Feb 6 2018

Reminder: Your Opinions Needed on 3 Concepts for Linda Beach Playfield

The deadline for completing the survey on Linda Beach Playfield and Park is Thursday, February 8!

The City and its consultant, landscape architecture firm Groundworks Office, have developed a survey to gather resident input on the proposed designs. The three concepts were presented to the public at a Community Workshop on January 18th.

See the three concepts below:

Read previous articles describing options here and here.

Give your input on the survey of the three concepts to be considered in a master plan for Linda Beach Playfield and Park > here.

Feb 1 2018

Thursday, Feb 8 Deadline for Comments/Survey on 3 Concepts for Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan

The City of Piedmont is seeking resident input on three concepts to be included in a master plan for Linda Beach Playfield and Park, which were presented to the public at a Community Workshop on January 18th. The City and its consultant, landscape architecture firm Groundworks Office, have developed a survey to gather resident input on the proposed designs.

Take 5-10 minutes to complete > the Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan Survey. The City is asking that all comments be submitted by February 8th.

The City of Piedmont engaged the services of landscape architecture firm Groundworks Office for development of the Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan. The intent of the project is to create a logical, cost-effective, and flexible conceptual plan to meet the present and future needs of the City of Piedmont within the context of the neighborhood, the needs of the community and the constraints of the existing site. With the exception of the field itself, all areas from the Oakland Avenue Bridge to Beach School and between Howard and Linda Avenues will be on the table for possible enhancements, improvements and renovations.

The City invites any and all interested community members to engage in this exciting opportunity to examine an existing park with fresh eyes. The City wants to hear the communities ideas.

Read previous article on three concepts for Linda Beach Playfield and Park here.

Jan 26 2018

Linda Beach Playfield and Park Redevelopment Plans

Linda Beach Field Redevelopment: To (B)each His Own

    A chance to remake Linda Beach Playfield.

Community members gathered to discuss the latest proposals on use of the land in between the existing field and the school.

    The City of Piedmont is currently seeking to redevelop the area around Beach School. After learning about the desires of the residents at a previous meeting, the redevelopment team put together three proposals for people to debate. In the meeting, each proposed plan was explained before we broke up into smaller groups to generate feedback on each plan.

    The meeting fell under the umbrella of the Piedmont Recreation Department (PRD), as PRD is in charge of the Linda Beach facilities. The goal of the meeting was to determine what the community thought about the three concepts presented and which aspects were most and least favored. Since this project is a one-time contract, the meetings do not occur with regularity.

    The contracted firm, Groundworks Office, showed three initial ideas for Linda Beach Playfield, named the “Sports”, “Nature”, and, “Hybrid” designs. The first two were intentionally constructed to fall on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum, while the “Hybrid” version attempted to walk a middle ground.

    The “Sports” concept increases the size of the tennis courts to regulation size, and adds a skate park, expands Schoolmates, and adds lighting. PRD employee and Bay Area resident Daniel LaForte expressed concern about the current, smaller size of the tennis courts, saying, “I won’t play at the Beach courts, because it’s simply too dangerous. I’ve had injuries before.” He supports the expansion of the tennis courts, citing the high demand which has forced him to, “start playing on the other side of the tunnel,” adding that, “The good players won’t play there [Beach],” due to the irregular size.

    After reviewing this proposal, I helped present the group’s feedback. There was a valid belief shared by some of our group members that two regulation tennis courts would occupy too much valuable space, but ultimately, it was clear that the space would definitely be used all the time. Personally, I agreed with the notion that courts would make effective use of the space, especially considering the other options for it.

    The next proposal, “Nature,” featured an event space that would take up most of the area between Schoolmates, which would be expanded, and the large playfield nearby. This proposal sought to create a relaxing, soothing vibe, complemented by the addition of hammocks to existing trees near Howard Street. It sounded cool, but I was afraid the event space might get wasted, especially since there is a nearby picnic area.

    Finally, the “Hybrid” model contains some ideas from each of the other proposals. It has a slightly smaller event space, plus an exercise area, bocce and pickleball courts. Some of the people in attendance were familiar with the government committee that would ultimately decide this issue, and they believe the committee would end up taking the Hybrid proposal, no matter what.

By David Yu, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~~

City Planning to Redesign Area Adjacent to Linda Beach Playground

Piedmont is a beautiful City that benefits from the thoughtful city planning and design decisions that are implemented.  The Linda Beach area is currently undergoing a redevelopment plan, which we hope will be no exception to Piedmont’s high standards.  The Groundworks Landscape Architecture firm and the City of Piedmont are working together to redesign the space around the Linda Beach Playground with a shared belief that the space has great potential.

    On Thursday, January 18, a public meeting was held, including resident attendees, to consider three design plans for the area and solicit community input on the redevelopment ideas for further design refinements.  A few of the goals for this project are:  (1) to improve the identity of the park, (2) breathe community life into the Oakland Avenue bridge space, and (3) improve site access and connections to the park for use by people across varying demographics.

     This meeting was the second public forum held for the Linda Beach Project.  There will likely be subsequent meetings during the design process.

    The major issue addressed and discussed at the January 18th meeting was the purpose of the new development and how it would be used.  There were three plans presented during the meeting.  They were: a Sports Plan, a Nature Plan and a Hybrid Plan.

    The Sports Plan proposed two regulation size tennis courts, a boardwalk near Howard Avenue, a skateboard park under the bridge along with plans to incorporate public art elements into the structure, terraced seating along the edge of the field, new storm water drain systems, an expansion of the Schoolmates building, a redeveloped tot lot with art incorporated into the structures, and two restrooms on either side of the site.

   The Sports Plan received positive feedback from team members or their families who currently use the space for sports-related activities.  There were some doubts raised about this plan’s ability to satisfy the diverse needs of those other than just parents and their young children, and also concern over the space feeling crowded.

    Some argued strongly against having a skateboard park, because of concern over noise.  While others suggested that a skateboard park would create a safe designated space for skateboarders to stay off the street and practice their sport, given it is illegal in many public areas where signs are posted prohibiting the sport.

    The Nature Plan proposed as its main concept, open programming space.  This entailed the removal of both tennis courts with replacement by a multi-purpose space.  This proposed space would include planted terraces, easy access, improved storm water solutions, and be made from natural material and plants to establish a lush organic environment.

    The Nature Plan focused more on the aesthetic value the space could present by incorporating many elements from nature as well art to welcome the public. This plan faced the most criticism because many people were upset about the removal or reduction of the sports facilities that are currently available to them today, such as the tennis courts and a reduced size tot lot.  This concern was mainly expressed by families who use this space often for their children and people who grew up playing sports on these facilities, who had an emotional connection to the activity environment.  These residents would have to give up their current use of the space in exchange for a nature park.  Many were not happy about that possibility.

    The final plan proposed was called the Hybrid Plan.  This plan incorporated aspects from both the sports and the nature plan.  The Hybrid Plan maintained one tennis court, the tot lot relocated to the south end of the site, an exercise plaza located under the bridge, public event/park space near the tennis court, an extension added to the existing Schoolmates building, and one restroom.  This plan was praised for its ability to act as a space for people with different interests and seemed to achieve broader support as a compromise.  However, the exercise plaza of this plan was criticized for fear it would be underused.  Many people liked the fact that there was only one tennis court.  A tennis player who attended the meeting even stated they would rather have one regulation size tennis court, than the two non-regulation courts there today.

    After the presentations of the three plans, we all turned to our tables with print copies of each plan, including images used to help establish a feeling for what each plan might seem like if implemented.  A representative from either the City or the Groundworks Office sat at each of the tables and listened to questions and critiques about the plans from residents.  Each table group then generated their ideal plan and presented their idea at the end of the meeting to all attendees.

    My table group discussed and agreed on our ideal plan.  It included one tennis court, a public space that could be used for either socializing or events, a relocated and renovated tot lot, two restrooms, a skateboard park under the bridge and ample space throughout for sitting and relaxing.  I thought our twist on the Hybrid Plan seemed ideal because it incorporated spaces for activities across a variety of ages and interest groups.

    After each of the groups presented their ideas, the meeting was dismissed and I spoke with Etienne Fang, a former designer and Piedmont High School graduate (class of ‘94).  She attended this meeting with her children so they could learn about the design process.  Etienne attended Beach Elementary School and her children currently attend Beach today.  She believes that the current plan is a poor use of the space.  She said the tot lot is over-utilized, the tennis courts are usually empty, and there is a useless dirt path behind the field that has been there since she went to Beach that has a lot of potential.  Etienne was confused by the presentations of design plans for the Linda Beach space because she was unsure of their underlying vision for the space.  After the meeting, she said that people want to practice different activities and that the space should be inclusive.  She plans on attending future meetings to provide her inputs on the project.

    This meeting was intended to help the City and Groundworks Office understand first-hand, the wants, needs and concerns about the proposed Linda Beach redevelopment area.  While I was able to participate in voicing my opinion among my neighbors, importantly, this meeting demonstrated to me that city planning is definitely a difficult job, especially when the public has so many conflicting opinions about what should be included in a redevelopment plan.

by Hanna Scoggins, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~~~

The Linda Beach Face Lift

On Thursday, January 18, I attended a city parks and projects meeting about the reconstruction of the Linda Beach Park space.  There was a meeting prior to this one where people voiced what sort of things they would like to see in the design.  This meeting was all of those suggestions put together into three different plans.  Each plan –Nature, Sports and Hybrid — had a difference stance.  All three designs were intended to be the extremes of each idea.  For example, the Sports design was heavily based on activities and how many fields/ courts they could fit into the space.  Whereas the Nature had no sport courts and primarily focused on a community relaxation space, and Hybrid was a mix of the two. 

After the initial presentation of these three options we broke off into table groups to come up with our own ideal Linda Beach Park.  My group wasn’t a big fan of any of the three options and decided to cut out certain things from each and create our own model.  The model we came up with was essentially another hybrid model with heavy influence on interactive light sculptures, skatepark, relaxation space and viewing areas of the sport courts. 

Everyone then shared their own creation of the park but there were major concerns about safety, noise, traffic and usage that might come with a skate park or relaxation space. 

This meeting was primarily to see the options of the people who would be using it, and the designers plan to make a fourth and final design based on this meeting and the suggestions that came from it. 

After the meeting was over a few of my friends and I interviewed and discussed ideas with Etienne Fang.  Mrs. Fang is a designer and came to this meeting to show her kids what the design process looks like along with her own interest in the development.  This project was not only important to her kids, who currently attend Beach Elementary School, but she herself attended Beach and wanted to see the possibilities for the space. 

Mrs. Fang thought that the park was in desperate need of a remodel, saying that “some of the bushes there today were there when I was a kid, and they still haven’t grown!”  She liked the idea of having sports influence the development, but liked the idea of art having a bigger role in the design so that kids are exposed to a broader horizon, rather than just sports. 

The overall outcome of the meeting was very positive, everyone was given the opportunity to have their voice heard which will lead to a successful development of the Linda Beach Park.

by Ty Ozsoy, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.
Nov 13 2017

Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan Meeting Nov 16

All interested community members are invited to meet with Groundworks Office, landscape architects, at:

Beach Elementary School Auditorium

100 Lake Avenue 

Thursday, November 16

6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

May 17 2017

Planning Commission Considers Small House Policy and Tall Fences

Planning Commission confronts applications for additional bedrooms without off-street parking and high fences next to sidewalks. 

by Leah Kochendoerfer, Piedmont High School Senior –

 On Monday, May 8th, 2017 at 5:00pm, the Planning Commission met in order to consider approval of projects proposed for property in Piedmont. Between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., the members of the Planning Commission discussed four specific cases: 419 Moraga Avenue, 156 Wildwood Avenue, 139 Lexford Road, and 361 Moraga Avenue. Four projects were conditionally approved; however, each had their own set of adjustments necessary to ensure approval.  

The resident of 419 Moraga Avenue submitted an application seeking the approval of modifications to her windows, as well as the approval of a room conversion into a bedroom without providing the necessary parking ratio. The application had previously been denied under the Small House Policy, in which bedroom count cannot exceed a certain number without simultaneously increasing parking. However, the resident argued that similar construction had taken place in neighboring homes in which bedroom to parking ratios had been consistent with her plans, and thus her construction should be approved. When asked why she could not create more parking in order to make the increase in room count legal, she suggested that her driveway was too steep for a car to park, and a garage could not be added without demolishing the entire house, thus indicating the Variance criteria of unusual physical circumstances. Susan Ode and Eric K. Behrens, members of the Planning Commission, both rejected the resident’s argument by stating that no house should be compared to another, as each is in a unique circumstance. Another commissioner introduced the consideration of traffic on Moraga, noting that creating another unit would only increase car flow down the already busy street. Ultimately reflecting the Planning Commission’s decision, Tom Ramsey noted the importance of being consistent and supported the variance under the condition that the driveway could be modified in order to supply an additional parking spot.

 The subsequent resident submitted an application for the construction of a new six foot wooden fence with two gates on their Wildwood Avenue property. The resident expressed the need of a new fence after having experienced several incidents of stolen property, and also commented on the benefits of adding more room to the property, the convenience of having access to the home through a side yard, and the general aesthetic of a new fence.

Responses from the Planning Commission included Commissioner Eric Behrens who stated that the fence was out of character and not, in fact, aesthetic.  Commissioner Susan Ode noted that the horizontal planks would not match the vertical ones. Additionally, Commissioner Jonathan Levine suggested that neighboring houses along Wildwood Avenue do not have these fences and a fence this tall would look imposing from the street. Similarly, Commissioner Aradhana Jajodia stated that the fence calls attention to itself and takes away the otherwise open feeling. Commissioner Tom Ramsey worried about the precedent this situation would set in allowing people to set up six foot tall fences when desired. Thus, the Planning Commission came to the conclusion that the fence would be approved only if it followed the four foot maximum outlined in the Design Guidelines.

I personally believe that the four foot maximum fence height is a valid code, as the City of Piedmont should be a relatively open space that makes neighbors feel welcome. A tall fence would definitely separate the house from the otherwise community feel, and make surrounding residents less comfortable when walking alongside it.

Next, the Planning Commission discussed the application for a new house and fence design submitted by Paul Simonetti wanted to install a gate and fence along his property.  Simonetti stated his concern about recent break-ins. He was also looking to plant a new maple tree. Commissioner Behrens was  concerned with the sight-lines when exiting the driveway, to which Simonetti ensured that the fence would slowly decrease in height when backing out of the driveway, allowing for an unobstructed view of the street and potential cars.

Commissioner Ramsey brought up the code involving a foot-wide section between the fence and the sidewalk, which the Commission and Simonetti agreed could be used for landscaping plants. Lastly, while Commissioner Levine agreed that the arbor would distinguish the house entrance, it needed to be a more modest size. Therefore, the project was approved under the conditions that the tree would not be planted and that a foot wide landscaped section would be installed between the sidewalk and fence.

The residents of 361 Moraga Avenue, sought approval for the construction of additional office space in order to increase living space for their family of four. After having two storage rooms built, the owners stopped the project in December in order to ensure the project was up to code. The owners gathered signatures from neighbors approving the variance and now only needed permission from the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Levine addressed his concern that the office space could be transformed into a bedroom when sold in the future and advertised as a five-bedroom house with two bedrooms sharing one bathroom. This would go against the Small House Policy, as the property only holds one parking spot currently. When Levine asked the residents about the possibility of increasing the garage size, an owner stated that the garage was surrounded by concrete and any modifications would thus be infeasible.

On the other hand, Commissioner Behrens assured that access to the bathroom was not direct and thus the house could not be advertised as five-bedroom. Additionally, Commissioner Aradhana Jajodia stated that if someone truly wanted to do illegal construction with the intent of increasing the bedroom count in a house, they would not have come to the Planning Commission to seek approval in the first place. The application consideration concluded with the Planning Commission approving the plan with the condition that the framing of the door be removed, confirming that the space is purely office space, not a bedroom.

 Amy Shen, attended the Planning Commission meeting seeking approval for a home remodel as well as a variance on her lot size. Because the City of Piedmont only allows residents to have structures on 40% of one’s lot, plans to exceed this limit require the approval of a variance by the Planning Commission. When asked what she learned through the process of these meetings, she responded that she “learned that design is subjective and that because of the limitations of speaking time, you have to be direct in presenting what you want to say as well as in the documentation you present prior to the meeting.” Because the Planning Commission did not authorize the proposed remodel, she will now have to begin the process again with a new design, addressing the changes advised by the Planning Commission members.

The Planning Commission meets once per month on the second Monday of the month at 5:00 p.m., to discuss the alteration and construction plans of Piedmont homes.

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

May 1 2017

Grand Avenue Commercial Zone Activism Produces Changes to Proposed Regulations

Public participation on Piedmont’s Commercial/Mixed Use Zone D regulations on Grand Avenue has generated potential changes.  The Civic Center Commercial/Mixed Use Zone D will remain designated for increased development as previously approved by the City Council.

Approximately twenty participants attended the prior Grand Avenue Commercial/Mixed Use Zone D workshop (April 19, 2017).  The draft changed regulations will be discussed further on:

Wednesday, May 3rd – 6:00 p.m. at the Kehilla Community Synagogue, Fireside Room, 1300 Grand Avenue, Piedmont. Enter on Fairview Avenue through the gate.

The changes appear to be more restrictive for development and more compatible with existing residential neighborhoods.  Those interested in the final proposal will find the May 3rd meeting important. 

Civic Center Commercial/Mixed Use Zone –

Unlike the Grand Avenue Commercial Zone, the Civic Center Commercial/Mixed Use Zone at Highland and Vista Avenues, has already been approved for more development based on 2017 action by the City Council. The properties near or next to the schools (Havens, PHS, PMS, MHS) and residences in the center of Piedmont drew little participation regarding potential impacts including the Piedmont School District, the greater community, or neighboring residents.

A Potential Legal Issue Remains –

A potential legal issue continues based on the City Council changing all of Piedmont’s Commercial Zones to Commercial/Mixed Use without voter approval as noted in Piedmont’s > City Charter. (*See note below at end of this article.)

~~~~~~~

Following the first workshop on the Grand Avenue Commercial /Mixed Use Zone D, changes have been proposed by the Planning staff. Click below to view the proposed changes for Grand Avenue:

 >  Draft Amendments Grand Avenue Subarea 5-3-2017

Editors Note:  The date of the next workshop is noted incorrectly on the Planning Department draft changes documents.  The workshop is May 3 NOT May 1. 

~~~~~~~~~

Letter from Planning Director:

The City of Piedmont will hold the second of two community workshops to consider the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions to the regulations for the thirteen properties along Grand Avenue that are in the City’s commercial/mixed-use zone (Zone D). The regulations under consideration are those related to structure and landscape coverage, building height, setback requirements, and parking. In addition, city staff is recommending a revision to the density of multi-family dwelling units allowed in Zone D mixed-use developments: from the current 12 dwelling units per acre (1 unit per 3,630 SF of lot area) to a proposed 20 dwelling units per acre (1 unit per 2,178 SF of lot area), which would be in conformance with the > Piedmont General Plan. [See note at end of this article]*

Approximately 20 Piedmonters attended the first community workshop on April 19th and participated in a lively discussion. With the comments provided by the participants, City staff has drafted amendments to the Commission’s recommended revisions that address resident’s concerns. The second workshop will be a follow-up to the first workshop and will provide an opportunity for members of the public to review and discuss the proposed amendments. The schedule and location of the second community workshop is as follows:

Follow-Up Community Workshop

You can find more information on the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions to the regulations for the City’s commercial/mixed-use zone (Zone D) by visiting the City’s webpage on the topic.

You are encouraged to provide your comments by attending the workshop and/or by submitting written comments by noon, Wednesday May 3, 2017. You can submit your comments to me,kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or on paper to 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

Background

On March 20, 2017 the Piedmont City Council unanimously adopted a comprehensive update to land use regulations in the City Code. The revised Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use, will be in effect April 19, 2017. However, in taking action to adopt the comprehensive update, the City Council determined that more time was needed to consider the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions to regulations for the Grand Avenue subarea of Zone D, the commercial/mixed use zone. Thus, the regulations for the Grand Avenue Zone D subarea related to structure and landscape coverage, building height, setback requirements, and parking were not updated to allow for additional public engagement and consideration. In addition, city staff will introduce a recommended revision to the density of multi-family dwelling units allowed in Zone D. The two community workshops have been scheduled to provide public engagement and comment before Council takes up the matter again.

Relevant Documents

Please follow the link below to find the regulations in Chapter 17 effective April 19, 2017. Regulations related to structure and landscape coverage, building height, and setback requirements in zone D are found in code section 17.26.050 on pages 18-19. Zone D parking regulations are found in code section 17.30.030, pages 23-24.

>   Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use (Not Codified)

The revisions to Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use recommended by the Planning Commission and being introduced by city staff are shown in tracked changes format in the following document.

>   Recommend Revisions to Divisions 17.26 and 17.30 of Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use

Public Participation

Members of the public are encouraged to participate throughout this process by submitting comments and attending the meetings. Written comments may be submitted to Kevin Jackson, Director of Planning, kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611. All meetings have been publicly noticed. In addition, staff maintains a list of community members who wish to receive notices and copies of reports directly via email. Anybody who wishes to be added to the list related to revisions to City Code Chapter 17 may contact Planning Director Kevin Jackson at kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or (510) 420-3039.

*Piedmont’s General Plan was approved by the City Council.  Piedmonters did not vote on the General Plan.   Where inconsistencies between the General Plan and the > City Charter present, the City Charter controls. 

< For more PCA coverage on zoning issues, use the PCA search engine on the left side of this page and insert the word  “zoning.”

Apr 17 2017

Community Workshops for Grand Avenue Commercial/Mixed Use Zone

Information in a declaration was provided by former Piedmont Mayor Alice Creason stating a (change of use) reclassification, such as for the Commercial Zone, without voter approval does not adhere to Piedmont’s City Charter. The declaration was sent to the City Council, Planning Commission, Planning Director, City Administrator, and City Attorney.  Creason noted she was on the City Council when the Charter was drafted and approved by Piedmont voters.  She states the intent and wording of the Charter require Piedmont voter approval prior to changing the use/reclassification of any Piedmont zone. 

~~~~~~~~

Zoning rules – setbacks, building heights, parking, apartment units, etc. –  for the Commercial Zone on Grand Avenue are in the development stage and two meetings are being held for public involvement.   The zoning rules for Piedmont’s Civic Center Commercial Zone have already been approved by the City Council.  

No recordings or broadcasts of the workshops are scheduled, however participants may make their own recordings of the proceedings. 

Read the prior PCA article on zoning changes  >here. 

The City’s recommended revised changes to the Commercial Zone on Grand Avenue can be read here.

~~~~~~~

The Piedmont Planning Department notice is below.

The City of Piedmont will hold two community workshops to consider the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions to the regulations for the thirteen properties along Grand Avenue that are in the City’s commercial/mixed-use zone (Zone D). The regulations under consideration are those related to structure and landscape coverage, building height, setback requirements, and parking. In addition, city staff will introduce a recommended revision to the density of multi-family dwelling units allowed in Zone D.  The second workshop will be a follow-up to the first workshop. The schedule and location for the two community workshops are as follows:

First Community Workshop

Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 6:00 p.m.

Kehilla Community Synagogue, Fireside Room

1300 Grand Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94610

Follow-Up Community Workshop

Wednesday, May 3, 2017, 6:00 p.m.

Kehilla Community Synagogue, Fireside Room

1300 Grand Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94610

One can find more information on the recommended revisions to the regulations for the City’s commercial/mixed-use zone (Zone D) by visiting the City’s webpage on the topic.

You are encouraged to provide your comments by attending the workshop and/or by submitting written comments by Monday, April 17, 2017. You can submit your comments to: kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or on paper to 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

Kevin Jackson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

Tel: (510) 420-3039     Fax: (510) 658-3167

Read the full PCA article on zoning changes and declaration  >here.

~~~~~~~~~

Editors Note:  A quorum of the Planning Commission is not expected at either workshop, as the workshops are not Planning Commission meetings. Planning staff members will be present at both workshops.

For other PCA reader’s information, comments may be submitted below.

Apr 9 2017

Community Input Decreased and Bureaucratic Power Increased by State Code

Changes impact Second Units that are now called Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Governor Jerry Brown signed into law changes to Government Code Section 65852.2 (see below) in September 2016 materially limiting parking requirements for the development of Second Units and further enhancing ministerial approval of building permits, bypassing the community and its elected representatives. Piedmont’s ADU code has grown awkwardly with additions in 2003 and 2016 piled on top of the 1983 original language, resulting in numerous contradictions and conflicts.

When Piedmont’s Chapter 17 was recently (March 2017) approved by the City Council and Planning Commission, there was no indication in the volume of documents informing either the Council or Commission that the action they were taking would be impacted by the already in effect (January 2017) State law Government Code Section 65852.2. 

The new staff proposal is to revise the revised April 2017 Chapter 17 zoning laws which relaxed building requirements such as setbacks, lot size, parking requirements facilitating additional housing within existing houses and structures. 

Residents vary in their opinions regarding housing expansion in Piedmont through Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)/ Second Units.  Many like the changes as a way to stay in their homes as they age or add income through rentals plus allowing Piedmont to meet regional housing needs.  Others question the unassessed and unevaluated impact on public services, neighborhood quality, density, parking needs, community support, and traffic impacts. 

65852.2 includes permission for cities:

… a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.

Piedmont’s proposed code states:

Parking. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, any required replacement parking spaces may be located in any configuration on the lot. (Gov’t. Code §65852.2 (a)(1)(D)(xi).)

[No setback is required for an existing garage.]

b. Setbacks. No setback is required for an existing garage that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit. If an accessory dwelling unit is constructed above an existing garage, the minimum setback is five feet from the side and rear lot line. (Gov’t. Code §65852.2 (a)(1)(D)

(7).)3. Owner occupancy. Except for an exempt accessory dwelling unit, the owner of an accessory dwelling unit must occupy either the primary unit or the accessory dwelling unit, if both units are used for habitation. The owner must record with the County Recorder a declaration of restrictions, in a form provided by the city.

 Staff is given authority by state law to make decisions on projects without public input or notification.

QUESTIONS:

  • Will the City have to add more staffing to oversee affordable unit compliance?
  • Some City’s require affordable units to remain affordable for 20 years rather than Piedmont’s term of 10 years. Why did Piedmont pick a 10 year term for affordability?.
  • Once a unit no longer falls into the affordable category will the forgiven parking requirement continue to be forgiven or will existing units have to return for a new permit level?
  • Does the City have adequate public services for increased demands – street widths, parking needs, public safety, and city staffing?
  • Will Piedmont taxpayers be required to pay more for the increase in public services or will the new units be taxed to cover expenses?
  • How many ADU units are projected in Piedmont?
  • How will the units be taxed ?
  • Why wasn’t the Council and public informed  of the upcoming changes based on State Law 65852.2 before approval of the redoing of Chapter 17  by the Council and Planning Commission that lessened parking requirements for existing properties, such as parking sizes, covered parking requirements, allowing tandem parking, etc.. ?
  • If a garage is removed, must the existing house meet their parking requirements?
  • Can an accessory structure be built on the property line and then converted to an ADU?
  • What measures will the City use to identify traffic or safety when applications are presented?
  • If there is no notice procedure, how is a neighbor to know if an application has been filed or how to appeal a decision?
  • How will the City know when a neighborhood is overly impacted with additional traffic issues from ADUs?
  • What will the application and permit fees be for an ADU?
  • What has happened to Piedmont’s covered parking requirements?
  • Will ADUs be reappraised for County property tax purposes?
  • Since the School District only taxes parcels, does this mean ADUs will not be taxed for School Bond measures and voter approved extra property taxes?
  • Did the City Council take a position on State Law 65852.2 when it was being considered by the legislators and governor?

_______________________________________________

City Planning Department announcement:

Planning Commission to Discuss Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE REGULATIONS FORACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN CITY CODE CHAPTER 17

The Commission will hold a hearing to consider an ordinance to revise City Code Chapter 17 regarding the regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The proposed revisions are in response to the changes to Government Code Section 65852.2 resulting from the enactment of Assembly Bill 2299 and Senate Bill 1069. These changes limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as Second Units. The provisions affected by the changes to State law include, but are not limited to, off-street parking requirements, unit size limitations, and application approval timelines. The State laws permit cities to adopt ADU ordinances as long as the ordinance is consistent with the State laws and imposes certain local standards. The Commission may take action to make a recommendation of adoption to the City Council. The proposed amendments do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA, and therefore are exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regulations section 15378.

Mon., Apr. 10th – 5:00PM

[ADU’s will be considered at the beginning of the meeting]  held in the
City Council Chambers – City Hall

The meeting will be broadcast on Cable Channel 27 and from the City website under videos.

In September 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law changes to Government Code Section 65852.2 resulting from the enactment of Assembly Bill 2299 and Senate Bill 1069. These changes limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as Second Units. The provisions affected by the changes to state law include, but are not limited to, off-street parking requirements, unit size limitations, and application approval timelines. The State laws permit cities to adopt ADU ordinances as long as the ordinance is consistent with the State laws and imposes certain local standards. Click to Government Code Section 65852.2.

City staff has prepared draft proposed revisions to the regulations in the City Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units. The revisions are included and outlined in a report to the Planning Commission that the Commission will consider during their regular meeting on April 10, 2017. The Planning Commission’s responsibility is to make a recommendation that will be considered by the City Council, which is the decision-making body. As required by the City Code, public notification will be provided for all Planning Commission and City Council meetings during which the code revisions are to be considered. Click to read the staff report on this topic.

Residents are invited to engage in this process. Interested members of the public are encouraged to read the staff report and attend the Planning Commission’s meeting scheduled for 5 p.m. on April 10, 2017 in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue. Written comments and requests to receive email notification of activities related to revisions of City Code provisions related to Accessory Dwelling Units should be sent to Planning Director Kevin Jackson at kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us. Comments on paper can also be submitted by hand or by mail to the Piedmont Planning Commission,120 Vista Avenue,Piedmont,CA 94611. 

Interested individuals may also send comments to > editors@piedmontcivic.org  allowing others to read comments on this site also see comment section below. The comments sent to PCA are not forwarded to the City for consideration. 

Read the full staff report, which includes the proposed ordinance at the end.  Click > here.

_________________________________________

The January 2017 State law controlling second units/ ADUs is below:

65852.2.   (a) (1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance shall do all of the following:

(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.

(B) (i) Impose standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places.

(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction.

(C) Provide that accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot.

(D) Require the accessory dwelling units to comply with all of the following:

(i) The unit is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence and may be rented.

(ii) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use and contains an existing, single-family dwelling.

(iii) The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to the existing dwelling or located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling.

(iv) The increased floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing living area, with a maximum increase in floor area of 1,200 square feet.

(v) The total area of floorspace for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.

(vi) No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.

(vii) No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to a accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage.

(viii) Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate.

(ix) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required.

(x) (I) Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on an existing driveway.

(II) Off­street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction.

(III) This clause shall not apply to a unit that is described in subdivision (d).

(xi) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, and the local agency requires that those off­street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts. This clause shall not apply to a unit that is described in subdivision (d).

(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

(3) When a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits, within 120 days after receiving the application. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it incurs as a result of amendments to this paragraph enacted during the 2001–02 Regular Session of the Legislature, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.

(4) An existing ordinance governing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by a local agency or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency subsequent to the effective date of the act adding this paragraph shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. In the event that a local agency has an existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void upon the effective date of the act adding this paragraph and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of accessory dwelling units, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.

(5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision.

(6) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for residential use that contains an existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.

(7) A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an accessory dwelling unit if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision.

(8) An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

(b) When a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a) receives its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to subdivision (a) within 120 days after receiving the application.

(c) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached accessory dwelling units. No minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.

(d) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a), shall not impose parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances:

(1) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of public transit.

(2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.

(3) The accessory dwelling unit is part of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure.

(4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.

(5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.

(e) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create within a single-family residential zone one accessory dwelling unit per single-family lot if the unit is contained within the existing space of a single-family residence or accessory structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.

(f) (1) Fees charged for the construction of accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012).

(2) Accessory dwelling units shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of calculating local agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service.

(A) For an accessory dwelling unit described in subdivision (e), a local agency shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge.

(B) For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subdivision (e), a local agency may require a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its size or the number of its plumbing fixtures, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.

(g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.

(h) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption.

(i) As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.

(2) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered.

(3) For purposes of this section, “neighborhood” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 65589.5.

(4) “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:

(A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code.

(B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.

(5) “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit.

(j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.

(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 735, Sec. 1.5. Effective January 1, 2017.)

Mar 22 2017

Dog Signage in Dracena Park

At their March meeting, the Park Commission discussed the approval of new post mounted signs and path medallion designs for on and off leash areas for dogs at Dracena Park. These new signage designs include post mounted signs which would be aluminum panel signs with a map which identifies the areas where dogs can be on and off leash. While the path medallions would be placed on the pavement or path intersections to indicate areas where dogs are off leash.

The agenda began with background information which was provided by Parks and Project Manager, Nancy Kent, which was then followed by discussion by the Park Commissioners and Piedmont Police Department.

The Commission brought up their opinions on the new signage and medallions being added to Dracena Park in which they are concerned about the scale of the post signage and their impact on the community friendly ambience of the park. It was highly recommended by the Commissioners to try a mock-up to visualize where the signs can be placed to be aesthetically pleasing as well as have an explicit message for park visitors. The Commission unanimously agreed on the addition of the signs but still needed to deliberate on the design, location, size, and material of the signage and medallions.

Afterwards, the Piedmont Police Chief addressed increased presence of animal control in the park and a recent case of a sign being stolen. The Piedmont Police Department has investigated the case and are therefore wary of vandalism and signs being stolen. They are hopeful with the addition of the new signage that more park visitors will be aware of the designated dog leash areas.

In my opinion the addition of new signage to Dracena Park is advantageous in properly and clearly indicating the areas of where dogs can be on and off leash. In developing new signage ideas, it will further enforce Park regulations which could be incremented in other parks.

I interviewed a member of the commission, Patty Siskind, who closely worked at the college and career center at Piedmont High School, and has a business in landscape design. She stated that she came to the meeting as a part of a designated subcommittee for the new signage proposal. Her concerns were pertaining to the overall atmosphere and scale of new signage in Dracena Park. Siskind stated that the signs were too tall and therefore has an impact on the outlook of the park. She plans on addressing her concerns by further engagement with the Park Commission in addition to working with City Council and staffs who are designing the new signage.

The Park Commission meets once a month to discuss updates on the various parks in Piedmont.

by Nicole Jiang, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Jan 8 2017

View and Privacy Appeal Denied by City Council Based on Ordinance Limiting Review

Do residents have an appropriate opportunity to be heard during Planning Commission and City Council hearings?

For weeks Piedmonters have noticed the story poles that seem to double the height of a house on Moraga opposite the Mountain View Cemetery.  This proposed enlargement has struck some as controversial.  However, it was approved by Piedmont’s Planning Commission and the neighbors’ appeal was denied by the City Council. Council found no procedural error and denied the appeal of neighbors objecting to building an additional story on top of a house.  The construction will more than double the size of the house.  The Planning Commission action was upheld on the basis that no error had occurred in the process when considering the house extension application.

The objecting neighbors thought their view was supposed to be protected but were told that Piedmont only protects views which are “panoramic”, not the ridgeline view from the Ronada house.  Most Piedmonters do not have “panoramic” views, but value their views of hills, parks, or the Olmsted landscape of the cemetery, etc. Since few Piedmont homes have “panoramic” views, this limited view protection  is a benefit for only a minority of Piedmont property owners. Chapter 17 requires consideration of any proposed constructions effect on “… neighboring properties’ existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect light …” but does not  limit consideration to “panoramic” views.

17.2.79: View. “View” means an existing significant view involving more than the immediately surrounding properties, including, but not limited to, any of the following: city skylines, bridges, distant cities, geologic features, hillside terrains and wooded canyons or ridges. (Ord. 656 N.S. 8/05)

Piedmont has a narrow appeal process that eliminates an evaluation by the City Council of the full merits of an application.  The appeal ordinance has been publicly challenged for an inability of the Council to fully consider various aspects of the Planning Commission actions. If there was an error during the consideration process by the Planning Commission or the City Planners, the responsibility of identifying any such errors falls on an objecting appellant who is required to pay approximately $700 to seek justice and right the error.

Reimbursement by the City to appellants for their expenses including the City fee or their legal costs because of an error or omission by the Planning Commission is unknown and has not been announced.

Appellants face a difficult task when presenting their case to the City Council. The judgement of the Planning Commission in applying Piedmont laws and the actual judgement of the decision cannot be considered.  Time limits imposed, although not found in Piedmont law, further restrict the public or opposing party, typically neighbors, to present their concerns.

At the December 19 appeal, Planning Commission Chair Eric Behrens and Planning Director Kevin Jackson explained to the Council that the applicant had made some adjustments in their plans, but the applicant indicated they could not lower the second story by 4 feet. The vote by the Planning Commission was unanimous as was the City Council’s vote.

To read the full staff report on the appeal click below:

12/19/16 – PUBLIC HEARING Regarding an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve with Conditions an Application for Variance & Design Review at 108 Moraga Avenue

Given the significant responsibility and credibility bestowed upon the Planning Commission by the City Council, every detail, fact, and public point becomes vital to any decision.

The City is currently looking at changes to the ordinance known as Chapter 17 governing construction in Piedmont.  Some proposed changes are controversial, but the major complaint heard in the City revolves around no knowledge and no timely engaging community meetings to discuss changes or gain adequate input from the residents.

Under proposed changes governing construction in Piedmont, a greater number of applications will fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning staff rather than the Planning Commission further removing the public from open hearing processes.

« Previous Page | Next Page »