Since 2010, 13 top Piedmont administration positions have undergone a turnover.  

The turned over positions are:

City Administrator

Fire Chief

Police Chief

Public Works Director

Finance and Human Resources Director

Recreation Director

City Clerk

Planning Director

Parks and Project Manager, Public Works 

City Attorney (Outside Contract)

City Engineer (Outside Contract)

Recording Secretary (No replacement)

Building Official

Current  > City Directory 

Personnel Changes and a New Position –

Recently announced personnel changes include the retirement of Mark Feldkamp, Parks and Project Manager in the Public Works Department, Kate Black, Planning Director, and Erick Cheung, Finance and Human Resources Director, who was hired March 6, 2013.   Feldkamp, a 20-year employee, will be replaced by Nancy Kent. Black, a 17 year employee, will be replaced on an interim basis by Kevin Jackson, Senior Planner. Cheung’s replacement has not been announced. 

The latest personnel changes come as the City is faced with renewing the Municipal Services Parcel Tax, considering new planning laws, completing Hampton Field improvements, funding employee pension and health care costs, improving IT systems, maintaining facilities, and evaluating recreational needs.

City Administrator Paul Benoit has recommended splitting the position of Finance and Human Resources Director.   A personnel search for Cheung’s replacement has been noted as a priority and is scheduled to be considered on the November  2 Council agenda.

Recommendation from City Administrator Benoit:

“Change in Responsibilities of the Position To ensure that the City attracts a broad and strong pool of municipal finance professionals, I would propose, with City Council authorization, to redefine the job description of the Finance / Human Resources Director position to eliminate the focus on human resources (HR). As such, I would propose recruiting for the position of Finance Director. At the same time, I would propose creating a new classification to absorb some of the duties currently handled by the Finance/HR Director. The exact title, duties, and reporting structure of this new classification will be determined as the process moves forward and will be brought to the Civil Service Commission for approval. I would assign Stacy Jennings, who currently serves much of the day to day human resources work to the new classification.

“Should the City Council approve this direction, I would suggest that we actively pursue recruitment for a Finance Director and, on a parallel track, make the necessary adjustments to the affected position descriptions. Also, Mr. Cheung and I have been meeting with a retired municipal Finance Director who is interested in and capable of serving the City in an interim role while the recruitment is in process. I will conduct additional background research on the individual and, depending on the results of that research, will propose a professional services contract for Council consideration.”

Read the staff report.

The Council has not yet addressed the long term financial impact of adding an additional administrative position.

Allocation of $500,000 at November 2 Council meeting. – 

In 2009 and 2010 revelations from the staff showed costly overruns for the private underground utility district that became a $2.5 million City expense.  Lawsuits ensued with the City recently receiving a settlement of $500,000 for the engineering work of Robert Gray and Associates. City legal action against the engineering firm Harris and Associates continues.

There has been no mention of returning the $450,000 taken from the PG&E Piedmont 20A undergrounding reserves. (Read PCA articles explaining 20A funds  here and Council candidate positions on the $450,000 taken from the 20A PG&E reserves here. Read all PCA articles on undergrounding here.

“20A Districts: 20A funds are provided by PG&E to the City of Piedmont through a requirement in the Public Utility Code which annually sets aside a portion of PG&E revenue for each utility jurisdiction. 20A funds are restricted in use and intended for undergrounding arterial streets. Primary arterial streets such as Highland Avenue, Grand Avenue, and the Civic Center block of Vista were completed using 20A funds.   In the 1980’s the Piedmont City Council designated all of the City’s 20A funds for undergrounding Grand, Moraga, and Oakland Avenues. The undergrounding of Grand Avenue was completed and paid for using 20A funds.  The undergrounding of Moraga and Oakland Avenues has not yet been accomplished.  After 2002, the City Council changed its policy and began the practice of using 20A funds to assist private undergrounding (20B) projects – specifically, the Piedmont Hills, Central Piedmont, and Sea View Avenue Undergrounding Districts.” PCA article 

Details: July 2, 2007 minutes, at page 3-4; July 7, 2007 staff Report, p. 3. May 7, 2007 staff report, p. 3; May 7, 2007 minutes;

Staff report on $500,00 allocation:

“On July 6, 2015 the City Council executed a settlement agreement with Robert Gray & Associates (RGA) for $500K to settle claims related to the creation and construction of the Piedmont Hills Underground Assessment District. The payment was received by the City in August and credited to the City’s General Fund reserves. In keeping with the Council’s prior decision to allocate one-time excess reserves to address needs, staff is recommending that the funds be transferred to the Facilities Maintenance Fund. This does not appropriate the funds in the Facilities Maintenance Fund to any specific project or use, which the Council can do at a future meeting or during the budget process.”  Read the staff report.

Council – 

Mayor Margaret Fujioka started her service as a council member in 2008 and Vice Mayor Jeff Wieler returned to the Council early in 2010. Newer members of the Council are Teddy King, Bob McBain, and Tim Rood.  At the next municipal election in November of 2016, Fujioka’s seat will become vacant when she will be termed out. McBain can run for re-election in 2016 for another four year term.  Wieler will have two more years remaining in his second term; in 2018 his seat will become vacant.  Rood and King’s terms expire in 2018.  Both can seek re-election.

By City Charter, a regular Council term last four years.  Individuals can serve for two consecutive terms, and may seek re-election to additional terms after retiring for 4 years.

The November 2, 2015, Council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Hall. The meeting will be broadcast on Channel 27, KCOM and on the City website.  Agenda.

PUSD School Board Meeting of October 14, 2015

by Piedmont High School student Bianna Massullo

Piedmont Awarded for Developing Many Rent Restricted Second Units for Low and Lowest Income Renters –

The City Council announced with pleasure that it is a recipient of an Award of Merit from the American Planning Association California Chapter (APACC) in the 2014 and 2015 Implementation – Small Jurisdiction category for its Rent-Restricted Second Unit Program. This program is designed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation assigned by the Association of Bay Area Governments, in a way that utilizes Piedmont’s unique housing stock. The award was presented during an APACC conference on Sunday, October 4 at the Oakland City Center Marriott.

The “Implementation: Small Jurisdiction with populations of less than 100,000” award for developing low income housing at a rapid rate is one of more than two dozen award categories recognizing activities in many California cities.

Federal Housing Policy Implemented in Piedmont

The use of second units, also known as “Granny Flats” and “Accessory Dwelling Units,” as affordable housing was a policy that emerged at the beginning of the 1980’s by housing advocates and greenbelt organizations. By 1983 it was an official policy at the Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, DC.

How to accomplish this method of affordable housing in single-family zoning was a popular topic at universities, including the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Virginia and elsewhere by 1983.

State Adopted Code to Facilitate Second Units as Affordable Housing

The State of California was quick to pick up on this method of developing affordable housing at no cost to the State–the expense and management responsibilities are handed over to the homeowners. (see Government Code Section 65583.1(a) amended in 2003 and 2010) As all levels of government pounced on the idea of housing production without any public funds, Piedmont also began dealing with the issue of second units in the mid-1980’s. Now, our City Council is thrilled to be commended for actually producing a large number of second units at a rapid pace.

Second units in Piedmont have been created by converting the basements of existing houses, adding an extension behind an existing house, converting an existing garage, or constructing an entirely new building. The accelerated development of second units over the past few years was accomplished through an active advocacy program by City staff that encouraged homeowners who were planning home renovations to consider adding a rent restricted or affordable second unit.

When variances are given for low income units, rent restrictions are required for a period of 10 years, after which units can be rented at market rates.  Any variances, such as parking requirements, continue after the ten year period. Piedmont has proactively given variances for rent restricted units in order to supply low income housing and meet regional housing goals. 

The Planning Commission will hold another hearing to discuss short term rentals on October 12 in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 5 p.m., however the short term rental issue has been placed at the end of the agenda.  Those wanting to know the anticipated time of the hearing can inquire of Planning Director Kate Black.

At the Monday, September 21st Council meeting, City staff presented options for prohibiting or regulating AirBnB type rentals for consideration by the City Council. (Read the staff report here.)

• Prohibit short-term rental of the 18 Second Units developed as low income housing. Staff strongly encourages the Council to adopt this provision, pointing out that the imposed rent restrictions would limit the AirBnB rate to $25 (very low income units) to $35 (low income units) per night for the units, before AirBnB takes its cut.
• Prohibit short-term rental of the 110 approved Second Units, which are not rent restricted. Staff notes that few are rented. Instead they are used as guest quarters or a home office.
• Prohibit short-term rental of the 66 apartments in Piedmont.
• No regulation of Home Swaps.
• Prohibit or regulate with standards short-term rental of rooms in a house. If allowed, the number of allowed rental days per year could be limited.
• Allow vacation rentals of whole houses with restrictions, perhaps limiting the number of allowed rental days per year.

The Piedmont City Council referred several questions back to the Planning Commission for further recommendations: whether home shares or vacation rentals should be permitted in Piedmont; if so, how should they be regulated; and how to enforce any regulations.

Excerpts from the draft minutes of the September 21, 2015, Council meeting:

Planning Director Kate Black noted that the regulatory environment regarding short term rentals has changed significantly since March and many cities are struggling with the issue. She reviewed regulations that have been passed or are being considered by other cities, noting all cities are facing the same issues: how to ensure short term rentals cause the least amount of disruption to nearby neighborhoods; ensuring that taxes are collected from each legal short term rental; how to address safety, indemnification, and notification; and how to enforce compliance.

The Council discussed the following issues – clarifying the landlord/tenant relationship with regard to subleasing; not turning rooms into commercial enterprises; that the City is not a destination location; neighborhoods being informed of rentals; and addressing this emerging economy. In addition, a Councilmember discussed prohibiting whole house rentals for more than 30 days as they could have deleterious effects on neighborhood’s quality of life.

The Council agreed on the following aspects of regulating Short Term Rentals:

1) No Second Units or apartments should be allowed as short term rentals so as to not jeopardize the existing low income housing stock and 2) Home swaps should not be regulated.

The Council referred the following items to the Planning Commission for a recommendation:

1) Whether home shares and/or vacation rentals should be permitted and if so, how they should be regulated; 2) How any enforcement of said regulations would be accomplished, including: i) Whether permits for short term rentals would be ministerial or discretionary (with neighbor notice). ii) How inspections of units should be addressed. iii) How any regulations should be enforced, including the amount of staff time devoted to enforcement as well as the cost. iv) Whether short term rentals should be limited to a certain number of days per year. v) Whether tenants should be allowed to sublet. vi) How taxes and fees should be addressed.

Residents are encouraged to attend the meeting and express their opinions and ideas. The Planning Commission hearing will be available live on KCOM, cable 27 or by logging on to the city’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us

If you have any questions or comments, please call Planning Director Kate Black at (510) 420-3063 or email her         at kblack@ci.piedmont.ca.us . 

Written comments may be sent to: Planning Commission, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or by email to: kblack@ci.piedmont.ca.us

Planning Commission Agenda

View the Video of the September 21, 2015 City Council Hearing . 

Read the minutes of the September 21 Council meeting here.

Piedmont’s Family Oriented Zoning and Short Term Rentals will be considered on September 21 at the Council Meeting – 

Short Term  and Overnight Rentals Are Generally Not  Legal  Under Piedmont Ordinances and the City Charter. 

On September 21, 2015, the Council will consider the issue  at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

In May 2015, City staff reported to the City Council that although Piedmont prohibits Air BnB and VRBO type short-term rentals,  they are listed online on several sites. While many cities around the world have adopted regulations, oversight and special taxes on short-term rentals of apartments, homes, condos and second units, Piedmont has yet to respond as AirBNB type rentals continue to operate in violation of existing laws and the City Charter.  

Questions Regarding Voter Participation

The City Charter has in recent years been skirted by changing zoning uses and requirements without voter participation.  This has caused dramatic changes for Piedmont’s previously stable single family residential zoning.  The Charter states:

“SECTION 9.02 ZONING SYSTEM The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgement be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a singlefamily dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.”

Piedmont Law Does Not Allow Customers to Come to a Piedmont Residence. 

The Municipal Code currently states:

“The occupational use shall not generate pedestrian or vehicular traffic or parking needs beyond that normal to the district or neighborhood in which it is located. No business invitees shall be permitted to visit the premises;”

Piedmont law further states:

“No more than one room in the residence or any structure on the premises where the residence is located shall be used in connection with the home occupation, and under no circumstances shall a garage be used in any way related to such home occupation;”

Renting a room without using another room such as a bathroom or a kitchen is improbable.

 Permits Are Required Prior to Using a Home for an Occupation –

“All of the jurisdictions, like Piedmont, report that many hosts operate their short term rentals ”under the radar”. However, unlike most communities, it is relatively easy for Piedmont staff to identify illegal short term rentals because we have relatively few of them, we have active neighbors who report unpermitted activity, and matching an advertised rental with a specific property is generally not difficult for staff.” Staff report September 21, 2015

Piedmont’s current law  requires a permitting process that includes involving neighbors as well as City determinations for business use of residences. Since customers are not allowed to come to a residence, nor can there be use of the residence for publicity, short term rentals are currently not allowed.

During the discussion and consideration by the City Council on Monday, March 16, 2015, the rental of Piedmont rooms through internet companies, such as AirBnB,  the Piedmont Municipal Code requirement for use of a residence as a “Home Occupation” was not mentioned.

Piedmont’s Home Occupation ordinance states:

“There shall be no advertising, notices, publications or other written or oral means used to connect the occupation with the premises on which it is conducted and particularly there shall be no use of the address of such premises in any way connected with the occupation, provided that this shall not prohibit the use of name cards, stationery or invoices with the address of the premises.”

 “~  SEC. 17B.3 REGULATIONS ~

a. In order to conduct a home occupation on any premises located in Zones A, B, C, and E in the City of Piedmont, an application must be made by the resident proposing such an occupational use upon a form and in the manner prescribed by the City Clerk.

b. In addition to the application form the applicant must submit a rendering of the floor plan of the house showing which room or portion of a room will be used for the home occupation. This drawing should be accurate in its representation of the premises but need not be an architectural rendering.

c. The fee for a home occupation permit shall be non-refundable as set forth from time to time by resolution of the City Council.

d. The applicant or applicant’s representative shall mail to all adjacent residences (as defined in Sec. 17.2) a notice of intent to conduct business, the form of which shall be prescribed by the City Clerk. Said notice will set forth (1) The applicant’s name (2) The address of the proposed home occupation (3) The type of business to be conducted (4) A fifteen (15) day period during which comments on the home a fifteen (15) day period during which comments on the home occupation may be directed to the City Clerk.

e. The applicant or applicant’s representative shall provide an affidavit of service to the City Clerk as proof of satisfaction of Sec. 17B.3(d) above.

f. No home occupation permit shall be issued during the 15 day notification period.

g. Upon completion of the notification period, the application and any

g. Upon completion of the notification period, the application and any comments received shall be reviewed by the Public Works Director and City 17B-3 Home Occupations 17B-4 Administrator who shall determine if a home occupation should be granted under this section based upon the fact that none of the restrictions of Section 17B.2 have been violated or will be violated due to the proposed nature or conduct of the home occupation.

h. All persons receiving a home occupation permit shall be required to have a valid city business license. Lapse of six (6) months or more in a business license shall constitute grounds for cancellation of the home occupation permit.

i. Home occupation permits shall be valid so long as there is no change in the location or nature of the business and a valid city business license is on file in the City Clerk’s office and none of the restrictions of Section 17B.2 have been violated. (Ord. No. 349 N.S., §3; Ord. No. 388 N.S., §3, Ord No. 532 N.S §3, Ord. 709 N.S. §2)” 

Read Piedmont’s Home Occupation ordinance. 

~~~~~~~~~~

Unintended Consequence of Promoting Second Units in Piedmont –

To provide affordable and low income housing in Piedmont, City policies have promoted second units, granting variances and retroactively allowing apartments in homes. The City has sought and gained awards for this approach to providing for low income and affordable housing. However, rather than becoming rental housing for full time lower income families, these new units have proved ideal for AirBNB rentals. As online short-term rental services have mushroomed, these housing options have opened Piedmont to a commercialization never seen before and according to staff, in most cases without payment of Piedmont’s rental income tax to the City.

From the City’s view, although the one-time weekend renter does not occupy any seats in Piedmont schools or request city documents, the second units are not providing affordable or low income housing for permanent residents, as intended by City policy. Meeting goals for housing units are defeated by the transfer of housing to short-term rentals as a hotel or bed and breakfast.

As Piedmonters commercialized their properties, Piedmont’s desire for low income and affordable housing has been partially undercut by some property owners’ desire for increased income by converting their house or second unit to short time rentals.

Staff states in their September 21 report:

“Piedmont does not have the tourist draw of beaches, shopping or entertainment venues the cities with the largest problems have. In fact, based on reading reviews left by people who have rented Airbnb listings in Piedmont, they tend to be in town for local social events such as weddings and anniversaries, or regional events at UC Berkeley.”

In the staff report there is no assessment of safe, convenient, lodging near Piedmont.  For those residing in Piedmont, it is generally known that finding safe, nearby lodging can be challenging, making Piedmont homes and second units desirable and potentially in high demand for short term lodging.

Full time Landlord Duties May Be More Onerous than Occasional Weekends –

Piedmonters with second units often consider being a year-round 24- hours-a-day landlord too great a nuisance. Some have opted to rent for few days only when it is convenient through online services instead, knowing that parents bringing their students to Berkeley or Mills College won’t be doing much cooking, complaining in the middle of the night, withhold rent, or exercise the right to “repair and deduct” and they will be gone in a couple of days. AirBnB vets the renters and collects the payment for the hosts.

Express your opinions and ideas. Alternatively, you may watch the City Council hearing on KCOM, cable 27 or by logging on to the city’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us: on the right hand side of the homepage under the “City Council” heading, click on the “Online Video” link, then click on the “September 21, 2015” heading, click on the “Video” or “In Progress” link, and start watching!

Written comments may be sent to the City Council, c/o Piedmont City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or by email to: jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us. Correspondence received by the City Clerk is considered part of the public record.

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

“Additionally, as a means of reaching as many Piedmont residents as possible, staff was directed to continue to work with the press to make sure that there was high level coverage, and to continue to send direct notices and reports to the email list of people wishing to participate in the discussions.” Staff report dated September 21, 2015.

Read the entire staff report here.

Editors’ Note:  PCA is on record requesting all City public notifications, press releases, agendas and agenda staff reports, thereby allowing PCA to inform our hundreds of readers of City news. PCA was not included on the recent notification list regarding short term rentals as were some other media outlets. 

Residents have expressed concerns about the influx of short-term rentals. The City Council will consider the matter including adding new laws and enforcing existing laws on September 21.

Council and Staff Encourage Second Units as a Technique for Meeting  State Housing Goals.

Adding second units on single family parcels has been heartily embraced by the City Council and staff as a method to meet State goals for more housing, particularly for low income /affordable units. Piedmont frequently allows, through variances, low income housing units with no off-street parking, even where on-street parking is difficult for neighborhood residents’ guests and service providers.

Recently, when an affordable second unit built without permits was brought to the City Council on the basis of inadequate parking, the Council held to the policy of encouraging and approving second units, despite a failure of the property owner to provide required parking in the heavily impacted neighborhood.

Issues of safety, privacy, noise, and parking from short term rentals – 

The May 16, 2015 Council meeting record states:

“Alicia Kalamas, and John Mittan each spoke against short term rentals, citing negative effects on the community, the possibility of criminal behavior, and lack of connection of the renters to the community. Tom Ferguson expressed a recommendation that there be tight regulations if they are allowed. Steve Wubbens expressed concern that affordable long term second units like his will be replaced by more lucrative short term rentals, making it difficult for divorced people like him to live in town close to his children.” 

“Mayor Fujioka explained that the issue of short term rentals was brought to the Council’s attention because of neighbor complaints, and that this is the beginning of a long discussion on the topic.”

Further negatives for short-term rentals are: ever changing transient populations, potential increased fire and police demands, parking and noise problems, administrative costs, and failure to tax the commercialized properties.  Neighborhood cohesiveness has been noted as a concern. These problems have been brought up if homes are turned into businesses generating vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Many credit Piedmont’s desirability as a residential city to heavily supported schools and excellent infrastructure largely based on stable zoning, quiet, safe neighborhoods, and general concern for the well being of the community.

While Piedmont neighbors complain of noise, parking problems, loss of privacy and uneasy feelings as a result of short term rentals, Piedmont’s long standing law, “Home Occupation, Chapter 17B.2.” has not been enforced in response to the recent flurry of short-term rentals.

In prior years, when a  Piedmont home was identified in publications as a “bed and breakfast,” the City was prompt in sending legal notice to the owners to cease and desist the illegal use. The notices referred to limitations on “Home Occupation” under which “bed and breakfast,” use of residences in Piedmont was not allowed.

Piedmont Lacks Staffing to Oversee Current Rentals – Affordable or Short Term.

Piedmont currently has no system or staffing dedicated to verifying whether or not City approved affordable units permitted to meet State housing goals and receiving City tax exemptions and parking variances are maintained during the required time period, as an affordable unit. Additionally, once the required time period lapses for affordability, the parking variances and second units remain available to be rented at market rates or, depending on Council actions, as a short term rental.

Awards for the innovative manner Piedmont provides affordable housing by permitting rent restricted second units can, in the long term, be used for short term rentals, negating genuine long term provision of affordable housing.

San Francisco unions, land owners, affordable housing advocates and neighborhood groups unhappy with the adopted ordinance have placed an initiative on the ballot that is being heavily opposed by AirBNB and other online services. (See Related article on Prop F) No ballot measure by initiative or Council action has been mentioned in Piedmont as an option with the exception of not wanting to place a tax before the voters due to the cost of the election.  

 Taxes An Issue

Single family parcel owners are taxed per parcel rather than per residence for School Taxes.  The previous progressive school parcel tax recently changed to a flat parcel tax approved by voters requires a one-bedroom cottage on a tiny lot to pay the same school tax as a 20-room mansion on several acres. And contrary to the recently approved School Tax ballot language, people who own two parcels with one residence have been taxed as though the property is only one parcel.  Further, properties with a second (2) legal dwelling unit on a single parcel pay the same amount as properties with only one residence on the parcel.

Read the full staff report here.

You are encouraged to attend the September 21, Council meeting at 7:30 p.m. and express your opinions and ideas. Alternatively, you may watch the City Council hearing on KCOM, cable 27 or for a live webcast by logging on to the city’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us: on the right hand side of the homepage under the “City Council” heading, click on the “Online Video” link, then click on the “September 21, 2015” heading, click on the “Video” or “In Progress” link, and start watching!

Written comments may be sent to the City Council, c/o Piedmont City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 or by email to: jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us. Correspondence received by the City Clerk is considered part of the public record.

On Monday, August 3, 2015, starting at 7:30 p.m., the City Council will consider Community Hall parking lot restrictions, City Hall ground water routing into sanitary sewer system, and 5K race street closure.

• Piedmont High School FallFest 5K race street closures on Saturday, September 26 to raise funds for the Wellness Center. Several blocks of Craig, Crocker, Farragut, Highland, Hillside, Magnolia Mountain, Park Way, Sea View, and Wildwood Avenues would be closed from 8:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.  Read more here.

• Community Hall Parking Lot options: “The primary purpose of the lot is to serve the users of the Community Hall.” A one-year trial of new parking restrictions is proposed. The majority of the lot would be limited to two-hour parking. Five slots would be limited to 15 minutes from 8:45 – 9:30 a.m. and noon to 1 p.m. for drop off/pick up. Three slots would be reserved for the Recreation Department vans and five slots would be reserved for PUSD employees from 7 a.m. – 2:30 p.m. There would still be days when the entire lot would be closed for special events. Read more here.

• Approve a League of California Cities Resolution urging the State to provide sufficient funding for local street and highway roadbed maintenance. Read more here.

• City Hall sump pump rerouting for collected groundwater into the sanitary sewer $19,000. City staff has been working with the Alameda County Environmental Health Department since a leak was found in former fuel tanks in 1988.  Read more here.

Property Line Between Early 20th Century Houses Raises Issues for New Owners –

On Monday, July 20, 2015, the City Council heard its first Planning Commission appeal for the year. The appellant was Alice Creason, who lives next door to Seamus and Fernanda Meagher.  The Meaghers’ application for 212 Bonita Avenue called for extensive remodeling of their newly purchased 1908 home owned for 57 years by Herbert and Marjorie Michels.

The application included increasing garage space to accommodate four cars, parking court, additions to the house, landscaping, redesigned frontage fence and gate, and a habitable space over the three car garage.

Most neighbors, including the appellant, thought the improvements to the home would be highly desirable. The garages, parking court, and large new habitable space presented issues for some of the neighbors, particularly Creason, whose privacy was impacted.

At the Planning Commission hearing on June 8 and prior to receiving their approval,  the applicants assured the Commission that their plans would all be on their property.  A week later Creason, relying on the surveyed property line, had fence installers on the job building a property line fence. The applicant physically prevented the fence installation by moving cars and trucks onto Creason’s property.  After which, Creason appealed the Planning Commission decision based on new relevant evidence regarding the property line.

City Attorney Michelle Kenyon advised the Council that they could not consider property line issues.  The applicants’ plans showed the surveyed property line.

After hearing from numerous speakers, the Council acted to deny the appeal, uphold the Commission’s findings, and add a new construction management condition to the approval.  Proposed by Councilmember Tim Rood, an architect and planner by profession, the following was added to the conditions required of the applicant. The following condition is similar to conditions required on other approved projects.

“Neighboring Property Owner Permission –

Should the execution of the project, including the demolition of the existing garage in its entirety, require access onto a neighboring property for demolition or construction, the applicant shall submit prior to the issuance of a building permit the signed written statement from the adjacent property owner granting permission for access onto his or her property for purposes of demolition or construction.  As an alternative to gaining the signed written permission of the adjacent property owners for access to accomplish the demolition of the existing garage, which must be demolished in its entirety, including its walls and footings, the applicant shall include documentation in the construction management plan that clearly identifies and outlines how the applicant can demolish the existing garage including its footings without accessing a neighboring property.”

Councilmember Bob McBain urged a harmonious resolution.

Vice Mayor Jeff Weiler, officiating at the Council meeting in the absence of Mayor Margaret Fujioka, stated, “Where I grew up this is called the opportunity to play, ‘Lets make a deal’.  I would encourage both parties that they each want something from the other party to try to figure out a way to obtain their desire by working with the other side.”

– Despite Ever Increasing Water Rates, Few Customers Protested. –

Following its June 9 hearing, the Board of Directors of the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) unanimously approved new rates and the drought surcharge after receiving only 131 valid written protests from the 381,200 parcel customers. The 8% rate increase takes effect July 1, 2015. EBMUD water rates increased 9.75 %  beginning July 1, 2013, and increased again on July 1, 2014 by 9.5%  as increasing conservation continues to reduce revenue. EBMUD declared a Stage 4 critical drought and set a community-wide goal of 20% water use reduction, 
compared to 2013 water consumption.

At the hearing, residents spoke of their long-standing water conservation habits, expressing worry that there was no further reduction possible.

Stopwaste.org staff members Jeff Becerra and Teresa Eade strongly objected to the EBMUD rebates for replacing lawns with artificial turf at the expense of the environment. Eade detailed the deleterious effects: it off-gases, is hotter than asphalt in the summer and has to be land-filled after its limited life.

San Francisco Sierra Club Water Committee leader Sonia Diermayer, disagreed, “Rebates for replacing lawns are great! My mother and her neighbors in Lafayette have huge lawns that consume so much water.”

Glenda Dugen of Walnut Creek objects to all rebates, indicating that conservation is just common sense and we should all be doing whatever we can.

Former EBMUD Director Helen Burke supported the need for increased rates and the watershed management program that excludes bikes on District lands. She noted the very active efforts of bicycle groups to get access and referred to the many problems and expenses recorded in Marin, after opening water district lands to bicycling.

Several citizens described floods and water damage from a leaking tank of treated water in El Sobrante.

Board of Directors Vice President William Patterson, who represents most of Oakland, urged the staff, “We should go after reimbursement from the State of all the funds we pay for water they have curtailed this year.”

Director Marguerite Young, who represents Piedmont, praised her district, “A whole lot of my district customers are already low water use households.”

DirectorAndy Katz, who represents Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, El Cerrito, Kensington, and a part of Oakland, added, “We have many customers who are conservers, but we also have customers who use a lot.”

In addition to the rate increases and surcharges, those who do not conserve will be billed penalties. Read about Excessive Use penalties here.

Almonds aren’t the only “big gulp” users of California water.

Each almond shipped out of California required one gallon of our water, a crop that has doubled since 2005, and alfalfa grown for animal feed consumes 20% of irrigation water in the state,  much of which is shipped out, as far away as China.

California water is also shipped out in bottles. Nestle’s Pure Life brand and its Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water bottles water come from a spring on the  Morongo Indian Reservation east of Los Angeles in Millard Canyon, California.  As a sovereign nation, the reservation is not under state law.  However, the water leaves the reservation  across the San Bernardino National Forest to reach the bottling plant.  Nestlé Water’s permit expired in 1988. The U.S. Forest Service announced it would reassess the permit.

Nestle’s permit is not the only out of date water permit in national forests in California. The Desert Sun newspaper reported that 616 water extraction permits are past their expiration dates.

Because those permits haven’t been formally renewed in years, the agency largely hasn’t studied how the taking of that water from public lands may be affecting creeks, wildlife and water supplies downstream. Many of the permits listed as being past their expiration dates are for pipelines that siphon off water from wells and springs in national forests. The pipelines run to the tanks of water districts, as well as to cabins, neighborhoods and properties such as cemeteries, lodges and ranches.

Nestlé insists its permit remains in effect, pointing out that it has continued to pay its annual fee of $524 to the National Forest. A spokesman for the the U.S. Forest Service says the application for renewal of the permit has been under consideration since 1988.