May 31 2014

City and School Liaison Meeting: Safety Training, Crossing Guards, School Landscaping, Use Restrictions on School Property June 4

The City and School appointed liaisons, two representatives from the City Council and two from the School Board, will confer on issues of joint interest on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue.

The meeting is open to the public, but is not expected to be broadcast or recorded.

Listed on the agenda are:

1. Discussion of Litter Issues in Piedmont Park

2. Review of Crossing Guard Program

3. Discussion of Safety Training Coordination between Schooolmates and PUSD staff

4. Discussion of Joint Efforts to Increase Participation in the City’s Emergency Notification System

5. Discussion of School District Landscaping Needs

6. Discussion of Enforcement of Use Restrictions on School Property

7. Update on Results of the June 2, 2014 Election

8. Schedule of Future Meetings – Agenda Topics

No meeting materials have been made available.

 

Jul 21 2013

Ever Use the Oakland Library?

Tired of paying for E-books?  The Oakland  Public Library offers those with a library card on-line download of books from their E-library.  The library purchases a limited number of the E-books.  A person might have to wait their turn to borrow an ebook and adhere to the seven day time limit on each use. The City of Piedmont annually pays the City of Oakland $350,471, which allows Piedmonters access to all services provided by the Oakland Public Library.  

To find out more about E-books go to……http://www.oaklandlibrary.org/online-resources/e-books-and-downloadable-audiobooks

To learn more about the many other services offered by the Oakland Public Library go to: http://www.oaklandlibrary.org/online-resources/e-books-and-downloadable-audiobooks

Piedmonters can return borrowed books by placing them in the library drop box outside of Wells Fargo Bank next to the mail boxes.

May 3 2023

OPINION: Piedmont Payroll and Benefits Obligations Cause Spending Problem

“Piedmont has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”

Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee report

Some highlights from the April Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee  (BAFPC) meeting:

Four Year Capital Improvement Program: 

2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 TOTAL
FACILITIES 613,000 4,361,000 855,000 420,000 6,249,000
PARKS 458,000 900,000 395,000 109,000 1,862,000
PARK PATHWAYS 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000
TENNIS COURTS 80,000 200,000 270,000 550,000
SUSTAINABILITY 50,000 125,000 476,500 28,000 679,500
GREEN INFRA- STURCTURE 400,000 400,000
COMMUNITY POOL 60000 400000 460,000
TOTAL $1,361,000 $6,486,000 $2,989,050 $657,000 $10,600,500
ENDING

BALANCE

  

9,185,286

  

5,035,550

  

2,989,050

  

2,362,050

Estimates to replace/renovate Essential Services facilities, City hall basement and Recreation Building:     $16, 450,000. – 52,585,425.

STAFF INCREASES:

Proposed FY23-24 will include a part-time Facilities Project Manager:            $100,000/year

Increase in Planning Department Part-time staff:                                           $180,400

Increase in Planning Department Supplemental and Consulting service:       $519,000

Consulting for Moraga Canyon Specific Plan:                                                  $700,000

2 new dispatch positions Police Department:       $282,000, 5-year cost = $1, 518,000

TAX INCREASES:

2 new dispatchers would require a 11% increase in the parcel tax.

TAX REVENUE:

Property taxes receipts were 8% above the previous year (well above expected) and the real property transfer tax for 20222/23 was projected to come in at $4.7M, almost $1M above estimates.

For more details email Finance Director Michael Szczech, mszczech@piedmont.ca.gov.

In year’s past, City Council would have the assistance of two citizen committees to assist in reviewing these spending and tax increases.   The Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) would meet every two years prior to the parcel tax being put on the ballot for renewal. The MTRC held public meetings and met with all department heads to review service levels and department needs.

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC ) has replaced the MTRC but is not conducting the comprehensive review of city departments the prior committee once did. With the addition of the Measure UU assessments, the likely increase in the parcel tax, and a possible new bond for essential service buildings, the BAFPC should revisit its 2018 study of taxes in comparable cities to assess the long-term impact of these new tax adoptions on Piedmont.  That study found Piedmont’s tax levels acceptable based on comparison with Hillsborough.

The other committee was the Capital Improvement Projects Committee (CIP) which reviewed staff and citizen proposals for capital improvement projects.  With Piedmont’s conservative budgeting, there’s always a surplus in city revenues at the end of the year and CIP annually met to review proposals for capital projects from staff but also from residents.  Residents filled out a form and presented to the committee. The Indian Road, Ronada/Ramona and Kingston traffic islands all were initiated through the CIP process.  CIP seems to have been disbanded after COVID – the committee is no longer listed among the city’s commission and committees.  In my experience, the CIP provided a good reality check to staff proposals.  For example, in response to a question from a BAFPC committee member, staff said the primary criteria for CIP is safety and that is true.  This year’s top CIP project is the Piedmont Park – Guilford stairs at the cost of $388,000.  That project was initiated by a fall on the stairs and what could have been addressed with a handrail has morphed into a major beautification project.  Has this project diverted funding from other safety projects like Park Way and Highland where a pedestrian was hit by a car? A CIP committee asking these questions earlier in project development would provide significant cost savings.

The opening line of the first BAFPC report was: “Piedmont has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”  That was speaking to the payroll and benefits obligations of the city at the time.  Piedmont is receiving record tax revenue and should reconvene the CIP and MTRC committees so it doesn’t slip back into a spending problem.

Garrett Keating, Former Member of the Piedmont City Council

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

 On Tuesday May 9, The Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) will meet again at 6:00 pm in the EOC (Emergency Operations Center  of the Piedmont Police Department at Highland and Vista Avenues.)

The important BAFPC meetings, unlike Piedmont Commission meetings, are not broadcast or video recorded by the City. Minutes are not kept of the Committee meetings, although required by the City Charter.  The public may attend and participate in the meetings with a right to obtain all materials distributed to the Committee members. The public has a right to make audio and video recordings of the meetings.

Oct 3 2021

Oakland Avenue Bulb Outs at Jerome and El Cerrito Avenues

On Monday, October 4, 2021, the Piedmont City Council will consider moving ahead with improvements on Oakland Avenue to assist pedestrians, especially school age children, crossing the busy street.  Improvements are expected to cost approximately $400,000 to construct “bulb outs” into the thoroughfares reducing the open distance from curb to curb at Jerome and El Cerrito Avenues.

“The Piedmont Beautification Foundation (PBF) has indicated its interest in fundraising for this project with its holiday 2021 campaign. To ensure coordination with this longstanding project, PBF has requested that the City Council indicate if it desires to move forward with the project before the foundation begins its fundraising. Directing staff to proceed with the final design of the project will serve this purpose.”

READ the full staff report with drawings >Oakland Ave Improvements 2021

READ the Agenda HERE.

Apr 15 2021

Public or Commercial Use of 801 Magnolia ?

Should the facilities at 801 Magnolia continue to be for the arts commingled with a commercial business?

“City staff has negotiated the lease renewal behind closed doors and there seems to be a majority on Council that couldn’t be bothered with public input on matters other than the lease.  That’s too bad because over the years residents have proposed creative ideas for 801 and were Council to engage in an open conversation with its constituents it would lead to better use of the building.”   Garrett Keating, Former City Council Member submitted to this website.

At its regular meeting on Monday April 19th, the City Council will consider the proposed revised lease renewal for the Piedmont Center for the Arts.  Should this City building be dedicated to community use? The proposal continues to avoid the issue of whether the building should be subleased by the Art Center Board to a private business.    

The City did not seek open public participation on the use and lease of 801 Magnolia.  As noted by concerned citizens, the proposal was fashioned behind closed doors, continuing the practice of exclusion and special favors.

It is unknown if any Council members were involved in voicing their opinions privately to the staff in a “hub and spoke” process forbidden under California’s open meeting laws, the Brown Act.

No written policy on non-arts uses of the public building.

Did the City Council willingly relinquish its responsibility in order to permit undefined Non-Arts Related Rentals?

“Non-Arts Related Rentals (15.1) The amended Lease requires PCA [Piedmont Center for the Arts] to seek the City’s prior written consent in the event it wishes to allow activities to occur at the Leased Premises other than Approved Uses (e.g., non-arts related activities), where PCA would charge user fees for the activities. The previous version of the Lease deemed any preexisting arrangement for user fees as approved, but PCA has now agreed to let go of its long-standing weekly Wednesday rental to a non-arts related user and has designated that time as part of the upfront City allotment.”

Piedmont has been seeking greater equity and inclusion in public decisions and public property use.  The public has a right to participate in decisions about the use of public property.  This proposal excluded open public input.

The proposal does not resolve the public use issue – public over commercial use and Council involvement in subleases.

There appears to be a community desire for musical, dramatic, and artist programs to continue under the leadership of the Piedmont Center for the Arts.  Yet, turning the building into partial commercial use under a stub-lease to the exclusion of public use has been highly criticized.

No publicly agendized meetings, hearings, community outreach or known research has occurred since the preemptive move in November 2020 to approve the now discarded problematic lease renewal with the Piedmont Center for the Arts group.

Many in the community have waited months for City input solicitation, but none came.   Meanwhile, the “City” devised and negotiated terms of a new lease without open public input.

History appears to be repeating a faulty, exclusionary process:

The City Council, if it accepts the process, will be repeating the prior practice of excluding the public and allowing pre-authorization of commercial use of the public building without public hearings or a Council adopted specific policy on non-art commercial use of the building and grounds.

On November 16, 2020, a rushed, surprise lease renewal proposal was promptly approved at a first reading in a  3-2 split vote by the then members of the City Council.  Council members Rood and Cavenaugh voted “No” wanting more information, inclusion, and input prior to approving the free rental proposal and unclear policies.  The new Council will  determine the equity and  appropriateness of the lease and sublease requirements .

Uses other than music, drama, and art programs have not been publicly discussed or considered.  For example, Piedmont seniors who bear the burden of taxes for Piedmont, have sought a facility for seniors programs.  801 Magnolia has sufficient unused space to allow the Art Center group to coexist with seniors programs.  Yet, the proposed lease does not provide for this expanded use.

The current non-art commercial business sublease of the property was privately granted outside of Council view and unknown to all Councilmembers.  The then City Administrator collaborated privately with the commercial business and the Art Center Board to sublet space under the free Art Center lease at 801 Magnolia.

Public uses and priorities have been excluded from use considerations as the City allows continuation of prior commercial practices.

Members of the  City Council when previously asked to consider and approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under the free Art Center lease for a commercial use were never informed by the City Administrator (“the City”), acting as the landlord, had already approved and signed off on the commercial sublease without public consideration or Council approval.

Outreach to the community was minimal and some neighbors were not aware of the closed door arrangement for a commercial business sublet.  Public use was preempted.  A newspaper notification was absent.

Some City Council members not realizing the commercial use and sublease had already been granted by the City Administrator were told the City Council could only consider matters such as parking and hours of operation, not the sublets commercial use or sublease.  The Council was never provided a copy of the sublease and had no opportunity by policy to examine the terms and appropriateness.

The Art Center management drew concerns from the community by providing the commercial business owner, an Art Center Committee Advisor, a below market rate commercial sublease, while excluding various public users and consuming space for business purposes. The Piedmont Recreation Department regularly referred potential public/community users of the facility to the commercial business owner, who  determined if they could use the facility.

The City staff proposed agreement once more bestows upon the staff (“the City”) rather than the Council, unilateral decision authority on a policy matter – what is good or bad for Piedmont  – with no policy direction from the Council or public input.

Read the staff report and lease language by clicking below:

Final Proposed Art-Center-2021-2nd-Reading-of-Ordinance-758-N.S-–-Approving-an-Amended-and-Restated-Agreement-with-the-Piedmont-Center-for-the-Arts-at-801-Magnolia-Avenue

Certain individuals were excluded, while others were allowed to provide input to the staff on the proposal.  There was no investigation of community-wide priorities or a use policy draft.  The rushed attempt in November 2020 to renew the faulty lease was publicly abandoned for 6 months without explanation.

The Piedmont City Council will – Consider Renewal of the Piedmont Center for the Arts Lease on Monday, April 19th.   Major changes to the lease are noted by the staff as:  • Addition of Rent Payment • Additional Time Designated for City Programming • Improved Early Termination Clause • Addition of an Emergency or Unforeseen Circumstance Clause • Prior Written Consent [by “the City”] for Non-Arts Related Rentals.

Provide input to the City Council at  citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov. 

AGENDA >  Meeting  Participation and Schedule for Monday, April 19, 2021  

Consideration of the lease has been placed last on the agenda.

Art Center 2021-04-09 Council to Consider Piedmont Center for the Arts Lease Renewal on April 19th

Apr 10 2021

Bright New Signs on Highland Gas Station?

Lit Price Signs Proposed for Highland Gas Station

Digital LED-lit and Corner Monument Digital Signs

Planning Commission Consideration of New Signs for Highland Avenue Gas Station – Monday, April 12, 5:30 pm

The application proposes to construct new signage at the gas station including: a new interior–lit monument sign with digital price indicators at the corner of Highland Avenue and Highland Way; a digital LED–lit sign on the gas station canopy; and unlit signage above the convenience store and auto repair garage.

Virtual Meeting by ZOOM Teleconference open to the public.  See agenda for instructions on tuning in. >  Agenda

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES:

Design and Preservation Policy 27.9: Signs – Require quality, balance, consistency, and high quality materials in the design of signs, including commercial business signs, municipal signs, street signs, and traffic signs. Signs should be compatible with buildings and streetscapes, and should be minimally obtrusive to surrounding uses.

Feb 22 2021

OPINION: 801 Magnolia Ave. Use Needs Public Hearings

– Piedmont Priorities –

With life as good as it is in Piedmont, it’s hard to think how it could get better. But there’s always room for improvement so in 2007 the City conducted a community survey as a prelude to updating its General Plan.

The response to the 2007 survey exceeded all expectations. Approximately 3,800 surveys were mailed out, and almost 1,300 surveys were completed and returned. That’s a 34% response rate, the highest ever response rate of any community survey of Piedmont residents.  Question 7 in the survey asked “For which types of projects would you support increases in city taxes or fees?”.  The range of responses to that question are in the table below.  

Q7: FOR WHICH TYPES OF PROJECTS   WOULD YOU SUPPORT INCREASES IN   CITY TAXES OR FEES?
Total with Opinion Response Average Strongly Oppose Somewhat  Oppose Somewhat  Support Strongly Support
Additional recreational facilities 1116 2.69 20.2% 17.4% 35.7% 26.8%
Landscaping and tree planting 1155 2.87 13.3% 15.2% 42.9% 28.6
City-owned competitive swimming pool 1124 2.59 28.3% 15.1% 25.5% 31.0%
Undergrounding of overhead utility wires 1159 2.96 18.5% 11.8% 25.0% 44.7%
A parking garage in the City Hall area 1122 2.21 37.9% 21.7% 22.4% 18.1%
More child care centers 932 2.25 29.4% 27.8% 30.9% 11.9%
A teen center 1083 2.87 17.6% 12.3% 35.7% 34.3%
Bike paths and marked bike lanes 1095 2.85 14.8% 16.6% 36.9% 31.7%
A community gathering place or plaza 1080 2.78 17.9% 16.8% 35.1% 30.3%
City arts and cultural center 1067 2.57 22.2% 20.0% 36.7% 21.1%
Wheeled mixed materials recycling carts 1003 2.63 22.1% 20.8% 29.0% 28.0%
Backyard service for recycling/ green waste 998 2.60 23.3% 21.2% 27.3% 28.2%
Free citywide wireless (WiFi) internet  1030 2.80 22.5% 13.5% 25.7% 38.3%

Now 14 years later, what has come of this community survey?

Additional recreation facilities – check.

City-owned pool? – check.

Backyard service for recycling/green waste – check.

City arts and cultural center – half-check.  The city has a classical arts and cultural center. Chamber music only.

A teen center – negative.

Creating a community gathering place or plaza – negative.

Why this lookback matters is because the city is on the verge of missing a golden opportunity to address the two negatives on the list.  A teen/senior center and community drop-in space could easily be run out of the East Wing of the building with access to the restrooms in the West Wing and the placing of city staff in the West Wing office space.  And no additional taxes required – seniors and the community don’t need to be supervised by staff.  They do need a place to freely gather and schedule meetings and an accessible East Wing would facilitate that.  

Instead, city staff has negotiated a lease for the 801 Magnolia Building with the Piedmont Center for the Arts that reduces both city use of and access to the 801 building for the next 7 years. There are significant flaws in the lease (https://www.piedmontcivic.org/2020/11/29/opinion-four-major-flaws-in-proposed-art-center-lease/) and better ideas for true community use of the space (https://www.piedmontcivic.org/2021/02/03/opinion-arts-center-founder-wants-usage-opened-up/ ; https://www.piedmontcivic.org/2021/01/10/opinion-a-false-choice-has-been-presented-for-arts-center-lease/).

So the City has two choices – hold a public hearing on the use of the 801 Magnolia building or a second reading of the flawed lease.  By all indications, city staff is proceeding with a second reading of the lease with PCA.  Unless Council steps up and calls for a public hearing, this opportunity for Piedmonters to achieve long-standing aspirations of a community space will be lost for another 7 years.   To that end, newly elected Councilwoman Conna McCarthy could honor her campaign pledge and call for public meetings on the use of 801 before any lease is approved:

“I want to be part of the leadership that encourages large conversations where all stakeholders thoughtfully plan and manage limited resources for the benefit of Piedmont now and into the future.” 

Elected Council Candidate Conna McCarthy  

https://www.piedmontcivic.org/category/new-elections/page/8/

If you want the City Council to hold public hearings on the use of 801 Magnolia Avenue, you can reach all Council members at citycouncil@ci.piedmont.ca.us.

Garrett Keating, Former Member of the Piedmont City Council

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Jun 26 2020

Highland, Grand, and Community Center Parking Proposed for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

Locations proposed for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations are 4 parking spaces in the Piedmont Community Center parking lot, one parking space near Havens School on Highland Avenue, and 2 parking spaces near ACE hardware on Grand Avenue.

Park Commission Wednesday, July 1 will make a recommendation to the City Council on converting  parking spaces to EV charging stations.

The Piedmont Park Commission will meet on Wednesday, July 1 at 5:30 pm via ZOOM Teleconference.

The agenda:

1. Approval of Park Commission Minutes for June 3, 2020

2. Update from the Piedmont Unified School District Regarding Phase 2 Construction at Piedmont High School and Discussion on New Street Trees in Coordination with the City of Piedmont

3. Consideration of a Recommendation to City Council to Install Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in the Civic Center and Grand Avenue Commercial District in Conjunction with East Bay Community Energy.

  [East Bay Community Energy charges $0.28 per kWh, limits charging to 4 hours and requires the City or private entity to police the occupancy of the charging stations. see below]

4. Update on the Impacts of the COVID19 Emergency on City Parks, Open Spaces, and Landscape Maintenance Regulations

5. Monthly Maintenance Report: Park, Open Space, and Street Tree Update for the Month of June

East Bay Community Energy EV Charging Station Policy

  • A flat rate fee of $0.28 per kWh will be charged for the use of the station.
  • There is a four (4) hour time limit for charging at the EV station. Violators may be subject to towing at owner’s expense.
  • Vehicles parked in EV station spaces MUST be connected to the charging station. Violators may be subject to towing at owner’s expense.

State of California law on EV’s (AB 475 Butler)

“Electric vehicles (EV’s) must be plugged in for refueling when occupying an EV designated parking space, otherwise they may be towed. In addition, the law prohibits a person from obstructing, blocking, or otherwise barring access to an EV-designated parking space.”

Click the red link below to:

Learn how to participate in the July 1 Park Commission meeting 

Read the minutes of the prior meeting

View the maps of charging station locations near Havens School,  Community Center Parking Lot, and Grand Avenue.

View Piedmont produced video and read questionnaire.

PCA Park Commission Agenda_2020-07-01

 

Apr 11 2020

April 11 Oakland Slow Streets to Make Safer Walking and Bicycling and Relieve Crowding in Parks and Trails

Oakland Department of Transportation,  April 10, 2020

The Oakland Slow Streets plan is intended to make it safer to walk and bicycle throughout the city, with sufficient space for physical distancing, while reducing the clustering of foot traffic at parks and on outdoor trails, which have experienced extremely high usage since the Shelter-in-Place order began. This will also create wider spaces than our current sidewalks, to assist people in complying with distancing to protect public health while walking.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, Council President Kaplan, Councilmember Dan Kalb and the Oakland Department of Transportation announced today a new effort to make it safer to walk and bicycle in Oakland, by designating 74 miles of neighborhood streets to bikes, pedestrians, wheelchair users, and local vehicles only, across the city starting Saturday, April 11. This program will start with a pilot effort launching Saturday, 4/11/2020 with signage along the following four street segments:

West St: West Grand – 14th Street

Arthur St from Havenscourt Blvd – 78th Ave, connecting to Plymouth St from 78th – 104th Avenue

E 16th St: Foothill Blvd – Fruitvale Ave

42nd St: Adeline – Broadway

View maps and read more here 

Jan 30 2020

Piedmont Parcel Tax Basis Questioned As Free Ride for Single Family Parcels with More than One Household

State laws ending single-family zoning have a great impact on Piedmont’s parcel tax system and method of supporting city services.

Piedmont, one of California’s most heavily taxed cities, proposes and taxes three housing units on single-family parcels as though there was just one household  – with no commensurate parcel tax to cover the public service needs (parks, recreation, library services, police, fire) of the additional families.

On March 3, 2020, Piedmonters have a renewal of the City parcel tax on their ballot, Measure T,  found at the end of Piedmont ballots.  As written, Measure T does not distinguish between a one family dwelling unit on a single-family parcel and a parcel that has two or three dwelling units on a single-family parcel. 

New State laws impacting “Single-family” residential parcels are intended by the State of California to result in many new dwelling units in former single-family zoned housing by adding one or two units – up to three residential units – on a single parcel.  The March 3rd parcel tax, Measure T, does not reflect this new reality as parcels will be taxed on the basis of one residence on a parcel in the “Single-family” category.

Piedmont is financially impacted by the new housing requirements made at the state level increasing densification. Piedmont’s system of supporting itself has for decades been based on taxing single-family properties in Piedmont containing one single-family residence/household on a parcel.  

Many California cities have increased their sales taxes to gain needed revenue.  Piedmont, zoned primarily for “single-family” residences, has relatively little commercial property and thus very little opportunity for increased sales tax revenue. Voter approved parcel taxes in Piedmont, property transfer taxes, and increased property valuations have allowed Piedmont to prosper.  

Those parcels with the newly allowable 3 housing units on their property will pay no more for the densification of their properties despite windfall income without additional  taxes for the service needs of additional families.

READ the Measure T Tax Tables for Piedmont Basic Municipal Service>HERE.

Increasing the number of households in Piedmont will require additional services – street safety, parking, fire protection, public schools, city administration, public open spaces, police services, etc. – without commensurate increases in revenue. 

Push for more affordable housing in California.

In 2019, the population outflow from the State of California was more than 200,000 citizens relocating to other states.  The figure reported by the US Census Bureau is 203,414.  While California is expected to lose a Congressional Representative after 2020, Texas may gain three Congress persons due to dramatic population increase.

“In the 1970’s citizen activists [in CA] created urban growth boundaries and land trusts to preserve open space and delicate coastal habitats.” Following Prop 13, “Cash hungry cities opted to zone for commercial uses, which would generate sales taxes, instead of affordable housing.” (New York Times 12/1/19)

With the press of political demands for more housing, the State of California has taken a dramatic step to remove restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).  When ADUs are added to single-family zoned parcels, many requirements have been eliminated: setbacks, floor area ratios, view protections, parking, owner occupancy, public participation, notification, and other factors.

School taxes.

In November 2019, Piedmonters voted overwhelmingly by over 82% to tax individual parcels.  Every parcel has the same tax basis of approximately $2,700. An additional tax based on square footage of living space is also added to individual parcel taxes.  The taxation needs for the school parcel tax were based on expected student populations.

READ the approved 2019 Piedmont School Parcel Tax Measure HERE.

Unlike San Mateo, the Piedmont City Council accepted the new State laws and has shown no effort to enforce the City Charter which gives Piedmont voters the right to have a say in what happens to Piedmont’s zoning.  Further, the Piedmont City Council took no action or policy position on the various housing initiatives put forth in Sacramento that take away local laws even though the legislation was contrary to Piedmont’s City Charter.

Piedmont’s Charter was written to guarantee Piedmont voters the right to control many aspects of the City including elections, finances, budgets, police and fire departments, public schools, public borrowing, zoning, etc.  

 Charter cities in California have lost significant local authority over land use and public participation in decisions. 

The recent court decision in a San Mateo County Court to uphold and acknowledge San Mateo’s City Charter regarding a housing project could eventually impact Piedmont.  The San Mateo Court decision does indicate a judicial act protecting Charter City rights.  

The Piedmont City Council per the City Charter has the responsibility of enforcing the City Charter and putting before Piedmont voters recommended changes to zoning – single-family, multi-family, commercial, and public zones, yet nothing has been placed before the voters.  Other City Charter changes and amendments were on a recent ballot and approved by Piedmont voters.

Piedmonters for over a century held control over land use decisions, police and fire services,  public schools, parks, etc. through the City Charter.

Affordable housing in Piedmont

In Piedmont, the abandoned PG&E property on Linda Avenue next to the Oakland Avenue Bridge, was noted in Piedmont’s General Plan, as an optimal location for affordable housing – close to schools, transportation, stores and parks.  Disregarding Piedmont’s General Plan and Piedmont’s City Charter, the City Council permitted a number of market-rate townhouses to be built on the former PG&E site without including any affordable housing and illegally rezoning the property from public usage to the multi-family zone without a citizen vote on the rezoning, as required by Piedmont’s City Charter. 

« Previous Page | Next Page »