June 22nd Dial  1 + 510 + phone number…

Based on a plan developed by Piedmont residents William Blackwell and Chuck Oraftik in 2009-2010, the City has been pursuing enlargement of Coaches Field on Moraga Avenue across from Blair Park that will allow use by baseball, soccer, and other field sports. 

To enlarge the playing surface the new plan calls for cutting into the hillside located adjacent to the Corporation Yard at Red Rock Road and Moraga Avenue, adding night lighting, and increasing the number of available parking spaces.

To view the staff report and the concept plan for Coaches Field produced by Callander & Associates, click below:

06/17/19 – Receipt of a Report Regarding the Concept Plan for the Coaches Field Expansion by Callander & Associates

With the acceptance of the design concept by the City Council, environmental work is being sought.  Click below to read the Request for Proposals.

06/17/19 – Consideration of the Issuance of a Request for Proposals for CEQA Services for the Coaches Field Renovation Project

The City of Piedmont will celebrate its 54th annual Independence Day Parade this year on Thursday, July 4, starting at 11 a.m. at the corner of Highland Avenue and Park Way ending at Piedmont Main Park.

OVERVIEW OF THE REVISED GUIDELINES

(Excerpts selected from the Piedmont Planning Consultant and Staff Report)

The draft Piedmont Design Guidelines include seven chapters plus a glossary. The contents are organized as follows:

Chapter 1 (Introduction) – Provides an overview of the document and its objectives, including how to use the Guidelines.

Chapter 2 (Design Review Process) – Describes the different types of Design Review permits required, and the process associated with each permit. The chapter also lists exceptions to 1 An eighth chapter addressing wireless facilities is expected to be added at a future date.   Design Review requirements and documents the submittal requirements for applicants seeking Design Review permits. The City’s story pole procedure also is included, as is the protocol for site visits.

Chapter 3 (Site Design) – Includes Guidelines for site design, including the siting and orientation of structures on a parcel, and the design of driveways, parking, landscape features, fences, retaining walls, trash enclosures, and other outdoor site features. The chapter begins with a discussion of neighborhood typologies in Piedmont, which helps provide the foundation for Guidelines and standards that reference “neighborhood context.”

Chapter 4 (Building Design: General) – Provides design principles applicable to all buildings in Piedmont, regardless of occupancy type. The Guidelines apply to single-family homes, multi-family housing, accessory structures, commercial and mixed use buildings, civic buildings, and other structures. Guidelines address exterior building elements, such as facades and architectural details, porches, decks, exterior stairs, roofs, ornamentation, windows, and mechanical equipment. This chapter also identifies green building measures. Chapter 4 begins with a discussion of predominant architectural styles in Piedmont, which provides the context for guidelines and standards that reference design compatibility.

Chapter 5 (Building Design: Single-Family) – Guides the design of single-family homes. It complements Chapter 4, which applies more broadly to all structures, by focusing only on Guidelines unique to single-family homes. The Guidelines cover building scale and massing, the design of garages, accessory dwelling units, and other accessory structures.

Chapter 6 (Building Design: Multi-Family) – Guides the design of multi-family buildings. It complements Chapter 4, which applies more broadly to all structures, by focusing only on Guidelines unique to multi-family housing. The Guidelines cover neighborhood context, building scale and massing, architectural style, and garages and driveways. This is a new section of the Guidelines, applicable only to the 25 or so properties in Piedmont where multi-family housing is a permitted use. Piedmont currently has no Guidelines for multi-family housing, and this section fills that gap.

Chapter 7 (Building Design: Commercial and Mixed-Use) – Guides the design of commercial and mixed-use (commercial and residential) buildings. It complements the Guidelines in Chapter 4, which apply more broadly to all structures. The Guidelines cover neighborhood context, building scale and massing, architectural style, garages and driveways, and signage. This is a new section of the Guidelines, applicable only to the roughly 20 properties in Piedmont where commercial and mixed use development is allowed. Piedmont currently has no guidelines for commercial and mixed use development, and this section fills that gap. A glossary of terms is included at the end of the document. The glossary is not intended as an exhaustive list of architectural terms, but rather as a reference for how commonly used terms are used within Piedmont.

…

The Guidelines rely extensively on graphics to communicate their intent.

In addition to photographs, graphics in the document include:

– A series of “process” flow charts illustrating the Design Review process (sec 2.02-2.04)

– Diagrams illustrating how to display and calculate floor area for zoning calculations (sec 3.03.03

– Diagrams illustrating how to display proposed changes in lot coverage

– Diagrams showing how setback conditions on a street should influence the siting of buildings or additions (sec 3.05.01)

– Diagrams showing siting allowances for accessory and primary structures on single-family lots (sec 3.06.02), multi-family lots (3.06.03), commercial lots (3.06.04), and estate lots (3.06.05)

– Diagrams for driveway and turn-around design (sec 3.07)

– Acceptable locations for trash enclosures (sec 3.10.02)

– Window types (sec 4.03.02)

Window types (sec 4.03.02) While most of these diagrams are new to the Guidelines document, they have long been used separately to communicate existing standards and guidelines, and do not introduce new requirements.

2 One benefit of linking the Guidelines to General Plan and zoning language is the recent SB 35 requirement for “objective” design guidelines for new mixed use and multi-family residential development near transit.

MAJOR CHANGES TO THE EXISTING GUIDELINES

As noted earlier, the draft Design Guidelines under consideration are primarily an update to the 1988 Guidelines, as amended over the last 30 years. Appendix A to this staff report provides a “Crosswalk” between the 1988 Guidelines and the proposed Guidelines. While the new document is longer than the 1988 document, the 1988 document has been augmented over the last 30 years by numerous supplements and memos. Accounting for these supplements, the two documents are similar in size and most of the expanded volume in the proposed Guidelines is attributable to the addition of photos, graphics, and the new commercial/mixed use and multi-family sections.

Substantive changes to the existing Guidelines are highlighted below:

The new Guidelines use a hierarchy that begins with the most general topics, followed by more specific ones. This eliminates a shortcoming of the existing Guidelines, where one needed to hunt for particular guidelines in sections of the document where they did not intuitively appear. For example, many of the “new construction” guidelines in the 1988 Guidelines are regularly applied to remodels and additions, although they do not appear in the “remodels and additions” section of the 1988 document.

Many of the existing guidelines were transferred without modifications. Others were edited to resolve issues that often arise during review of projects by the Planning Commission or Planning staff. For example, Section 3.05 (Compatibility with Street Right-of-Way) now clarifies how existing setback patterns on a block affect where new construction and additions should be sited (relative to the street). Similarly, Section 3.02 has been added to address the factors to be considered when planned improvements are adjacent to public walkways and parks.

Chapters 1 and 2 of the Guidelines are largely new to the document, although the contents of these chapters reflect existing practices and policies. Including a more robust introduction and discussion of Design Review processes and submittal requirements provides the context for the Design Guidelines and facilitates use of the document by applicants.

Section 4.01 on Building Styles has been added to the document, clarifying the determining factors for what constitutes appropriate additions to existing homes.

As noted earlier in this report, Chapters 6 and 7 of the document address construction types that were not addressed in the prior Guidelines. Although the extent of multi-family and commercial/mixed use development in Piedmont is limited, the absence of standards for these uses has created a gap in the past. Recent state housing legislation makes it important Page 6 for the City to close this gap. The new Guidelines also provide more formal design direction on Accessory Dwelling Units (currently only covered through Frequently Asked Questions).

Minor changes to the submittal requirements for Design Review have been proposed (see Section 2.06). Some of these changes reflect requests by staff and/or the Planning Commission Subcommittee. An initial list of proposed changes was presented at the architect stakeholder meeting on September 25, 2018. This list was revised as a result of their input. In addition, a new submittal form has been created to streamline the intake process and assist applicants with their submittal information.

05/20/19 – Consideration of the Acceptance of a State of California Tobacco Grant to Fund a Juvenile Officer in the Police Department for Three Years in Cooperation with the Piedmont Unified School District

For questions, contact Jeremy Bowers, Chief of Police Piedmont Police Department 403 Highland Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 (510)420-3010 jbowers@piedmont.ca.gov. 

READ the entire agenda by clicking below:

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/agendas/2019-05-20.pdf

For these reasons, we very purposely:

•  focus on the delivery of basic services and core programs;
•  budget carefully and conservatively; and
•  work diligently to safeguard our financial position by mitigating, to the extent possible, the impact of rising expenses which the City has little control over – particularly CalPERS related benefit costs which constitute an unfunded liability of just over $25 million.

On this latter point, the Council has proactively established a program of pension cost-sharing with employees and has curtailed retiree medical benefits for new hires.  These two initiatives, taken together, slowed the growth rate of our Underfunded Liabilities and will save the City millions of dollars in benefit-related expenses over the years to come.

Another significant action to buffer the effects of rising pension costs was the establishment of a Pension Rate Stabilization Fund, also known as a Section 115 Irrevocable Trust Fund, with the Public Agency Retirement Services – or PARS.

To date, the City Council has approved a total transfer of $2.75 million to PARS from the General Fund. One key benefit of this initiative is that funds deposited with PARS may achieve higher earnings due to less restrictive investment policies than apply to City funds invested in Local Agency Investment Fund.

As a result of the CalPERS decision to reduce the planned rate of return (Discount Rate), the City’s annual pension contributions are projected to increase from the current $2.2 million (7.5% of City revenue) to $5.5 million (13.3 % of City revenue) by 2029. This equates to a cost increase of approximately 132%, while City revenue over this same 10 year period is estimated to increase by only 35%.

As soon as 2023, and potentially continuing through 2031, the increase in mandatory pension contributions is projected to result in General Fund expenses exceeding revenue. When we face these net-negative revenue years, the City will be in a position to stabilize the General Fund by drawing down on its PARS account to pay pension costs.

Overall, prior City Councils and the current Council, working together with staff, have applied wisdom in managing the City’s limited financial resources. Piedmont now has a modest Reserve of just under $5 million, which represents 17% of our operating budget. Absent a catastrophic event, that amount should be of significant help in responding to an emergency or addressing unforeseen circumstances.

While there are no established policies to guide what constitutes “reasonable”, the reserve for the City of Piedmont is restricted by the City Charter to no more than 25% of the Operating Budget.

To put our City’s reserve in perspective, at the end of last fiscal year Emeryville, with a population similar to Piedmont’s, maintained a reserve of $30.3 million, which equates to approximately 76% of their General Fund; Albany’s was $8.8 million, which is 45% of their General Fund; Berkeley had a reserve of $84 million or 55% of their General Fund; and Oakland’s was approximately $150 million or 24% of their General Fund.

In addition to maintaining a modest reserve, the City has been making consistent, long-needed transfers to the Facilities Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Funds, and has also made much needed investments in our IT Systems, with a goal of bringing our use of technology into the modern era.

At the start of this Fiscal Year the Equipment Replacement Fund is projected to have a balance of $2.75 million – which, assuming we continue to make the planned annual transfers from the General Fund, should be sufficient to address the schedule for equipment replacement into the future.

The Facilities Maintenance Fund is projected to have a balance at the start of the year of only $4.8 million. This amount is far short of what is required to address accessibility, life-safety, life- cycle, and efficiency issues of our city’s facilities and property.

Piedmont’s facilities, like so many of the homes in Piedmont, are old and expensive to maintain. While aesthetically pleasing, most of our facilities are in need of significant repair and renovation.

On the whole, our community facilities and infrastructure have been kept largely functional, but it is time to devote the attention and investment necessary to meet community needs, let alone current safety or accessibility standards.

•  Miles of sidewalks and pathways are in poor condition, and our City Engineer has estimated that we could spend on the order of $11 million on sidewalk and trail repair alone.
•  To keep the Pavement Condition Index of our streets from deteriorating will require an estimated annual paving expenditure of approximately $1.5 million – up from the current $1 million – and this is assuming a competitive bid environment. As you know, the Engineer’s estimate for the repaving of Magnolia Avenue was $1.3 million. The sole bid submitted was for $1.7 million. So, the estimated $1.5 million required to maintain the condition of our streets could actually have increased to $2 million or more.
•  The Veterans Hall and Recreation Building are virtually in the same condition and configuration as when they were originally built 50 to 100 years ago. Bringing them to where they should be would require an estimated investment of $6 to 7 million.
•  The Community Pool cannot remain open much longer without substantial investment. While short-term fixes may postpone the eventual closing, safety issues are significant and the pool is losing an estimated 1 million gallons of water per year via unidentified leaks. Based on the recently completed Aquatics Master Plan, the cost of a modern and safe facility that meets community needs is estimated at between $12 million and $15 million.

Our beloved City Hall has significant needs rarely seen by the public. Low, open ceilings with exposed wires, water intrusion during storms, fire safety and accessibility issues are just a few of the problems.

At times, I hear comments asserting that the City does not have the space needed to support our programs. The fact is we have the “space”. We just need to make the investment needed to address the efficiency, functionality and accessibility issues that limit program opportunities as well as use by staff, the very young, and seniors.

The bottom line fact is that many of our facilities and amenities are inefficient, have significant condition issues limiting usage, and are not where they should be relative to life, safety, and accessibility standards – let alone to where they should be for a community like Piedmont.

Like the School District’s initiatives to invest in modernizing the Elementary Schools and High School to meet 21st Century needs, it is time to apply a similar focus to improving our City facilities and infrastructure.

In recent years, under the leadership of the City Council and with the support of city staff, there has been the political and organizational will to take a fresh and realistic look at our facilities and systems and to make the initial investment needed to develop a clear understanding of the issues and the opportunities for improvement.

While we have been doing the work necessary to develop that understanding—- the reality is that the City’s financial position, in the best of times, will only support an incremental approach to completing the work that needs to be done.

Unfortunately, for many facilities, an incremental approach will not get us to where we need to be.

To summarize:

Maintaining the current condition of our street paving, addressing unsafe sidewalks and pathways, and implementing priority pedestrian and bicycle safety projects will cost an estimated $23 million.

Factoring in the Recreation Building and the basement of City Hall adds up to $7 million. To address the pool and Veterans Hall, add another $17 million. Linda Beach Park improvements are estimated to cost $7 million. Improving Coaches Field could cost up to $4 million. All together these projects total $58 million.

Looking to the future, barring a natural disaster, bringing our facilities and civic infrastructure into the 21st century will be the City’s biggest challenge and greatest opportunity for the betterment of the Piedmont community.

READ the agenda below for the Council Budget Work Session when the Council will consider all CIP proposals and department budgets:

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/agendas/2019-05-11_special.pdf

READ the full CIP Review Report for 2019 below:

CIPreviewreport 2019

Minutes, broadcasts, and recordings were not made of any of the CIP Review meetings.  Staff reports were not publicized. 

Recordings and broadcast will not be made of the Saturday, May 11, 2019 Council Budget Workshop held at 403 Highland Avenue in the Emergency Operations Center of the Piedmont Police Department.  The public is welcome to attend and participate.

 

READ the full staff 2019-20 Budget recommendations including fees, permits, salaries, benefits, use of City property, tax rates, personnel, etc. – http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/finance/budget/19-20/19-20_budget.shtml

Residents and property owners are not aware of  what is being changed – added or removed – in the newly proposed Design Guidelines for Piedmont.

Most Piedmonters are not aware of changes impacting all Piedmonters to be made for buildings and landscaping through Design Guidelines currently under consideration by the Piedmont Planning Commission and soon by the Piedmont City Council.  Concern has been expressed that there is no executive summary provided covering the numerous pages of the proposed Design Guidelines for easy understanding by the public of the changes. 

In November 2018 the City asked those who have filed Design Review applications during the previous two years to answer questions via an electronic survey.  The questions were answered by 103 homeowners, 44 architects, 23 contractors, and 27 other persons with 88 percent indicating their project had been approved.

The following is an excerpt from a staff report presented to the Planning Commission demonstrating that neighbors and neighborhoods impacted by changes to buildings, homes, apartments, and commercial sites were not consulted during the process.  Proponents of projects, architects, certain property owners, and contractors were invited to provide feedback. The meetings formulating the proposals were for selected individuals “stakeholders,” and closed to the public. 

From the Planning Department staff report: 

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The City consulted with a range of stakeholders as part of the Design Guidelines update. In September 2018, staff and the consulting team interviewed Gail Lombardy of the Piedmont Historical Society to discuss the effectiveness of the existing Guidelines in preserving the character of Piedmont’s older homes.

On September 25, 2018, the City facilitated a discussion of the existing Design Guidelines and Design Review process with five local architects. Feedback from these meetings was incorporated into the Draft Guidelines. An informational item on the Design Guidelines, including an opportunity for public comment, was presented to the Planning Commission on September 10, 2018.

In late November 2018, the City emailed a letter with a link to an electronic survey to about 700 Piedmont households (roughly 18 percent of the city). A number of local architects and contractors also received the letter.

The survey was not made public. 

Recipients included all households who had filed an application for Design Review between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018. There were 162 surveys completed, equivalent to a response rate of 23 percent.

Survey respondents included 103 homeowners, 44 architects, 23 contractors, and 27 persons answering “more than one of the above” or “other.” About 88 percent indicated their project had been approved, including 27 percent with “minor” changes and 6 percent with “major” changes. Some 62 percent of the respondents indicated their projects were now completed, 20 percent had projects under construction, and 18 percent did not build the project or answered “other.”

Key findings of the survey were as follows:

 Respondents had generally positive experiences with City staff during Design Review. 48 percent described their experience as “excellent” and 35 percent described their experience as “good.” Only 8 percent reported their experience to be “poor.”

 76 percent of the respondents indicated they consulted the Design Guidelines as part of the Design Review process. Of this total, 31 percent found the Guidelines to be “extremely clear” and 54 percent found them to be “somewhat clear.”

 Only 7 percent of the respondents felt that the design suggestions provided by staff were “not constructive.”

 More than two thirds of the respondents rated their Design Review experience with the Planning Commission as “good” or “excellent.” About 13 percent rated their experience as “poor.” About 31 percent of the respondents felt their project had been improved as a result of the Design Review process.

 Respondents were asked to rate a series of design factors on a 4 point interval scale (not a concern, slight concern, moderate concern, major concern). The factors identified as being the greatest concerns were preserving views, preserving the historic character of Piedmont homes, homes that appeared too large for the lot, and preserving side and rear yard privacy. The factors identified as being less of a concern were retaining walls, fences and walls in front yards, and the siting and design of carports.

 About 35 percent of the respondents felt the City’s Design Review requirements were “too strict,” while only one percent felt they were “not strict enough.” Just over 50 percent of the respondents felt the requirements were “about right.”

Consideration of Design Guidelines by Planning Commission is on Monday, May 13th, 5 pm Planning Commission meeting at City Hall.  The meeting will be broadcast on Cable Channel 27 and from the City of Piedmont website under videos/ Planning Commission.

READ the staff information below >

 http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/design-guidelines-update/