Open House, Monday, February 26, 2018, from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m.

Piedmont Community Hall, 711 Highland Avenue

There will be a brief 15 minute Q & A session and closing remarks at 7:45 pm. Read the agenda here.

The deadline to be counted in the Climate Action Plan survey is Friday, March 2. Residents may want to have their opinions included along with the non-resident business owners, and people who work in Piedmont who have been invited to respond to the survey.

“The City of Piedmont invites residents, families, business owners, and people who work in Piedmont to review and comment on the Climate Action Plan 2.0 and CEQA Negative Declaration during a 45-day review period from January 16, 2018 to March 2, 2018. In order to facilitate public comment on the draft Climate Action Plan 2.0, an >  online survey is now available.”

Read previous articles on the survey here and here.

March 2 is the deadline for public comment on draft Climate Action Plan 2.0 –  Survey is > HERE.

BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION!

Open House is scheduled for February 26, 2018

Read the Agenda for the Open House HERE.

Piedmont’s Draft Climate Action Plan 2.0 is Ready for Review A CAP 2.0

The OPEN HOUSE will take place on Monday, February 26, 2018, from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m., at the Piedmont Community Hall, 711 Highland Avenue.

In addition to the CAP 2.0 being available on the City’s website, the City of Piedmont Planning Department and the Climate Action Plan Task Force will host a community open house on February 26th in order to provide the public another forum in which to learn about the Climate Action Plan 2.0. In addition to providing a presentation on the plan, staff and Task Force members will be available to answer questions from attendees.

The CAP 2.0 is available for review at: http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/climateaction-plan-2-0/. For more information about the Climate Action Planning process, please visit http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/committees/captf.shtml.

The City of Piedmont is asking its residents, families, business owners and people who work in Piedmont to review the City’s draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 and provide comments on the Plan.

The CAP is available on the City’s website during a 45-day comment period from January 16, 2018 through March 2, 2018. Written comments can be submitted during this period. In addition, and in order to facilitate public comment, an electronic survey will be made available online at the end of January.

Climate change poses a real and significant threat to human health and the environment both globally and locally.

The Task Force is an advisory body composed of Piedmont residents appointed by the City Council.

While under the advisement of the Piedmont Climate Action Plan Task Force during the past 10 months, City staff has developed an updated proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) for Piedmont.

The CAP 2.0 includes and expands on the measures and goals introduced in the current 2010 Climate Action Plan, defines climate change and its potential effects, outlines the actions the State and City are taking to address climate change, describes how residents, business owners, and the City can participate in greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction efforts, and presents new GHG reduction targets of 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.

During the plan’s development, the public was able to provide comment on the plan during a Community Forum held in November 7, 2017, at hearings of the Climate Action Plan Task Force, and by writing staff. Now that the final draft has been completed and the Task Force has recommended its approval, it is being made available for a 45-day public review period prior to its consideration for adoption by the City Council, which is expected to occur during their regularly scheduled hearing on March 19, 2018.

“From the preliminary analysis to the measures and concrete actions proposed, this new version of the CAP is unique to all sectors of Piedmont, and has been developed in collaboration between City Staff and residents of Piedmont, making it a true community plan,” said Tracey Woodruff, Chair of the Piedmont’s Climate Action Task Force. “In order to continue working with the same spirit of heightened community engagement to address the very real threats of climate change, it is crucial that all members of our community get involved by familiarizing themselves with the Climate Action Plan, sending their comments, and working together to keep reducing our individual and collective environmental footprint on the region and the planet.”

Please submit your comments in writing to Assistant Planner Mira Hahn at mhahn@piedmont.ca.gov or at 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont CA 94611.

For those without a computer, a limited number of paper copies of the CAP 2.0 are available for review at the Public Works counter in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.

The development of Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan is funded in part by grants received by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and StopWaste.Org, as well as by CivicSpark which in turn gets funds from both the Corporation for National and Community Service, East Bay Energy Watch, and the City of Piedmont.

Contact: Mira Hahn, Assistant Planner, (510) 420-3054

At the February 5, 2018 Piedmont City Council meeting, Oakland residents once more addressed the Council during Public Forum in regard to the parking restrictions on Rose and Kingston Avenues adjacent to their residences. The City of Piedmont, with Council approval, installed signage restricting on-street parking on several blocks of Kingston, Lake, Linda and Rose Avenues.

Oakland and Piedmont single family home residents each receive two resident on-street parking permits.  Oakland residents of small, older, multi-family buildings received one permit for each apartment unit.  However, Oakland multi-family buildings with more than eight units receive no permits. 

The Parking District wording is, “Dwelling units in large complexes greater than eight units are excluded from receiving parking permits.” The three 15-unit buildings located at 775, 777 and 779 Kingston were built after the Oakland code required off-street parking for each unit.  The current fee is $100 per month in addition to rent to use the off-street parking.

The City Council voted in a late night meeting (1:30 a.m.) October 16, 2017 to impose the restricted parking on Kingston and Rose Avenues at the border of Piedmont/Oakland. Friction was present at that meeting and has persisted as Oakland neighbors have publicly stated hardship and safety issues resulting from the restrictions.  The Piedmont City Council approved $60,000 to fund the new Parking District.

Council action states:

“Vehicles are prohibited from parking within the Parking District between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, holidays included, unless an approved resident parking permit is displayed on the vehicle.”

Some of the complaints made by Oaklanders at the February 5, 2018 meeting were:

• Oakland apartment residents were not adequately notified prior to approval of the restrictions.
• Oakland and Piedmont single family residents can get 2 on-street permits,  plus park in their garages or driveways.
• Safety has become an issue for many Oakland residents who come home late at night or leave early in the morning to go to work.
• The approach by Piedmont is not neighborly.
• Piedmont, rather than Oakland, has jurisdiction over the street on the north side of the 700s/800s block of Kingston Avenue.
• With the new restrictions, many parking spaces are left open each night indicating there is no need for the restrictions to accommodate Piedmont needs.
• One woman announced she had been sexually assaulted near her apartment.
• The parking restrictions need to be placed on a Piedmont City Council agenda for reconsideration of the matter and additional input.

City Administrator Paul Benoit, who has been administering the new Parking District, was not present at the meeting to respond to the Oaklanders concerns and the Council could not discuss the unagendized matter during Public Forum.  Mayor Robert McBain stated he did not want to be lectured to by the commenters.

 Watch the February 5 Council meeting> here.

~~~~~~~~~

 The October 16, 2017 detailed staff and consultant report can be read > HERE.

Approved Council minutes of October 16, 2017 relate the action taken and are copied below: 

Ayes: Andersen, King, Rood, McBain Noes: None
Recused: Cavenaugh

Public Testimony was received from:

Andy Skov, representing Kingston Avenue, supported the formation of the district. He summarized the process and the frustration with the Kittleson study because it did not evaluate the district block by block.

Doug Paton and David Weiner expressed support for the district and discussed the possible impacts to Greenbank Avenue

Max Woodruff-Madeira suggested the overnight restriction start at 11 p.m.

Arden Hall expressed frustration with overflow parking in his neighborhood and inability to park overnight in front of his home.

Rem Kinne indicated opposition to the proposed parking district and discussed the need to consider pedestrian safety.

Martin Hall stated that residents of Greenbank Avenue did not see a parking problem and did not see the need for a preferential parking district. He expressed concern that the Greenbank representative was not included in the proposal and would not be included after the trial period.

Councilmember King read a statement from Debra Dinerman expressing frustration with lack of parking.

Resolution No. 85-17

RESOLVED, that the City Council extends the meeting to 1:30 a.m. Moved by Rood, Seconded by Andersen
Ayes: Andersen, King, Rood, McBain
Noes: None

Recused: Cavenaugh

Council discussed the proximity of the proposed district to the city limit and notification of both the elected officials and staff of the City of Oakland. Mr. Benoit stated staff should have and would make notifications to Oakland, although the parking restriction would be to its benefit.

The Council expressed concern with the cost of a pilot program, the findings necessary under the City Code to create such a district, and potential unintended consequences. Mr. Benoit suggested updating the code provisions regarding preferential parking districts.

Assistant City Attorney Herrington noted a correction to the resolution indicating both Vehicle 22507 and City Code section 11.80 should be referenced.

Resolution No. 86-17

WHEREAS, on-street parking on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue in the City of Piedmont (“City”) is congested; and

WHEREAS, since July of 2015, the City has conducted several studies and held several public forums to discuss the possibility of creating a preferential parking district pursuant to City Code Section 11.80 and Vehicle Code section 22507 on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue.

WHEREAS, on-street parking congestion on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue creates substantial inconvenience for the residents of those streets; and

WHEREAS, on-street parking on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue constitutes a safety hazard; and

WHEREAS, use of existing off–street parking spaces on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue is inadequate; and

WHEREAS, creating a preferential parking district on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue will not adversely affect the neighborhoods next to the proposed parking district; and

WHEREAS, creating a preferential parking district will not adversely affect the general safety and welfare of the residents of the City as a whole.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PIEDMONT AS FOLLOWS:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the City Council of the City of Piedmont.

2. Pursuant to City Code Section 11.80 and Vehicle Code section 22507, the City hereby establishes a preferential parking district on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue, as more particularly depicted on Exhibit A (“Parking District”).

3. Vehicles are prohibited from parking within the Parking District between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, holidays included, unless an approved resident parking permit is displayed on the vehicle.

4. City staff is hereby directed to implement all necessary measures to install signage to notify residents and visitors of the parking restrictions and to distribute approved parking permits to residents within the Parking District.

5. Two parking permits will be issued to each dwelling unit within the Parking District. Residents may not obtain additional permits. Dwelling units in large complexes greater than eight units are excluded from receiving parking permits. The dwelling units on the north (or Oakland) side of Rose Avenue will be entitled to receive parking permits. This includes the following addresses on Rose Avenue: 1075, 1069, 1063, 1057, 1051, 1045, 1039, 1053, 1027, 1021 (four units), 1015, 1007, 1001, 995 (three units), 957, 951, 945-943, 939-937, 933, 927-925, 921, 901(four units), 849, 847, 843, 839-837, 785 and 781. The three dwelling units on 142 Echo Avenue will also be entitled to receive parking permits.

6. Subsequent to the installation of approved signage, City staff is directed to establish an effective date of enforcement and to notify the affected residents of that effective date.

Newspaper had already received pre-approval from City Administrator for a sublease of the public property at 801 Magnolia that houses the Piedmont Center for the Arts.

At the December 18, 2017  Council meeting starting at approximately 10:00 p.m., the Piedmont Center for the Arts was given approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allowing space to be sublet to one local news organization, The Piedmont Post. The Council approval was on a narrow vote of 3 for and 2 against.

Voting for the motion to approve were Mayor Robert McBain, who praised the newspaper, Vice Mayor Teddy King, who was eager for  approval, and Council Member Betsy Andersen, the newly appointed member of the Council, who inquired about the hours of operation.

Voting “no” on the motion to approve the CUP were Council Member Tim Rood, who had noted his disapproval of the Post and Jen Cavenaugh, who had many lingering unanswered questions regarding the lease and potential of gifting valuable city resources to a business.

Unbeknownst to the public, and evidently, the Council,  City Administrator Paul Benoit had already given permission to the Arts Center to sublet their space to the Post if approval of a Conditional Use Permit was granted by the Council.  Benoit stepped into the Council discussion supporting the Post’s usage of the building.

Numerous questions went unanswered: basis of the lease to the Arts Center’s ability to sublet or use the City’s property at 801 Magnolia for profit businesses, while denying non-profit usage, ability of City Administrator to grant permission to sublet the property without public involvement, hours of operation, unknown sublease conditions, amongst other matters.

The City Code and lease were recently changed by the Council to allow businesses in the Arts Center building.

On Monday, December 18, for a rushed Council consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application of The Piedmont Post newspaper to rent space in the Piedmont Center for the Arts Center at 801 Magnolia Avenue, a City property leased to the Arts Center with adherence to all City, State and Federal laws as well as restrictions on activities and hours.

The Council meeting will start at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall. Consideration of the sublease of the Arts Center is late on the agenda.  The meeting will be broadcast on Channel 27 and via the City website under videos. Read the agenda HERE.

The City of Piedmont appears ready to become the landlord of one of Piedmont’s local newspapers, the Piedmont Post.  Other media outlets have reported the sub-leasing story, yet the Post has failed to notify residents of the proposal and the unique scheme to rent the subsidized City arts space to the newspaper.

The City Council has full authority under the Arts Center $1 per year lease to determine who sublets the City owned and subsidized property.

The subleasing of public property at the subsidized Arts Center has drawn growing attention as residents begin to learn of the proposal. Numerous residents who are critical of the Post’s politicized editorial practices have stepped forward. Praise has also come to the Post from residents, particularly beneficiaries of the Post’s coverage.

According to correspondence received by the City in regard to the application to house the local newspaper in a Piedmont government owned building designated for the arts, the City will receive more “bad press.”  The Piedmont Post, is owned and operated by Gray Cathrall, a founder and recent Board member of the Piedmont Center for the Arts.

A number of residents including a former School Board member, candidate for City Council and a City Commissioner, a former President of the Piedmont Education Foundation, and Arts Center neighbors, to name a few,  have come forward decrying the notion of the Post as a renter of a subsidized City building. Some opponents of the proposal are intimidated by the Post and have been afraid to come forward with their names.

Written comments were presented to the Planning Commission and are included in the staff report linked at the bottom of this article.

One detailed comment is copied below:

Dear City Council,

 

As a long-term Piedmont resident, I am strongly opposed to providing space in the PCA to the Piedmont Post Newspaper.  There are several factors behind this. First of all, it is an egregious conflict of interest for a sitting Advisory Board Member to simultaneously be the leader (editor) of the proposed tenant. Even if that Board Member is completely recused from the decision, the other Board Members undoubtedly have a close relationship with the Editor and cannot possibly render an unbiased decision regarding potential tenancy.

 

Second, the longstanding biased Editorial bent of the Piedmont Post should not be condoned by the city.  The Post has gone out of its way to malign certain arbitrarily non-favored candidates, coaches, etc. The maligning bent in some instances has been severe and toxic.

 

Third, the Post is run with mysterious finances.  Although there are some subscriptions, there is also a long-term use of “underwriters” as the mechanism of funding the Post.  How exactly this additional money is used is unknown, and, certainly, having underwriters who provide large cash payments seems inherently biased — one would presume that large donations would inherently introduce biased coverage. 

 

If Piedmont truly had an unbiased, subscription-based, jewel of a local paper, then placing it in the PCA would be suitable.  Instead, we have a highly biased, donation-based, and occasionally mean-spirited paper, and thus placing it in the PCA and providing public support to it is clearly the wrong thing to do.  It would not be in the community interest.

 

Tim McCalmont, Piedmont Resident and former President of the Piedmont Education Foundation

City of Piedmont as landlord to a newspaper.

The original lease for the City’s property at 801 Magnolia housing the Arts Center specifies  hours of operation, adherence to all City, State and Federal laws, notices to be provided to the City, etc. See copy linked below.

The sublet lease was not provided during Planning Commission consideration.  One lease condition proposed to be breached by the sublet is allowing hours past 11:00  p.m. bringing great concern to neighbors with school age children and senior residents desiring quiet late nights contrary to the proposed late night business activities running until 12 midnight on school nights. 

Many have expressed concern that Piedmont government facilities should only be rented for community wide services, as originally allowed for the arts.   Additionally, the newspaper is not accepted by all as a public service because of “egregious acts” against the schools, individuals, candidates for office, news manipulation, and being a bad influence on Piedmont youth.

Those attempting to find out more about the unusual transaction that would allow one local newspaper to receive a subsidized, government rental space leased for $1 per year have yet to receive complete answers to the following:

• What is the financial condition of the Arts Center ?
• Why wasn’t the space advertised locally to encourage other renters of the highly desirable central Piedmont location ?
• Why did the Center break from a singular use as an Arts Center?
• Did the Center’s Board hear from their former Board member  and potential renter at a Board meeting gaining an inside opportunity?
• Could the City of Piedmont use the space rather than have it sublet?
• Why was there no notice in the Post of the application or the timing of the hearings?
  
• Why wasn’t there ever a meeting with neighbors to learn about their concerns in regard to parking and late night business meetings on school nights?
• Why is the matter being considered so hurriedly over a 7-day holiday period with many Piedmonters away or preoccupied?
• What is the rush?
• How long has the proposed space not been used and available?
• At the time the zoning was changed on the property was the space available?
• Why wasn’t notice given to the residents of Piedmont at large for alternative use of this important Piedmont property?
• What is the relationship between the City and the newspaper such that the newspaper receives preferential treatment over other media outlets?
• What will the rent be?
• Has the City Council been provided with the proposed sublease?

At the December 11, 2017 Piedmont Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Director provided advice, plus public comments were received. The Commissioners, without hearing from the business owner or whether the proposed usage complied with the requirements placed on the Center in their lease, recommended approval of a sublease for part of the Piedmont Center for the Arts for the Piedmont Post newspaper.  

City Council decides what can be in the Arts Center building.

The lease conditions were changed in 2016 to allow uses allowed in the public zone which soon opened the ability to sublease the property to a for-profit entity.   The Council revised the City Code in 2017  to allow for-profit businesses to be in the  Public Zone.  The change from non-profit zone uses to for- profit uses in the Public Zone was never put on a Piedmont ballot per Charter requirements to obtain Voter approval. Piedmont voters were not allowed to rule on the significant change.

The intent of the Charter was never pursued by the City, despite receiving an affidavit from a former mayor and an email from another former mayor informing the City Council that the intent of the Charter was being misinterpreted. The zoning change was singularly approved by the City Council, and without extensive reporting, was largely unrecognized by Piedmont voters.

There was concern at the time of the zone change allowing businesses in the Public Zone, such as a newspaper office or other commercial enterprise, in the scant public space available.

In 2011 when 801 Magnolia Avenue was developed as the Arts Center, the City Council, did not offer the property to various potential users of and acted to permit the Piedmont Center for the Arts.  Strict, limited hours of operation were incorporated into the lease agreement in consideration of the location next door to a home and in a school/residential neighborhood.  Center founders Gray Cathrall,  editor and owner of the Post, and Nancy Lehrkind, now Vice President of the Center Board, fostered the Center lease through the City Council.

The Municipal Pool, recreation tennis courts, and the schools all limit their operation hours to accommodate neighbors and minimize intrusive neighborhood night light pollution, noise, traffic, parking in the immediate vicinity of the Center.  No traffic studies of the proposed new tenancy were produced.

At the December 11, 2017, Planning Commission meeting few questions were asked regarding the application before the recommendation of approval to the City Council.   Commissioners relied on the narrow consideration factors presented by the planning staff.  The leases between the City and the Arts Center were not presented to the Planning Commissioners during their consideration.   Commissioners indicated neighbors could expect noise and traffic from schools without regard to the existing limitation on late night hours.

The integrity and character of the newspaper was not part of the Planning Commission consideration, although both pro and con opinions of the newspaper were presented at the meeting. The City Council is in a different position being the landlord of the property.

Arts Center Board member, Nancy Lehrkind, addressed the need for more revenue to support the Arts Center programs, while noting the incompatibility of joint use of spaces by various businesses or organizations.  No information indicating the space was  advertised to potential market rate renters.  No financial statements of the viability of the Arts Center were provided to the Commission. Lehrkind stated the Post would pay “top dollar” for the space, however the rental fee was not disclosed.

The Post on the application signed by Post owner Gray Cathrall stated the gross annual revenue of the Post equals $380,000.

The staff report includes comments/letters, documents, leases and the recommendation. READ the staff report HERE.

Comments can be sent to the City Council at the links below:

All Council members will receive comments sent to the City Clerk at jtulloch@piedmont.ca.gov

Recent news article by The Piedmonter newspaper can be read HERE.

Piedmonters Unhappy about San Francisco Civic Center Station 

Piedmonters and other Bay Area taxpayers have generously agreed to tax themselves to improve earthquake preparation of the BART  track system, however during this fall cultural season they are voicing distress at the conditions they encounter at the Civic Center Station in San Francisco.  Most BART stations are serviceable and reasonably clean.  Sadly, at the symbolic core of San Francisco, Civic Center Station’s cleanliness and safety is inadequate, presenting a harsh welcome to tourists and Bay Area residents.  The track area, station, and access points appear not to have been cleaned or sanitized in years.  Security is usually nowhere to be found.  With safety concerns and maintenance problems growing, riders deserve more.

Piedmonters frequently attend opera, concerts, ballet, theater, restaurants and the Asian Art Museum in the Civic Center.  While providing much needed off-peak BART customers, riding BART from the East Bay can avoid bridge traffic and a difficult search for parking in San Francisco.  But Piedmonters are put off by the conditions in the BART/Muni Civic Center Station —and they aren’t alone in such complaints.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-commuter-s-bane-filthy-smelly-BART-station-5701663.php

Los Angeles offers a surprising contrast to BART.

Busy light rail/bus/Amtrak multi-mode station

Recently, a Piedmont family spent five days on LA Metro visiting a dozen museums and historic sites.  The light rail, subways and stations were clean, with cleaning crews visibly at work and elevators and escalators were all in working order, in contrast to BART, which frequently has nearly a dozen elevators and escalators out of service.  Many Los Angeles stations are bare bones, “found” or “repurposed” such as the elegant old Union Station that is now multi-modal, serving the elevated Gold Line, buses and intercity Amtrak trains.  (see photos)

Not a single coffee cup or napkin on the station floor

Despite offering a better experience, LA Metro public transit is less expensive than BART.  While BART has found it unworkable to offer off-peak fares to solve their problem of chronic low ridership off-peak, LA Metro buses and tracked system machines accurately deduct peak and off-peak fares from rider fare cards.

The BART Board

BART Board members (listed below) need to take responsibility for the discouraging conditions riders encounter.

 Money needs to be budgeted for:

• Security presence and enforcement
• Camera surveillance
• Steam cleaning of all surfaces including the track areas
• Working escalators and elevators
• Clean, safe steps and access points
• Clean trains inside and out

Piedmont is currently working on its Climate Action Plan.  Having safe, clean and appropriate modes of public transportation is elementary to reducing Piedmont’s carbon footprint.

Piedmont’s elected BART representative is > Rebecca Saltzman.

Contact numbers and links for BART Board Members are included in their summaries below.  The General Manager is also listed below.

BART Board Members and District Information

District #1

(Map)

Debora Allen, Director

Stations Included: 

Concord, Lafayette, Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre, Walnut Creek

Counties Included: 

Contra Costa

Read full bio

District #2

(Map)

Joel Keller, Director

Stations Included: 

North Concord/Martinez, Pittsburg/Bay Point

Counties Included: 

Contra Costa

Read full bio

District #3

(Map)

Rebecca Saltzman, President, Piedmont’s Representative on the BART Board

Stations Included: 

Bay Fair, Downtown Berkeley, El Cerrito del Norte (partial), El Cerrito Plaza (partial), North Berkeley, Orinda, Rockridge, San Leandro

Counties Included: 

Alameda/Contra Costa

Read full bio

District #4

(Map)

Robert Raburn, Vice President

Stations Included: 

Coliseum/Oakland Airport, Fruitvale, Lake Merritt, 12th Street/Oakland City Center, 19th Street/Oakland, MacArthur (partial)

Counties Included: 

Alameda

Read full bio

District #5

(Map)

John McPartland, Director

Stations Included: 

Castro Valley, Dublin/Pleasanton, Hayward, West Dublin/Pleasanton

Counties Included: 

Alameda

Read full bio

District #6

(Map)

Thomas Blalock, Director

Stations Included: 

Fremont, South Hayward, Union City

Counties Included: 

Alameda

Read full bio

District #7

(Map)

Lateefah Simon, Director

Stations Included: 

Ashby, El Cerrito del Norte (partial), El Cerrito Plaza (partial), MacArthur (partial), Montgomery (partial), Richmond, West Oakland, Embarcadero (partial)

Counties Included: 

Alameda/Contra Costa/San Francisco

Read full bio

District #8

(Map)

Nick Josefowitz, Director

Stations Included: 

Balboa Park (partial), Embarcadero (partial), Montgomery (partial),

Counties Included: 

San Francisco

Read full bio

District #9

(Map)

Bevan Dufty, Director

Stations Included: 

16th Street Mission, 24th Street Mission, Glen Park, Civic Center, Powell Street, Balboa Park (partial)

Counties Included: 

San Francisco

Read full bio

~~~~~~~~~~

GENERAL MANAGER GRACE CRUNICAN https://www.bart.gov/about/gm

~~~~~~~~~~~

Members of Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan Task Force are:

Tracey Woodruff, Chair

Brett Hondorp

Margaret Ovenden

Steven Schiller

Bruce Wolfe

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, the Climate Action Plan Task Force met in the Emergency Operations Center in the City Hall of Piedmont, California. In the meeting, the Climate Action Plan Task Force covered several topics.

To open the meeting, two representatives from the city of Hayward, gave a presentation on Renewable Energy. They talked about how these new, 100% Renewable Energy programs should be offered to households across the Bay Area, and what sort of benefits they will have on society.

There was an open participation period in which people had the opportunity to share ideas they had for improving the environment. Following the open participation period, the Task Force discussed upcoming meetings, and went into great detail about what their plan was for these meetings. They illustrated how they were going to share their ideas, and what tactics they were going to use to persuade the officials that they would be talking to.

At the meeting on Tuesday, September 26, 2017, there were a number of issues that were brought up and discussed by several of the members of the Task Force, in addition to others who attended the meeting.

The most prominent was regarding Renewable Energy in the Bay Area. Tom Kelly, a representative of the city of Hayward, presented an idea to the Force. Kelly focused primarily on the goals he has for the entire Bay Area. He illustrated how PG&E’s current renewable percentage was below 30% on average. If the Bay Area, and eventually the entire state of California, wants to become 100% renewable energy, then this number is going to have to increase. However, PG&E will not make significant enough efforts to try and raise this number, so other measures must occur.

Kelly then proposed new programs, that start with about 50% renewable. These programs would be offered to all homeowners when they are first buying their houses. At first, the programs will cost more, but will save money over time. In addition to saving money, these programs will also gradually increase in terms of percent renewable over time, which is taking drastic steps towards 100% renewable energy. The absolute end goal, other than 100% renewable energy for all of California, is to have 100% renewable energy as a default option for residents and businesses in California.

Following the presentation, Kelly allowed for questions and concerns regarding his proposal. One man in the audience, who was not a member of the Climate Action Task Force, had a good amount of questions and concerns regarding Kelly’s proposed idea. The biggest of the concerns that the man addressed was this: these new programs are going to cost a lot more money to make, and install in everyone’s homes and businesses, so who is going to pay for all of this?

Although Kelly did not have a direct response to this concern, he came up with a few possible answers for the question asked. First, Kelly said that one resolution to the increase in price could be an increase in taxes. However, Kelly realized that this was probably not the best solution because of the financial negative effects it would have on all of the residents who would theoretically be buying the new programs.

Another proposed solution to the money issue would be government paying for it. This was the best solution because it was the most logical. Because going 100% Renewable Energy would save the government a very significant amount of money, the government would be more than willing to pay for the extra cost it would take to make and supply these new programs to all residents and businesses.

Personally, I think that these new 100% Renewable Energy programs are a huge step for not only the city of Piedmont and the Bay Area, but for all of California and the rest of the United States as well. As Global Warming continues, more and more ideas are coming up about how to reduce energy use, or develop clean energy that does not have a negative effect on the environment.

With these new programs, residents will be supporting the environment, without even knowing it. By switching to the programs, people will be using more and more clean, renewable energy all day, everyday, as opposed to dirty energy that we are using currently.

If everyone in Piedmont switches to these programs, then the Bay Area will see how much it is affecting the environment, and eventually the entire state of California, and the entire country will realize just how important clean, renewable energy is, and what positive effects it can have on society. That will influence them to switch to these new programs, and before we know it, the Country will be running on 100% renewable energy.

The Climate Action Plan Task Force meets twice a month, in the Piedmont City Hall to share ideas for how to improve the environment in both the city of Piedmont specifically, and the Bay Area as a whole.

by Dylan Skov, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~~~

CONTROLLING BUILDING SIZE RELATIVE TO PROPERTY SIZE – 

– PUBLIC HEARING  – Monday, August 14, 2017, City Hall at an undetermined time following the completion of all other items on the Planning Commission Agenda.  The matter will likely be undertaken after 7:00 p.m.  For more specific information on the timing, contact the Planning Director, Kevin Jackson at 420-3050.

The meeting will be televised live on Cable Channel 27 and streamed from the City website.

As basements are enlarged, attics expanded, and rooms added, what should the floor area ratio (square feet of living space relative to lot size) requirements be? Questions on the intent of the building code and impacts to neighborhoods relative to property size will be considered.

At the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, “Planning Director  [Kevin] Jackson raised the topic of the floor area ratio (FAR) exemption, which was brought to light during the discussion for the project at 100 Dracena Avenue. He asked the Commissioners whether they would like to receive a report outlining the intent of the code provision and options for how the code language might be modified to improve the effectiveness of the regulation. The Commissioners agreed that they would like to discuss the topic further, and they each spoke briefly on their interests in the topic. They requested, at a minimum, to have a future discussion to clarify the priority or intent of the language. They also suggested that changes be made to the code to better define what constitutes a habitable area and to clearly separate projects that are eligible for the FAR exemption from those that include envelope expansions.” Draft Planning Commission Minutes

The Planning Commission will consider the following staff report at the August 14, 2017 meeting:

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11 [Last item of the agenda]

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Open the public hearing, receive this report and staff’s presentation, take testimony from members of the public and provide comments and direction to staff regarding floor area ratio (FAR) regulations and exemptions. The Commission will not be taking action or making any recommendations to Council on any code revisions as part of this discussion.

BACKGROUND:

Recent Discussion

Having acted on an application seeking approval for a variance from the City’s FAR limits at its last meeting on July 10, 2017, the Planning Commission requested that staff return with a report outlining the intent of the code provision and options for how the code language might be modified to improve the effectiveness of the regulation. The Commission was also interested in ways to better define what constitutes a habitable area and to clearly separate the sequencing of projects that are eligible for the FAR exemption from those that include envelope expansions.

Floor area ratio is currently defined in City Code section 17.90.020 as follows:

Floor area of a building means the sum of the gross horizontal area of the floors of the building, measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the center line of party walls separating two buildings, and includes:

1. living space on all levels, including within a basement;
2. elevator shafts and stairwells at each floor;
3. bay window or window seat that projects beyond the exterior wall, even if the window or seat does not have an average ceiling height of seven feet, six inches in which a person can reasonably stand or sit;
4. living space within an attic, including space that does not have direct heat. An attic space that has exposed wall framing and/or does not have permanent access cannot be used for habitation, and does not count toward floor area. Permanent access includes built-in stairs (even if they do not meet all of the building code requirements), but does not include built-in or pull-down ladders;
5. enclosed porch or lanai, heated or not;
6. high-volume space that exceeds an average height of 15 feet, measured from finished floor to the outer roof, is counted as two stories; and
7. area within a building used for commercial purposes.

Living space not considered habitable under the Building Code because of window size, ventilation, access, ceiling height, heating, or electrical service (e.g. unconditioned storage area) is not counted in the floor area, but if the space is actually used for living, sleeping, eating, bathing, washing, or cooking, the space will be included, subject to the interpretation of the Director.

Although modifications have occurred, the above definition is very similar to the one originally adopted into the City Code in 1979.

History of Floor Area regulations in the Piedmont City Code

The following represents a concise list of City Council actions that modified regulations related to floor area in Chapter 17 of the City Code:

Ordinance 391 N.S., November 1979
In this comprehensive update to Chapter 17, a definition floor area was added. The definition has remained largely unchanged since its adoption in 1979.

Ordinance 516 N.S., April 1990
In this comprehensive update to Chapter 17, regulations for floor area were added, but only for residential properties. The intent was to limit the size of a home (the bulk of a building) in relation to the size of the lot, which would allow small homes on small lots and large homes on large lots. The regulations were provided in a new Section 17.20 Home Expansion (see Exhibit A, page 9). The section outlined its intent, set limits and provided exemptions to the limits.

FAR Limits: 55% for lots less than or equal to 5,000 s.f.
50% for lots greater than 5,000 s.f. and up to 10,000 s.f. 45% for lots in excess of 10,000 s.f.
The limits have remained unchanged since their adoption in 1990.

Exemptions from FAR limits:

1. a)  When the improvement adds nor more than 350 s.f. of floor area. The exemption may be used no more than once per parcel, and never within 36 months of another application in which floor area is increased.
2. b)  When the total proposed floor area does not exceed 2,000 s.f.

The minutes for the January 16 and April 16, 1990 City Council meeting are provided in Exhibit B, pages 11-14, and Exhibit C, pages 15-18.

Ordinance 523 N.S., March 1991
In this ordinance, Council deleted the exemption for additions of no more than 350 s.f. of floor area. In doing so, the Council stated the original intent of this exemption was “to allow small older homes which already exceed permitted FAR coverage a one-time opportunity to modernize.” In deleting this exemption, the mayor stated it “was being used far more often than originally anticipated by the Council, was being viewed as a ‘right’ by homeowners and architects and was also not being limited to small older homes per her understanding of the intent of this section.” In its discussion the Council added that the exemption was unnecessary because the Planning Commission had the “discretion to grant variances from the FAR restrictions in exceptional hardship circumstances.”

Ordinance 547 N.S., October 1993
With this ordinance, Council made two modifications to the FAR regulations: 1) the addition of this provision to the limitations: “The area comprised of a driveway which is not entirely contiguous with and an integral part of the main lot, as in the case of a ‘flag lot”, shall be excluded from the calculations set forth below;” and 2) deleted the exemption for houses where the total proposed floor area does not exceed 2,000 s.f. Council minutes do not include a discussion that provides the intent of these modifications.

Ordinance 573 N.S., February 1996
In January 1996 the City Planner asked the City Council to consider an amendment to the provisions of Chapter 17 to include an exemption to the FAR limitations when the floor area expansion is entirely within the existing building envelope. The intent of the exemption was twofold. In order to gain more living space without having to seek a variance from the FAR limits, homeowners were using areas in basements and attics that did not meet building code habitation requirements. The exemption was intended to mitigate this evasive and potentially unsafe action that was prompted because FAR variances were rarely granted. Secondly, the intent was to incentivize floor area expansions that do “not add to or change an existing residence’s exterior size.” As noted in the attached minutes from January 2 and 16, 1996 (Exhibit D, pages 19-20 and Exhibit E, page 21), when considering the ordinance, the Council directed the inclusion of provisions in the exception that mitigated the potential problem of residents “sequencing” improvements in order to evade the FAR limitations. The exemption (Section 17.22.3) was adopted as follows:

If a residential improvement is proposed which will not alter the exterior dimensions of the residence, the improvement shall not be required to meet the requirements of section 17.22.2, provided that this exemption shall not apply within three years of the issuance of a building permit for a prior improvement that was subject to section 17.22.2.

Ordinance 728 N.S., March 2017
In this comprehensive update to Chapter 17, the entire chapter was reformatted. The reformatting moved the FAR regulations, including the intent provisions, from Section 17.22, Home Expansion and Construction, to the code divisions providing regulations for the specific zones: Division 17.20, Zone A Single Family Residential; Division 17.24, Zone C Multi-Family Residential; and Division 17.28, Zone E Estate Residential (See Exhibit F, separate). As part of the comprehensive update, a technical correction was made to the exemption from the FAR limitations so that start date for the interim period between a prior expansion of the building envelope and a project to exceed the FAR limitations by expanding within the envelope is the final inspection of a building permit rather than the issuance of a building permit. In order to better prevent the sequencing of improvements in order to circumvent the FAR limits as the City Council originally intended, the exemption was modified and adopted as follows:

The floor area ratio standard is not applied to finishing an area into habitable space if: (1) there is no expansion of the exterior building envelope; and (2) the owner has not obtained a final inspection within the prior three years on a building permit issued for an expansion of the building envelope.

DISCUSSION:

As noted above, the intent of the FAR limits is to maintain a community development pattern in which homes are sized in proportion to the lots on which they are sited for a resulting sense of openness and appropriate scale. The regulations are meant to prevent a “McMansion” development pattern in which homes seem oversized with multiple-story facades abutting each other. When originally adopting the FAR limits in 1990, the City Council wanted to allow owners of small homes on small lots the ability to make small additions so that the housing stock was maintained and accommodating to modern living. Thus, the Council included exemptions to the FAR limits to allow for such small home remodels: an owner could exceed the limits when constructing an addition of 350 square feet or less if an addition had not been constructed within the past three years; and the limits could be exceeded if the total proposed floor area did not exceed 2,000 square feet.

However, in practice the exemptions did not have the desired effect. Owners sequenced construction so that homes both big and small were being expanded in excess of the limits on a regular basis. In response, the Council deleted both exemptions within four years of their implementation. In doing so, the Council determined that the Planning Commission had the discretion to grant variances from the FAR limits when there was evidence of exceptional hardship circumstances. The ordinance deleting the second exemption also limited the lot area used for calculating the FAR to only contiguous areas. For example, driveways of flag lots could not be used.

The consequence of having FAR limits (located in section 17.22 of the City Code until March 2017) without exception was that rather than seeking a hard-won variance from the provisions, owners were using areas within basements and attics that did not meet building code requirements for habitation, risking the residents’ health and safety in the process. To solve this problem, the City Council amended the FAR regulations in 1996 to add the following exemption.

If a residential improvement is proposed which will not alter the exterior dimensions of the residence, the improvement shall not be required to meet the requirements of section 17.22.2, provided that this exemption shall not apply within three years of the issuance of a building permit for a prior improvement that was subject to section 17.22.2.

As in 1990, the Council was concerned that the sequencing of projects to expand the building envelope and projects to expand within the interior of the home could result in ineffective regulations. Therefore, the Council included a provision that required at least three years to elapse between a project to expand the exterior dimensions of the building envelope and a project to develop floor area in excess of the FAR limit within the envelope of the building. The start date for the three year period was the issuance of a building permit for the expansion of the building envelope.

There were unforeseen consequences from the designation of the issuance of a building permit as the start date of the 3-year hiatus period between building expansion and development within the envelope. In order to avoid being subject to the FAR limitations, property owners would get a building permit issued with 12 months of the approval date of the design review permit application (as required by the Code) and either: 1) delay construction for 3 years (paying to renew the building permit every six months) and then submitting a permit application to create floor area within an attic or basement in excess of the FAR limitations; 2) extend construction for at least three years so that toward the end of the lengthy construction period they could seek approval for an application to modify the permit to include additional floor area within the envelope and in excess of the FAR limitations.

To better implement the Council’s intent to allow the FAR to be exceeded if the expansion is within the existing building envelope, but not if the building envelope has been expanded within the past three years, and to close the loophole that allowed the circumvention of the FAR limitations, staff recommended a technical correction to the start date of the three year period, replacing “from the issuance of a building permit” with obtaining “a final inspection.” This change was included in the comprehensive update to City Code Chapter 17 recommended by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2016 and adopted by the City Council on March 20, 2017.

Also included and approved in the same comprehensive update was the elimination of the exclusion of noncontiguous driveway areas of flag lots in the calculation of floor area ratio. There are very few flat lots in Piedmont, some of which have curvilinear lot lines which make the border between contiguous and noncontiguous area subjective and arbitrary. And, for the most part, the noncontiguous driveway areas are not so significant in size as to make an appreciable difference in the resulting floor area ratio.

Effectiveness of the Exemption

Unfortunately, short of reviewing by hand each planning and building permit application that has been processed during a number of years past, there is not an effective way to document how many projects since 1996 have taken advantage of the exemption to the FAR limitations by expanding habitable area within the building envelope, rather than building outwards or upwards. During the years 1996 through 2015 variances from the FAR limitations was one of the least sought after variances, accounting for only 71 of a total 1,110 variance requests over a 20 year period (6% of variance requests). Only variances from building height and hardscape coverage limits were fewer in number. And anecdotally, on a number of occasions staff has been able to guide homeowners to expand within the envelope rather than building upwards, using the FAR limit exemption as a tool in that guidance.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of the regulations and the exemption depends on how rigorously the limits are enforced. To this end, the Planning Commission and staff might give increased consideration to developable basement or attic areas when considering applications to expand the building envelope.

Possible Improvements to the Regulations

The historical record shows that the City Council had specific goals in mind when it originally adopted the FAR limits and exemption. The intent of the limits was to have residential building sized in scale with the lot area. The goals of the exemption were to incentivize expanding floor area within the building envelope, rather than expanding the envelope; and to mitigate the unsafe practice of using for living purposes areas of a building that do not meet building code safety standards. The Council also required a 3-year period between a project to expand the envelope and a project taking advantage of the exemption in order to limit the use of permit sequencing as a means to avoid being subject to the FAR limits. The City Council also wanted to provide some flexibility to the FAR limits as they applied to small houses on small lots, ultimately finding that the best way to implement this was to provide the Planning Commission the discretion to allow variances in exceptional hardship circumstances.

With this in mind, the Commission might want to consider the questions below along with staff’s comments on the questions.

Are the regulations of floor area effective in limiting the size of homes?

On average, the City’s Planning Division receives about 400 applications annually. Over a twenty year period 71 requests for FAR variance were submitted and only 47 of those requests were approved. This is 0.6% of planning applications. If we consider the low number of variance requests and approvals, we find that the vast majority of projects conform to the FAR limits and therefore we may infer that the regulations and the discretion of the Planning Commission are effective.

Without a labor-intensive review of permits to compare the period between 1990 and1996 to recent years to document any decrease in the number of homes using unsafe basements or attics as living area, I can only report anecdotally that in recent years it has been uncommon for such circumstances to be brought to the City’s attention.

Are the regulations effective in preventing the circumvention of the FAR limits by means of project sequencing?

As brought to light by a recent application for a variance from the FAR regulations, unintended loopholes in the regulations allowed owners to avoid being subject to the FAR limits if the project is sequenced in a variety of ways. One of those loopholes was closed when the City Council recently approved that the start date for the interim period between a project to expand the envelope and a subsequent project to exceed the FAR limits by expanding within the envelope was changed from the issuance of a building permit to the final inspection of a building permit. This eliminated the ability to string out a construction project to over three years or to delay the start of a construction project by three years as a means to avoid the FAR limits.

However, even with this correction to the start time of the three-year interim period, nothing in the City Code prohibits an owner from providing most, but not all the features that meet the habitability standards of the building code: ceiling height, heat, adequate natural light and ventilation (windows), electrical outlets and light fixtures, finished floor and ceiling materials. Rather than trying to develop a planning or building code provision to address this, staff recommends that the Commission consider developing a policy that would guide the Commission, staff and the public when new or remodeled “non-habitable” space is being proposed. Window size, finish materials, the number of electrical fixtures could all be limited under the policy so that a de facto habitable space is not being created. The policy might also state that proposed non-habitable area will be evaluated when additions to the building envelope are proposed.

Is three years a length of time that effectively separates a project to expand the building envelope from one that develops habitable area within the envelope?

The minutes for the Council’s meetings from 1990 and 1996 do not indicate how three years became the time period to differentiate between projects to eliminate a sequencing of projects to circumvent the FAR limits. The intent of this hiatus period was to prevent the purposeful sequencing of projects in order to increase the size of the house without being subject to the FAR limits. One could infer that Council thought it was enough time to make it inconvenient to start a project after having finished another, and to allow for a change in a family’s needs. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that this was an evidence-based time period, and the Commission may want to consider a change to this provision that would make the regulations more effective.

EBMUD will be replacing 88-year-old water pipelines on Grand, Arroyo, and Lower Grand avenues.  –

Between summer 2017 and summer 2018 there will sometimes be lane closures on Grand Avenue between Arroyo Avenue and Oakland Avenue, and full road closures on portions of Arroyo Avenue and Lower Grand Avenue.

Attend the Thursday, August 24 community meeting from 7 to 8:30 pm at Beach School, 100 Lake, for more information.

The pipeline construction on Grand Avenue will require lane closures, but two-way traffic will be maintained at all times. Full road closures will be required on Arroyo Avenue and Lower Grand Avenue during certain periods.  Temporary asphalt paving will be applied daily, and is designed to provide a safe road surface during construction. Final paving will occur after pipeline work is completed. Work hours on Grand Avenue will be 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. Work hours on Arroyo and Lower Grand Avenues will be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Water service interruption for Neighbors –

Crews will notify you, in person or with a door hanger, regarding any planned water service interruption to your property. After a service interruption, there may be air in the pipes that may loosen particles in your home plumbing. Close your toilet water supply valves, and then run water from your front hose bib, bathtub and/or cold water faucets for 1-3 minutes. This will dispel any air or loosened particles from your household pipes.

Problems or further Information Contact: Ben Glickstein,  Community Affairs Representative for EBMUD.
ben.glickstein@ebmud.com
510-287-1631