delegate and Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler as Alternate for the League of California Cities 2014 Annual Conference.

The League of California Cities 2014 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 3-5 in Los Angeles. An important part of the conference is the Annual Business Meeting. During this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. Policies can include positions on everything from land use to retiree benefits.  Information on items to be considered is not available at this time.

It has been a long tradition for Piedmont to send a voting representative to the Conference where study sessions and various speakers discuss current civic issues.

The appropriation amount covering the cost of participation at the Conference was not provided.

The July 7 City Council meeting is open to the public and will also be broadcast.

The City Council has chosen a new City Administrator according to Mayor John Chiang. Chiang reported on the Council’s closed session discussion of the recruitment of Paul Benoit, “We are in the midst of contract negotiations with him.” The salary will be $200,000 according to the Daily Astorian. Benoit was the Director of Community Development in Astoria, Oregon for 17 years, was appointed City Manager of Astoria in 2005 and will be retiring at the end of February. 

“I am retiring from Oregon public employment, and I am going to be taking a job in California,” Benoit told the Daily Astorian, mentioning his grandchildren in California.  Between his two positions in Astoria, Benoit spent four years in Alameda, California as Development Director and then Assistant City Manager. A major challenge in Alameda was the commercial reuse and development of the former Naval Air Station.

Paul Benoit photo dailyastoria.com

The Piedmont City Council appeared to be looking for a new City Administrator who is more development-oriented than the soon-to-retire Geoff Grote.  In August 2013, the Astoria City Council embarked on a major project to develop new land use codes and/or new zones, master plan amendments, development code amendments and/or land use zoning map amendments. Astoria has two major development districts: Astor East and Astor West.

Astoria occupies 10.11 square miles including almost four square miles of its deep water port. The population is similar in size to Piedmont–9,477 according to the 2010 census. Unlike Piedmont, which is a residential community, Astoria has more than a dozen hotels, several dozen restaurants and tourist oriented businesses focused on the waterfront.

The Piedmont Patch reports:

Benoit has a bachelor’s degree in marine science and environmental management from the University of Rhode Island and a master’s degree in coastal planning from the University of Washington, his profile says.

Daily Astorian newspaper announcement of Benoit salary offer from Piedmont. News report of January 17  Benoit resignation.

Report on Benoit’s accomplishments in Astoria

Contra Costa Times report.

Piedmont Patch coverage of Benoit.

Piedmont Patch coverage of retiring City Administrator Geoff Grote.

Astoria 2013-14 Budget.

– Proposed changes in zoning to be considered by the City Council –

To increase low-income and affordable housing in Piedmont, apartments above businesses and smaller lot sizes have been proposed by the Planning Department.  The Planning Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council to approve changes in  Zone D Commercial and Zone A Single Family Residential.  

Uses in Zone D, the commercial zone, would change from business and single family residential to business, single family residential and multi-family apartments (Mixed Use).

The illustration provided by the planning staff in Zone D places multi-family apartment development above the Shell station at the corner of Wildwood and Grand Avenues. The ACE hardware store and nearby homes on Grand Avenue would fall into the newly reclassified zone permitting multi-family apartments above stores with a minimum density of 12 units per net acre.  The commercial properties in the Civic Center (the service station, two banks, and Mulberry’s Market) could likewise be developed with apartments above them.

– Voters or City Council authorized to make decisions on zone uses as proposed for the commercial Zone D ? –

Piedmont’s voter enacted City Charter states:

“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;”

Former Piedmont Deputy City Attorney Linda C. Roodhouse noted:

June 7th, 2012

“I was the deputy City Attorney for Piedmont for many years and advised the planning department. I was also the City Attorney in Orinda for 11 years, until 2006. In both cities, I had a major role in the creation of new zoning codes. In Piedmont, the boundaries of a zone and the general land use within the zone are subject to voter approval. The City Council decides the specific rules and regulations within any zone, but the rules and regulations must be consistent with the charter description of authorized uses in a zone.”  Emphasis added

Barry Miller, Piedmont’s Zoning Consultant advised the City:

– Required lot size to be reduced in single family residential Zone A –

Properties in Zone A Single Family Residential could be entitled to lot size and street frontage reductions.  The proposal for the single family residential Zone A would allow lots to be reduced in size to 8,000 square feet and 60 foot street frontage from the current 10,000 square feet and 90 foot street frontage requirement.  Reductions would be determined by a lot averaging system based on lot dimensions within 500 feet of the subject property.  Historically, when appropriate, variances for lot sizes have been granted by the Planning Commission.

“Purposes: 1) to eliminate a perceived need to obtain a variance to build a single-family residence on a lot with fewer than 10,000 square feet; and 2) to remove unnecessary and archaic language” [referencing the notation of Charter requirements.] Planning staff explanation.

City Council member Keating recently wrote to PCA:

“First, changing the minimum lot size in a zone does not constitute rezoning, which would require a vote of the community. For example, Zone A is still residential although lots size requirements are being eliminated. And lot sizes are “archaic” as staff suggest – median lot size in Zone A is 6500 sq ft so most lots are below the 10,000 ft standard.”

– Environmental impacts not examined –

To implement the zoning change, the planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration as compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Negative Declaration relieves the City from further evaluation of any potential traffic, financial requirements, safety or other impacts of the proposed zoning changes. Although impacts can be examined, the Planning Commission did not undertake a detailed examination of potential impacts such as funding for services, infrastructure, traffic, safety, noise, etc.

 

“the proposed action to approve the amendments is exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, under CEQA Guidelines”  Kate Black, City Planner – October 14, 2013

Additional housing units such as apartments would not add to the School Support Tax base as parcels are taxed $2,406 per year regardless of the number of housing units.

The major principle of Piedmont zoning has been preservation of the single-family residential character of the City.

The Piedmont City Code states:

SEC. 17.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES
17.3.1: Purpose. It is the purpose of this Chapter to provide for specified zones and uses therein and to prescribe the character of construction within the City, in accordance with the City Charter. The zoning system of the City consists of two parts:
(a) The City Charter, which contains the zoning policy and requirements for voter approval of zone classification changes.
(b) Chapter 17 of the City Code. (Ord. No. 488 N.S., 10/87) 17.3.2: Intent, Establishment of Zones. In order to (1) maintain the City of Piedmont as primarily a single-family residential city, (2) to designate, regulate, and restrict the location and use of all buildings and land, (3) to promote the public interest, health, comfort, economy and convenience, and (4) to preserve the public peace, safety, morals, order, and the public welfare, the City of Piedmont is divided into five zones as follows…:

The matter is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council in November.

Planning Staff report October 14, 2013

Planning Staff report of September 30, 2013 with ordinance language.