– Re-subdivision of property, reasonable accommodation for the disabled, Conditional Use Permit permanence, mixed use in the Commercial Zone, parking requirements for Second Units, very low to low income requirements, multiple unit housing, parcel size requirements, etc. – 

On Monday, October 14, 2013, the Planning Commission will hold a hearing late in the meeting to consider potential changes to the City’s Zoning Code. The proposed changes are intended to facilitate increased housing density, clarify definitions, implement requirements by the State or Federal government, and reduce ambiguities.

The meeting agenda starts at 5:00 p.m. in City Hall. The zoning changes will be considered last in the meeting after all other items.  The Planning Commission will take a dinner break at 6:30 p.m., The time of the hearing on the numerous proposed changes to the City Zoning Code Chapter 17 is unknown. The Chapter 17 zoning changes are under Item #13. 

RE-SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY:

All parcels in Piedmont are subdivided.  Changes in boundary lines are considered a re-subdivision.  Currently, to build on a substandard lot requires a variance approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed changes appear to dismiss the 10,000 and 20,000 square foot requirements in the Residential (A) and Estate (E) zones and negate voter approved requirements because of conflicting language.   The current Zone E minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet is proposed to be eliminated in Section 17.9.2 of the City Code. The explanation offered for this change is the need to be consistent with the reduction in residential subdivision lot size to a minimum of 8,000 square feet in proposed Section 17.10.2 applying to Piedmont’s Zone A (Residential Zone). However, in the existing Section 17.14.2 the required minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet in Zone E is not eliminated, leading to some confusion.

In Zones A (Residential),  C (Multiple Family) and D (Commercial) the minimum lot size is eliminated for single family residences (17.5.2, 17.7.2 and 17.8.2 ). The stated explanation is to eliminate the perceived need to obtain a variance to build a single-family residence on a lot with fewer than 10,000 square feet and to simplify the language of the Code.

The Piedmont Charter states:

“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 hereof; provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a single family 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. (Emphasis added.)”

PROPOSED LANGUAGE: 17.5.2: Permitted Uses. The following principal uses are allowed as permitted uses in Zone A: (a) Single-family residences on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, together with accessory structures located on the same lot or parcel of land, subject to the provisions of the City Charter, this, and other sections of the City Code. 

(Strike outs are eliminations in  proposed code language.)

Staff Report notes = 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. 

Similar elimination language referring to the City Charter  also applies to other zones.

Eliminating the language mentioning the City Charter or changing square footage requirements for the zones has not been accompanied by a staff ballot measure recommendation.

The proposed changes to Chapter 17 of the City Code will allow re-subdivision of an existing single family lot if there is a lot in the neighborhood below the current minimum standards.  A lot that is 16,000 square feet (or more) with 120 feet (or more) of frontage on a public or private street may be re-subdivided into two lots (or more) if it is within 500 feet of a lot containing 8,000 square feet or less and a lot with frontage that is 60 feet or less.  The neighboring substandard frontage and lot area may be in two different lots. That is, within 500 feet in any direction there can be a lot that is more than 8,000 square feet with a frontage of less than 60 feet and a different lot that is less than 8,000 square feet and has a frontage of more than 60 feet.

Each re-subdivision puts more lots within 500 feet of qualification. The areas of Piedmont that would be excluded from potential re-subdivision under the proposed revisions to Section 17.10.2 and 17.10.3 are those with lots of less than 16,000 square feet or less than 120 feet of frontage. 

COMMERCIAL ZONE (D) TO INCLUDE MIXED USE PROVISION AND MULTIFAMILY ZONE  DENSITY(C):

It is envisioned that over time, as commercial properties redevelop, the new provisions would create economic opportunities to allow the inclusion of housing. An example of this is the Grand Avenue Shell station, which could be redeveloped with ground floor retail and upper level housing. To encourage mixed commercial/residential developments, fees for mixed use projects would be reduced as much as the fees for affordable housing.

Section 17.2.43B: Mixed Use Commercial/Residential. Mixed Use Commercial/Residential means a development that combines commercial and residential uses and having both (a) ground floor retail, office or service commercial uses which will primarily serve City residents; and (b) a multiple dwelling at a minimum density of one dwelling unit per each 3,600 square feet of lot area, but not exceeding one dwelling unit per each 2,000 square feet of lot area. This establishes a minimum 12 units per net acre. The stated purpose is to provide clarity that single-family residences with a second unit are not considered or regulated as multiple dwellings.

The Planning Commission at the September 30 meeting wanted “different regulatory/development standards for the City’s Grand Avenue commercial district from that of the Civic Center commercial zone to reflect the fact that the Grand Avenue district is more “regional” in character than the Civic Center. ”  The Commission also wanted to allow senior housing development in Zone D (commercial zone)

To encourage multifamily housing in both zones, structure coverage limit is proposed to increase from 25 percent to 50 percent in Zone D and from 40 percent to 50 percent in Zone C.  A minimum density of 12 units per net acre is proposed for new multifamily and mixed use developments.

SMALL HOUSING UNITS: 

Units of 700 square feet or less need only provide one covered parking space instead of the current two covered parking spaces.

AFFORDABLE UNITS:

The proposal for Section 17.2.2B: Affordable Unit. “Affordable Unit” means a dwelling unit for sale or rent that meets the California State Department of Housing and Community Development standards of income eligibility and affordable rent levels for Alameda County. (Health and Safety Code sections 50052.5(h) and 50053.)

PERMANENCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ZONE D:

Laws require that a Conditional Use Permit runs with the property making a breach of the original conditions approved by the City Council the only mechanism for revoking a CUP, unlike the current practice of routine reconsideration of a CUP.

RETENTION OF SMALLER HOUSES:

To provide a diversity of housing stock available, a new provision in Chapter 17 17.22.4(b) will discourage applications for a variance for floor area ratio for residences of 1,800 square feet or less.  The purpose of the provision is to give direction to staff with the intent of maintaining smaller homes or cottages for first time home buyers and housing for seniors desiring smaller homes. Many smaller homes in Piedmont have been changed from two-bedrooms with one bath houses of one story to three-bedrooms, two bath, two story houses.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION (17.2.59B):

“Reasonable Accommodation” means providing disabled persons flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations and procedures, or even waiving certain requirements, when necessary to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities. It may include such things as yard area modifications for ramps, handrails or other such accessibility improvements; hardscape additions, such as widened driveways, parking area or walkways; building additions for accessibility; tree removal; or reduced off-street parking where the disability clearly limits the number of people operating vehicles. Reasonable accommodation does not include an accommodation which would (1) impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city or (2) require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city’s land use and zoning program. (Govt. Code § 12927(c)(1),  1. and § 12955(l); 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 (a)(3).)

There are many other items under consideration not mentioned in this article – bicycle racks, cameras used for surveillance, temporary shelters, etc.

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

The Commission will hear comments from the public on the proposed changes and make their own comments.  The Commission may continue consideration of the proposed revisions to a future meeting or they may finalize recommendations to the City Council, in which case future hearings by the City Council will be scheduled.

First and second readings of the proposed code amendments are required by the City Council. Should the Commission take action to recommend approval of the Code Changes at this October 14th meeting, the recommendation will likely be heard at the November 18, 2013 City Council meeting.

Draft minutes of the September 30 Planning Commission meeting describing previous considerations of the changes.

Staff report prepared for September 30 meeting.

Staff report on changes to Chapter 17 for the October 14 meeting.

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

Earlier in the meeting starting at 5:00 p.m., the Planning Commission will be given a presentation on the consultant Barry J. Miller’s proposed scope of work and scheduled work on the Housing Element of the Piedmont General Plan to be completed prior to the January 31, 2015 State deadline.  This agreement is for the 2015 -2022 Housing Element update, the next seven year period mandated by the State.  This agenda item is considered a public hearing open for public input.  

Residents are encouraged to attend the meeting and express their opinions and ideas.  The meeting will be broadcast on KCOM, cable 27 and streamed live on the City’s website. To view the meeting via the internet go to  www.ci.piedmont.ca.us. On the right hand side of the City’s website homepage under the “City Council” heading, click on the “Online Video” link, then scroll down under the “Sections on this Page” heading, click on the “Planning Commission” link, then on the “October 14, 2013”, click on the “Video” or “In Progress” link, and scroll down to Agenda #13 and start watching!

Email comments to kblack@ci.piedmont.ca.us and they will be forwarded to the Planning Commissioners and the City Council.  Contact Kate Black, City Planner, with questions and comments at 510-420-3050 or kblack@ci.piedmont.ca.us.

Bicycle Master Plan, Complete Streets Policy and Pedestrian Master Plan Outlined for Piedmont –

The following letter was sent to PCA:

Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council,

We, the undersigned, are writing to express our interest in participating in the development of Piedmont’s Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) and related efforts and to share some of our initial thoughts and expectations about the process. Several of us are members of Piedmont Connect’s Alternative Transportation working group. Most of us bicycle in or through Piedmont regularly. We are very pleased that Piedmont is undertaking these efforts, and we welcome the opportunity to comment.

Communications: Please add all of the undersigned to the email notification list for the Bicycle Master Plan. Duncan Watry and Tim Rood are both happy to respond to inquiries on behalf of the group, which stays in contact via email.

Scope of Work: We understand from staff reports that the funding for the BMP is in the approved FY 2012-13 budget and that a proposal has been obtained from Barry Miller, whose fine work on Piedmont’s General Plan we very much appreciate. We would appreciate the opportunity for public review and comment on the proposed scope of work for the bike plan and related efforts, before a contract is executed.

New Measure B Funding Criteria: As you are aware, in 2011 the Alameda County Transportation Commission and MTC adopted new requirements that apply to the approximately $350,000 annually in Measure B funds that Piedmont receives from Alameda County, as well as Measure F funding, Vehicle License Fee offset funds, and the proposed Measure B increase on the November 2012 ballot. Recipient cities are now required to have adopted a Complete Streets policy by January 31, 2013 and to have adopted a pedestrian (or combined bike/pedestrian) master plan by Dec. 31, 2015. These efforts (discussed later in this letter) are closely related to the bicycle master plan process and should be coordinated.

We understand that a joint City Council/Planning Commission session, scheduled for September 18, will address the issue of expanding the consultant’s scope of work to include development of a Complete Streets policy and pedestrian/Safe Routes to Schools plan in addition to the bike plan. We look forward to participating in the public discussion of coordinating these important and necessary efforts.

Public Process: From discussions with you, we understand that the Council may choose not to appoint a formal Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) due to expense considerations, and that public input for the bicycle plan may occur primarily through Planning Commission hearings. With or without a BAC, we believe that bringing about community acceptance of the bicycle plan will require a robust and inclusive public input process, including one or more dedicated public meetings (ideally televised on KCOM) and perhaps an online survey as well. The process should include multiple avenues for input from bicyclists of all ages and capabilities, as well as from residents, particularly those who live along the proposed routes. If the consultant proposal does not include this level of community participation, we urge that it be amended.

Bicycle Plan Statutory Requirements: We understand that California law requires bicycle plans prepared by local jurisdictions to include eleven distinct components in order to qualify for funding from the State Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) under the California Bicycle Transportation Act. We expect Piedmont’s BMP to include these components. See Appendix A for a list of these components and our comments and recommendations.

Policy Context: We note that preparing a bicycle master plan is called for as a near-term priority in Piedmont’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP). We expect the BMP scope of work to reflect the policies of these documents as well as other applicable laws.
General Plan: : We expect the Bicycle Plan to implement the relevant policies of Piedmont’s adopted General Plan, which states that “[b]icycle travel provides a way to reduce vehicle emissions, promote public health, meet recreational needs, manage congestion, and reduce parking demand.” See Appendix B for other relevant General Plan policies.

Climate Action Plan: We expect the Bicycle Plan to implement the relevant policies of Piedmont’s adopted Climate Action Plan (see Appendix C), including a target of a combined bicycle and pedestrian mode share of 5% of commute trips by 2020 (Climate Action Plan Implementation Measure TL-1.1).

Specific Bicycle Issues to Be Addressed: We anticipate that the BMP process will provide an opportunity for public discussion of the following:

Bicycle Network: We believe it is important to plan for the phased and prioritized implementation of a citywide network of bicycle facilities that connects with Oakland’s bikeway network. We also believe it is very important for residents along the proposed bike routes to be included in the public discussion.

The bike routes depicted in General Plan Figure 4.5 are described as “a starting point for discussion.” We have discussed several ideas for fine-tuning and augmenting the proposed bike routes depicted in the General Plan. We believe it is important for the network to include bike routes that serve all of Piedmont’s public schools and major parks, and that connect to Oakland routes linking Piedmont to major destinations, such as shopping districts and BART stations. We believe bike routes serving Wildwood School, Dracena Park and Hampton Field should be added to the proposed network. Bike route connections to the Lakeshore and Montclair shopping districts may also be appropriate.

Specific Routes: Grand Avenue, Park Boulevard and portions of Moraga Avenue are all currently unimproved and dangerous bicycle routes, which our group has discussed extensively. We believe there are design solutions that could improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety while making bicycling and walking more pleasant and reducing speeding. These solutions should be investigated for at least preliminary feasibility as part of the BMP process and its implementation. We have spoken with Jason Patton, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager at the City of Oakland, who assured us that he and his staff are looking forward to collaborating with Piedmont staff and citizens on bicycle planning issues across municipal boundaries.

Bike Parking: We believe that one way to encourage biking for regular transportation in Piedmont would be to provide more visible and useful bike parking locations, particularly in and around the Civic Center and at the schools.

Evolving Design Guidance for Bikeways: Best practices and standards for bicycle facilities are fast evolving, and multiple sets of standards are currently in circulation. Several urban designers and planners in our group are familiar with the evolving state of best practices and are eager to share ideas and design concepts, as well as nearby examples of the successful introduction of innovative facility designs.

Measureable Goals: The CAP sets a target of a combined bicycle and pedestrian mode share of 5% of commute trips by 2020. We believe the BMP should include a measurable goal for bicycle mode share and a process for monitoring progress toward this goal.
Prioritization: We believe the BMP should identify short, medium and long-term priorities.

Pavement Condition: One of the most important outcomes of the BMP and Complete Streets Policy should be to make designated bicycle routes a high priority for repaving to improve bicycle safety. For example, we note that the current pavement condition on Magnolia Avenue, a proposed bicycle route and important route to schools, is far worse than that of other streets, such as Highland Avenue, which are proposed for repaving this year while Magnolia is not.

Complete Streets Policy We understand that you anticipate that ACTC will distribute a model Complete Streets policy or ordinance to jurisdictions later this year. As we recently saw with the community and Council reaction to the proposed Bay-Friendly Landscape Ordinance, model ordinances may not always reflect Piedmont’s unique conditions. We believe the BMP process presents an ideal opportunity to develop and refine Complete Streets policies that are appropriate for Piedmont and to lay important groundwork in rolling these concepts out to the community.

We expect Piedmont’s Complete Streets policy or ordinance to comply with the requirements of the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Appendix D) and hope that it will include the ten elements of a comprehensive complete streets policy recommended by the National Complete Streets Coalition (see Appendix E).

Pedestrian Master Plan Similar to the bicycle plan, a pedestrian master plan for Piedmont will help to focus pedestrian improvements along highly used routes and set out a community-supported, prioritized vision for future pedestrian improvements. We encourage the consideration of a combined pedestrian/bicycle master plan to ensure that the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists are coordinated.

Safe Routes to Schools With so many Piedmont students already walking to school, and the potential to make bicycling to school a safer and more comfortable option in keeping with Piedmont’s policy goals, we believe it is important to coordinate pedestrian and bicycle improvements, including traffic calming measures, around our schools with the larger bicycle and pedestrian master planning processes. We understand that a comprehensive approach to planning for Safe Routes to School could make Piedmont eligible for additional funding for pedestrian and bicycle improvements and traffic calming measures, as well as raising awareness of traffic issues, physical fitness, and safety in our school community.

The Safe Routes to Schools Alameda County Partnership is funded in part by Measure B and includes the Alameda County Public Health Department, Cycles of Change, and many other local agencies and organizations, led by TransForm, a non-profit organization. The partnership is currently reaching tens of thousands of students at more than 60 Alameda County public elementary schools. We understand that the Piedmont Unified School District, through its 2009 Green Initiatives Action Plan, has already committed to working with the City of Piedmont to cooperate on the development of Safe Routes to School in Piedmont We encourage the City of Piedmont to actively collaborate with PUSD and to work with non-profit and agency partners to pursue funding opportunities and further this process.

Thank you for your attention, and we look forward to working with you on the Bicycle Master Plan and related efforts.

Sincerely,

Jasmin Ansar
Lynne Bosche
Dave Campbell (Program Manager, East Bay Bicycle Coalition)
Adam Carr
Scott Donahue
Eric W. Downing
Kurt Fleischer
Tom Gandesbery
Len Gilbert
Ryan Gilbert
Katherine Heater
Eric Hsia
Ve and Arthur Hsieh
Kristin Hull
Tammi, Andrew, Clare and Grant Keating
Garrett Keating (Piedmont City Council member)
Christopher Kidd (Board member, California Bicycle Coalition)
Thomas Kronemeyer
Kimberly Moses
Margaret Ovenden
Debbie Pfeiffer
Tim Rood
Hussein Saffouri (President, Berkeley Bicycle Club)
Hope and Larry Salzer
Rick Schiller
Peter M. Sherris
Michael Singer
Terry and Rob Smith
Susan Southworth
Roger Sparks
Sinan Subuncuoglu
Alice Sung
Maryann Tucker
Jukka Valkonen (Chair, Piedmont Park Commission)
Tom Walters
Winifred Walters
Mark Ward
Duncan Watry
Anne Weinberger
Karen Westmont
Keira Williams
Tracey Woodruff
Affiliations are shown for identification purposes only.

Appendix A. Comments on Bicycle Plan Statutory Requirements:

a. Estimated Number of Existing and Proposed Bicycle Commuters Recommendation: We note that existing figures should be available from 2010 Census data. Comparisons to other nearby cities would be helpful to provide context.

b. Land Use and Population Density (map and description) Recommendation: These could be incorporated from Piedmont’s General Plan by reference

c. Existing and Proposed Bikeways (map and description). Comment: We note that the route network depicted in General Plan Figure 4.5 is described a “starting point for discussion” and look forward to participating in that discussion along with other Piedmonters and interested parties.

d. Existing and Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities (map and description). Recommendation: The BMP should include standards for the development of bicycle parking and outline potential locations for these facilities.

e. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Transport and Parking Facilities for Transportation Connections (map and description). Recommendation: This should include standards for bicycle parking near Piedmont’s bus stops and casual carpool pick-ups.

f. Existing and Proposed Shower Facilities (map and description)

Recommendation: While this provision may not be applicable to Piedmont given the lack of large employers, it could be applicable to City employees. We note that City-owned showers are available in the Piedmont Community Pool locker rooms.

g. Bicycle Safety and Education Programs (description) Comment: We note that such programs are currently offered by the Boy Scouts and East Bay Bicycle Coalition.

h. Citizen and Community Participation Comment: As noted above, we expect and encourage the City to provide multiple avenues for public participation in this effort.

i. Consistency with Long-Range Transportation, Air Quality and Energy Plans

j. Project Descriptions and Priority Listings

k. Past Expenditures and Future Financial Needs Description

Appendix B. Relevant Piedmont General Plan Policies
The following General Plan policies relate to bicycle planning:

Policy 10.4: Bike Routes Accommodate bicycles where feasible on Piedmont streets. Recognize that most streets are not wide enough to accommodate dedicated bike lanes, but that the designation of some streets as “bike routes” (as depicted on the City of Oakland’s Bicycle Plan) could improve connectivity to Oakland and link Piedmont to nearby destinations, including shopping districts, Downtown Oakland, and BART.

Policy 10.5: Bicycle Infrastructure Expand the “infrastructure” necessary to accommodate bicycle travel, including bike racks in parks, at schools, and at public buildings, and adequate space for bicycle storage in residential garages.

Action 10.D: Safe Routes to School Work collaboratively with the Piedmont Unified School District to determine the feasibility of a Safe Routes to School program. Pursue grant funding to initiate such a program and offset local costs.

Action 10.E: Bicycle Plan Contingent on the availability of funding and staff, develop a bike plan which incorporates the route alignments shown in Figure 4.5; outlines safety, maintenance, and education programs; and identifies capital improvements to encourage bicycling in Piedmont. Pursue grant funding and consider use of Measure B funds to prepare and implement such a plan.

Appendix C. Piedmont Climate Action Plan Policies
Relevant CAP policies include the following:
– TL 1.1 Expand bicycling & pedestrian infrastructure
– TL 1.2 Install bike racks
– TL 3.4 Work with schools to improve/expand walking, Safe Routes to School and trip reduction programs
– TL 3.5 Public education re reducing motor vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions

Measure TL 1.1 calls for the preparation and adoption of a Bicycle Master Plan that coordinates with City of Oakland bicycle planning initiatives and sets a target of a combined bicycle and pedestrian mode share of 5% of commute trips by 2020. The measure reads as follows:
“Improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure will help reduce GHG emissions, enhance mobility for all ages and abilities, and increase the health and fitness of Piedmont residents. To achieve these multiple benefits, the City will work to improve the community’s pedestrian and bicycle network. Improvements will be made to increase pedestrian, and cyclist safety.

“Proposed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements will be based on street types and existing characteristics. Pedestrian infrastructure improvements will consist of additional cross‐walks, sidewalk cuts, and traffic calming elements. Bicycle infrastructure improvements will include development of new cycletracks, Class II bike lanes, and addition of signs to improve cyclist safety. Streets with higher traffic volumes will include cycletracks or Class II bike lanes. Lower volume residential streets will be subject to minor improvements, such as signs and traffic calming features.”
The CAP also recommendations for installing bike racks at bus stops and carpool pick-up sites.

Appendix D. Complete Streets Act of 2008
The California Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill 1358) was signed into law in September 2008. It requires that local jurisdictions modify their general plans as follows:
“(A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantial revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, “users of streets, roads, and highways” means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.”
Appendix E. Elements of a Comprehensive Complete Streets Policy
The National Complete Streets Coalition has identified ten elements of a comprehensive complete streets policy, which we support:
– Includes a vision for how and why the community wants to complete its streets
– Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles.
– Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way.
– Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions.
– Encourages street connectivity and aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network for all modes.
– Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads.
– Directs the use of the latest and best design criteria and guidelines while recognizing the need for flexibility in balancing user needs.
– Directs that complete streets solutions will complement the context of the community.
– Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes.
– Includes specific next steps for implementation of the policy.

Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the signers and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

 Editors’ Note:  The following are comments from the community on the proposed StopWaste ordinance.  Note that revisions to the proposal were posted on June 14.  View the revisions here.

Nancy Lehrkind

I think this [PCA Inconsistency and Confusion Article] is a good and fair analysis which points out a large area (and potentially larger) of applicability of this Proposed Ordinance to residential re-landscaping projects in Piedmont. I would also take issue with many of the “Findings” which are stated as reasons why this Proposed Ordinance is needed. In particular, Finding Number 3 does not apply to Piedmont (It “finds” that we in Piedmont are responsible for 5.4% of the Alameda County landfill containing gardening debris.). We have actually taken extraordinary steps to ensure that we, as a community, are practicing green recycling of our gardening debris. In addition, I personally am very shocked that our town Council can be openly bribed to pass legislation. I have received offers of up to $11,000 to pay the City to NOT pass this law. Is this really the way we operate here? Really? I think those of us who care about any aspect of this proposed legislation or its process should show up Monday night to register his/her protest.

Garrett Keating

The applicability of the Proposed Ordinance to re-landscaping projects is very likely less than that of new developments. To apply, re- landscaping needs to be 2500 sq ft of an existing 5000 sq ft of irrigated landscape of a commercial, multi-family or public property in conjunction with a building application. The number of commercial and multi-family properties that even have 5000 sq ft to re-landscape is probably zero. Public projects of this size and nature seem rare in Piedmont. Take the recent Tea House as an example – that was a building project yet does not meet the sq area requirements. Likewise, the Ronada-Ramona triangle or Linda Tot lot would not be affected by the ordinance. Civic projects that exceed $100000 are already subject to the city’s Civic Bay Friendly Ordinance so it seems the public provisions of this ordinance will apply in very few circumstances.  > Click to read more…

An Editorial from the Piedmont Civic Association

Democracy, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is “government in which supreme power is exercised directly by the people or by their elected representatives.”

The inappropriate comments by Council Member Jeff Wieler referring to one or more citizens as the Taliban has brought out various responses: apologies, forgiveness, attacks, justifications, excuses.  What seems to be missing in many of the responses is an interest in the right and need for citizens to inform their government and their fellow citizens. For a citizen to provide information to an elected body, can this possibly be wrong?  Can it be wrong to suggest future taxes may not be voter approved, given unacceptable governmental decisions?  Isn’t this the role of voters?

Democracy requires the active participation of its citizens.  This activity should not be ridiculed in the press.  It should not lead to intimidation.  Both our town and our country need more people to come forward and be involved.  To shame, belittle and name call undercuts the importance of citizen participation, which is at the core of democracy.

Taxes, land uses, schools, elected officials, governmental processes – all are the responsibility of citizens, and all benefit from citizen interest and involvement.  If voters do not support what their elected officials do, government needs to know this and to welcome participants at meetings to express concerns without being harassed or becoming the target of negative press reports.

In an active, working democracy, every citizen has not just the right – but the necessity – to know what their government is doing.  Every citizen has not just the right – but the obligation – to challenge policies and processes.  Every citizen has not just the right – but the need – to hear the opinions of every other citizen. The deliberative, democratic process benefits from the expression of various points of view rather than just one.  No matter how strongly individuals feel about their positions, the right of everyone to be involved and  for the government to hear a variety of views needs to be not just respected, but protected.

Poor journalism, verbal attacks by elected officials, and disregard for the opinions of others undermine our democracy.

Let’s strengthen democracy in Piedmont by listening to and considering all points of view.  It is our government.

A letter from a Piedmont resident on Blair Park:

It’s a Gift!  I am concerned about the gifting of “exclusive use rights” of City owned public property to a private business. And is it legal? If it is . . . . > Click to read more…

Piedmonters emailed letters to the City Council in advance of the Monday, November 15, 2010 public hearing to consider the “Response to Comments” on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Moraga Avenue proposals. Therese Franklin and Robert Blagden objected to

> Click to read more…

Open Letter to Piedmont Planning Director Kevin Jackson

Dear Planning Director Jackson,

I attended the November 30 community workshop about the proposed Moraga Canyon housing project.  You and I spoke about several issues, and you welcomed me to send you follow-up observations.  I am concerned about the project’s isolation, the low-income residents’ separation, and the willingness of the project’s managers to incorporate community feedback into the plans.

The first part of the community meeting was a presentation by City staff and the project planning consultants to describe the project and its four options.  Then, the assembled people were invited to speak one-on-one to various project team members at poster-board stations along the perimeter of the room.  No opportunity was given for workshop attendees to question the project planners as a group.  General questions about the overall nature of the project would not be answered by staff personnel who were designated to discuss specific options at individual poster-board stations.  This gave me and several other people the feeling that the City isn’t really interested in hearing and addressing our concerns.

I am concerned about the isolation of the 132 new units planned for the Moraga area.  There is no “urban fabric” connecting that location with the rest of Piedmont, except for the heavily-trafficked Moraga Ave.  Walkers or bike riders would not see other Piedmont houses for over a quarter mile.  Isolation may be a more severe problem for residents of the 60 subsidized units who may not have cars available for both going to work and for shopping or going to school.  This problem could be mitigated if the City were to operate a shuttle bus, similar to the shuttles that Emeryville operates to and from the MacArthur BART station.  A Piedmont shuttle could take residents down Moraga, along Piedmont Ave., across MacArthur to Grand Ave., up Grand to Oakland Ave., up Oakland to the City Center, and then along Highland back to Moraga.  Connection to the BART station might even be included in the route.  The City could operate the shuttle for the first five years, and then evaluate whether the amount of ridership justifies continuing, perhaps with support from passenger fees.  This solution was mentioned when we spoke at the meeting, Mr. Jackson, so I am reminding you now and requesting that it be given serious consideration.

A more serious problem is the planned separation of the below-market units from the market-rate units.  This is a terrible idea that will have dangerous consequences.   It would create a low-income “ghetto” in the midst of high-income housing.  Low-income residents would be stigmatized whenever there was a problem like graffiti, or trash, or theft.  The higher-income residents would instinctively blame any grime or crime on “those people” living in the separate, nearby buildings.  Numerous studies have shown that when lower-income people are physically integrated into a higher-income housing project discrimination is minimized.  Indeed, the lower-income residents become better integrated into the community, and their own economic circumstances improve faster than those living in separated housing.

While you agreed that integration was a good idea, Mr. Jackson, you contended that separation was necessary because the subsidized housing had to be built as a separate project.  This was not my experience when I developed housing for low and moderate income people, financed by both Federal and State programs, a few decades ago.  Section 8’s below-market rental housing units were part of a larger market-rate project financed through HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).  There was no physical difference between the rental units.  A local non-profit corporation bought the project from a for-profit developer who gained the tax-shelter benefits from selling designated subsidized units at below-market rates.

In Piedmont’s project, some of the 132 units could be sold to individuals (72 at market rate, 60 at below-market rate), with unsold units being sold to a non-profit agency which would rent the market-rate units and the subsidized units together, with no physical distinction among the units.  They would be seamlessly included within the 132-unit project.  No ghetto.  No separation.  There are many different ways to finance such mixed-income projects – direct subsidies, tax credits, a combination of county, State and Federal funding, perhaps even some philanthropy.

We discussed this possibility at the community meeting and you asserted that an integrated project was not feasible; there would have to be two separate projects.  I implore you to go back and investigate State and Federal subsidy programs more thoroughly.  Creating a new housing community that separates residents by their economic status creates a danger that will cost our City financially and socially in the decades to come.

I hope you, the planning consultants, and the City Council act on these concerns productively, and demonstrate that you do respond to community residents’ feedback.

Sincerely,

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

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

Tiny Forests are a Bargain, Typical Cost Equals 5 Street Trees

While Piedmont removed a block-long tree canopy for a public construction project, ecologically concerned communities are demanding “tiny forests” in addition to preservation of the tree canopy.

Tiny Forests are created by sowing multiple layers in a dense arrangement of shrub and canopy plantings.  “The plants compete for resources as they race toward the sun …”  reports the New York Times.  Woodlands and healthy canopies absorb carbon dioxide, but tiny forests multiply the ecological effect on little land, absorbing storm water, suppressing weeds, remaining lush through droughts, and “grow as quickly as ten times the speed of conventional tree plantations.”  In Cambridge, MA 1400 shrubs and saplings grow in a basketball size plot after only 2 years.

New York Times, 8/27/2023

Adding a tiny forest to a community with a sufficient tree canopy provides a boost to the reduction of the community carbon footprint.  It should never be a choice between a tiny forest and the protection of a neighborhood tree canopy.  Street trees are also important for healthy communities.  Tree canopies

• Remove pollutants from the air, soil and water
• Release cool the surrounding areas, mitigating the urban heat island effect
• Intercept rainfall and reduce stormwater runoff
• Provide shade and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Provide carbon sequestration
• Aesthetic effect Increases adjacent property values

Last week, Piedmont elementary school kids enjoyed multiple sessions of P.E. class on the Linda Beach pickleball courts.  In this photo, local kids are learning pickleball from volunteer instructors from the Piedmont and Oakland communities.

The Linda Beach courts are currently available for pickleball use by the schools and the public during a several month trial being conducted by the Piedmont Recreation Department.  At the end of the trial, the Piedmont Recreation Commission and City Council will decide whether the use of the Linda Beach courts exclusively for pickleball will be made permanent.  Use of the courts by Piedmont school kids will continue throughout the trial and, hopefully, become permanent.

Pickleball is the nation’s fastest growing sport.  The International Federation of Pickleball currently has at least 70 member nations and is striving for inclusion of pickleball as an Olympic sport, possibly as early as 2028.  According to the Sports Fitness Industry Association’s 2022 Pickleball Report, a third of pickleball players are under age 25.  The current number one rated pickleball players in the world are Ben Johns, a now 24-year-old who converted from tennis to pickleball at age 17, and Anna Leigh Waters, a now 16-year-old who went pro at age 12.  Both are reeling in substantial tournament winnings and endorsement deals.

Former Piedmont High School and professional tennis player, Brad Gilbert, recently told ABC News, “I do see the sport [pickleball] growing because of how much quicker the learning curve to play.”  Brad Gilbert coached the former tennis great Andre Agassi, who has now become a pickleball convert.  Agassi, Michael Chang, John McEnroe and Andy Roddick recently played in a pickleball event with a million dollar purse.

According to a recent article on Parents.com, part of the huge rise in pickleball participation is due to the increased inclusion of pickleball in schools’ athletic curriculums and at summer camps.  In another referenced Parents.com article, soccer star Alex Morgan rued the decline in kids’ interest in sports, noting that 70 percent of kids in the U.S. stop playing sports by age 13.  Morgan urged the prioritization of funding for municipal infrastructure allowing for low-cost participation by kids in sports that are “fun.”  Pickleball meets both criteria.  Municipalities across the nation are racing to meet the growing demand for pickleball facilities.

The Piedmont Pickleball Committee hopes that one or more of these happy youngsters enjoying pickleball at the Linda Beach courts will become a star on a future Piedmont High School Pickleball Team and/or the next Ben Johns or Anna Leigh Waters.  At the very least, they will learn a sport which is low cost, fun and can be continued throughout their lifetimes.”

by Jeff Trowbridge, Piedmont Pickleball Committee