CIP Review Committee Seeks Resident Proposals

Survey deadline – End of February

Time to cast a vote on Piedmont parcel tax Measure T.

The Piedmont City Council has placed before Piedmont voters a parcel tax, Measure T, at the Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Presidential Primary Election to “essentially renew” Piedmont’s long standing parcel tax.  The current parcel tax expires June 30, 2021.

Approval of Measure T requires 2/3rds approval by those voting on the measure. Full text of Measure T proposed rates and ordinance are found at the end of each Alameda County Voter Information Guide.  Measure T is on the last page of ballots. 

The following determinations were made by the City Council:

• Tax will be for a limited 4 year term allowing voter check on spending. 
• Language remained the same as prior ballot measures to “Essentially keep the tax the same as current.”
• Only developed parcels are to be taxed.  Empty vacant lots are not taxed. Empty parcels adjoining developed parcels are not taxed.
• Tax to “single family” parcels is based on the square footage of the  parcels with larger parcels paying more.
• No additional tax is added when two or more residences occupy a “single family” zoned parcel. 
• Piedmont needs to pay for underfunded pension benefits and facility maintenance.
• Approximately 300 properties straddle the border of Oakland and Piedmont.  If the house is on both sides of the border, the owner pays both Oakland & Piedmont Municipal Services Tax. 

Measure T is a Municipal Services Special Tax and the ballot measure stipulates that funds shall be used for these services:

Editors Note:  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures.

Application Deadline: Wednesday, March 25, 2020

The City Council of Piedmont is looking for talented Piedmont volunteers for vacancies on Piedmont commissions, committees, and appointed positions.

Interested Piedmonters may view the positions and Description of Duties, download the Application for Appointive Vacancy, and/or apply online on the City’s web site at https://piedmont.ca.gov.

Links to information and forms are below:

Notice of Appointive Vacancies 2020

Commission Description of Duties 2020-02-14

Commission Application 2020 (Fillable)

2020-02-14 Volunteers for Commissions

Applications are due to City Hall on or before the deadline of Wednesday, March 25th.

Interviews with the City Council for the volunteer positions will be scheduled for the evening of Monday, March 30, 2020 (CANCELLED). No appointments will be made without a Council interview.

Piedmonters with questions are invited to contact the City Clerk’s office at (510) 420-3040.

The Capital Improvement Projects program will be considered by the CIP Committee.

CIP Review Committee Agenda, Tuesday, February 25, 2020, 7:00 p.m., City Hall Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA

The CIP Review meetings are never broadcast.

AGENDA

Public Forum This is an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda. The 10 minute period will be divided evenly between those wishing to address the Committee.

Regular Agenda
1. Introduction of Committee Members and Election of Chair
2. Review of Proposed Work Schedule for the CIP Review Committee for Fiscal Year 2020-2021
3. Presentation of City Facilities and Proposed Civic Projects by City Administrator Sara Lillevand and Director of Public Works Chester Nakahara

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the CIP Review Committee have not been made available for publication. 

Contact City Administrator Sara Lillevand at 510/420-3040 for additional information. 

Committee to consider ways to fund Piedmont facilities.

Extensive plans for the Piedmont Municipal Pool, Coaches Field, Linda Beach Park, and other facilities have been undertaken by the city. A method of funding the millions of dollars necessary to move the projects forward is under consideration at the:

Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee, Thursday, February 27, 2020, 7:00 p.m., Emergency Operations Center, 403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA

The meetings are never broadcast and minutes are not kept of the meetings.  Members of the Committee do not file conflict of interest statements.

AGENDA:

Public Forum This is an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda. The 10 minute period will be divided evenly between those wishing to address the Committee.

Regular Agenda
1. Review of FY 2019-20 Mid-Year Fiscal Report
2. Discussion of Potential Financing Options for Improvement of City Facilities
3. Consideration of Scheduling Future Meetings

As of this publication, no materials related to an item on the agenda of the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee meeting have been publicly made available. 

On Feb. 18, 2020 a three to one vote with Councilmember Jennifer Cavenaugh voting no, the new  (Accessory Dwelling Unit) ADU design rules were approved by the City Council. The Council discussion lacked clarity on many issues.  Landscaping in front of garage conversions, translucent windows, fencing, parking, and notice to neighbors were discussed.  Fire safety, driveway access for emergency vehicles, street impacts, enforcement of required landscaping, etc. were not discussed.

Knowledgeable Piedmonters repeatedly asked the Council to require ADU applicants to notify neighbors even with staff having sole authority to make the determination on approval or disapproval.  Required notice of an ADU applicant was rejected by City Attorney Michelle Kenyon as potentially troublesome and a questionable practice while she acknowledged State laws do not prohibit notice to neighbors by ADU applicants.

Some Piedmonters had desired notification to encourage cooperation between applicants and their neighbors, thus allowing opportunities to work out concerns.

The Council majority of McBain, Andersen, and Rood did not require notice.  Cavenaugh voted no.

Importance of adopting appropriate ordinances and requirements

State laws require applications to be acted upon by staff ministerially within 60 days from the date of a completed application.  Ministerially means there will be no public participation and only city staff can make the decision, which spotlights the need to have appropriate objective criteria for ADUs.

City Attorney Michelle Kenyon presented different information. 

Reversing the Planning Director’s no appeal admonition to the Planning Commission, Kenyon stated that although neighbors cannot appeal a Planning staff decisions,  the applicant could appeal a denied application to the City Council thereby opening up an entirely new avenue of consideration previously denied by the Planning Director.

There were numerous areas of  concern not reviewed.  The Council majority ultimately supported having the new ADU Design Guidelines approved rather than having none in place.  It is expected changes and additions will be made in the future. The issue of irreversible legal matters incurred from the time of new rule adoption and subsequent ADU approvals was not discussed.

According to Planning Director Kevin Jackson numerous ADU inquiries have been made since the beginning of the year.

Comments:

1. Garrett Keating

   My recommendation for story poles was somewhat facetious but given that the city won’t alert neighbors with a simple 3 x 5 postcard, what’s a neighborhood to do?

   This requirement to not notify neighbors of ADU applications comes from City Attorney Kenyon and not planning staff. Kenyon said there is no legal prohibition to notify neighbors but in her opinion it would be “Draconian” to do so. Instead she implied the community would be better served through direct neighbor to neighbor communication. That position is logically flawed – such dialogue is best established through notification and without that requirement many of these neighbor to neighbor exchanges won’t happen and if they do, it will be after the fact.

   More likely her position is self-serving – City Hall doesn’t want to take the phone calls from neighbors about these projects. Recall Maxwellton. No doubt it will be frustrating to have to deal with irate neighbors who aren’t aware of the ministerial ADU process, but that comes with the job. City Hall prides itself on customer service, but maybe it should think more about public service when it comes to ADUs.

   Thanks to Councilwoman Cavenaugh and Planning Commissioner Levine for pushing for public notice.

2. Rick Schiller

   A thanks to both Councilmember Jen Cavanaugh and Planning Commission Chair Jonathan Levine for their efforts to bring a wider community involvement to this important issue and resident notification.

   My takeaway is based on the comment by City Attorney Kenyon near the end of the ADU Council discussion last night when Jen’s request for minimal resident notification was shot down. City Attorney Kenyon replied that the City is now in compliance. Is Piedmont the last out of compliance City? Highly doubtful. The State ADU Housing Guidelines, assuming the recently passed series of ADU legislations, is only a month away. (City Planner Mike Henn presented this information to Council last night.) Being out of compliance might bring a State letter, but Piedmont is far away from being sued by the State and would have everything in place to immediately pass ordinances to be in compliance once the compliance criteria are known.

   I would like to have more resident notification and involvement with a Town Hall type meeting for the new ADU ordinances and guidelines. Council indicated they will treat the new Chapter 17 modifications and ADU Design Guidelines as living documents that can be amended as needed. Hopefully this will be done with the same swiftness as the very recent ADU implementations have been.

Former City Council Members and Planning Commissioners Attempted Changes to Proposed Design Guidelines for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – “Second Units.”

Few Piedmonters have been engaged in the proposed ADU rules despite the impact on all Piedmont properties.

The following are safety matters the Planning Commission and the City Council have not considered.

“The designation of areas may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.”  65852.2  (A) State law.

“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.”65852.2 (II) State law.

During the Piedmont school winter break, on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 7:30 pm in City Hall, the Piedmont City Council will consider approval, disapproval or changes to the Design Guidelines recommended for approval the prior week by a majority of the Piedmont Planning Commission with Chair Jonathan Levine voting no.  See link to the staff report at the end of this article. 

Thus Far No Checklist is Available to Clarify Process & Requirements

The Planning Department attempted to provide Design Guidelines to protect existing neighborhood standards and concern for adjoining properties. Consideration of applications for new ADUs is required to be “objective” without subjective opinions from staff or neighbors.  Although requested at the Planning Commission meeting, no checklist has been produced to let applicants and others view a complete list of what is required for approval. Processes were also not specifically provided.

Planning Commission Chair and former Piedmont City Council Member Jonathan Levine has repeatedly expressed concern for neighborhood impacts, notification, clear processes and guidelines reviewed prior to approval. 

Unappealable  Staff Decisions

Staff alone will make unappealable decisions on permitting ADUs.  Typography, street safety, parking issues, fire safety, emergency access, etc., are yet to be resolved. The Piedmont Fire Marshall is given the all important, yet “subjective” task of determining whether an  application for an ADU will be “safe.”  

Inoperable windows, parking, notice, story poles, fences, privacy, neighbors involvement, public notice, curb cuts, light and air were matters brought up at the Piedmont Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 10, 2020. 

During consideration of recommendations, some current Planning Commissioners displayed little knowledge of the new State laws and the difference between the previously approved ordinance and the Design Guidelines they were acting upon. The fact that ADU approval could not be discretionary, appealed, or subjective came as a surprise to some. 

Planning Director Kevin Jackson explained that there could be no notice to neighbors or appeal of the staff decisions.  He stated that the design issues such as required 6′ fences and non-operable translucent windows had been  recommended by staff to protect neighborly privacy in an objective manner. Both measures were changed by the Commission. Jackson argued for prompt adoption of the guidelines with future amendments as identified.

Comments & Suggestions by Former Officials

Former City Council member Garrett Keating suggested requiring story poles be installed prior to staff approval to allow the staff to definitively know where the ADU would be built. 

Former Planning Commissioner Melanie Robertson argued for a number of improvements, including allowing curb cuts to facilitate parking on site. 

Former Planning Commissioner and Planner Michael Henn presented a number of language conflicts within the guidelines. Henn wanted the Commission to wait until the California Department of Housing and Community Development booklet outlining compliance requirements had been provided.  Henn further advocated greater community engagement in determining the requirements to allow increased consideration by Piedmonters.

Piedmont City Council ADU Design Guidelines staff report for 2/18/2020 Council meeting:

https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16462354

********

Piedmont City Council ADU ordinance previously enacted :

https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16415861

Click to make comments to the City Council, > citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov

League of Women Voters of Piedmont Election Forum

Candidates for Alameda County Offices

Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 7:00 – 8:30 p.m.

Piedmont City Council Chamber Chambers – 120 Vista Ave. Piedmont, CA 94611

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont will host a Candidates Forum on February 11, 2020 in advance of the upcoming March 3 election. The event will be held in the Council Chambers at Piedmont City Hall and focus on candidates running for Alameda County Offices. This event is co-sponsored by the Bay Area, Oakland, Berkeley, Albany & Emeryville Leagues of Women Voters. The forum will include candidates for the following races:

 Alameda County Superior Court, Seat 2: Elena Condes, Mark Fickes, and Lilla Julia Szelenyi.

 15th Assembly District: Sarah Brink, Jeanne M. Solnorda, and Buffy Wicks. (Ms. Wicks is likely unable to attend; the League has invited her to submit a written statement.)

 Alameda County Supervisor, District 5: Keith Carson and Nick Pilch.

The community is cordially invited to attend this event.

The forum is designed to provide voters with an opportunity to hear from candidates and pose questions. The program will be simulcast on KCOM-TV, channel 27 and be made available for streaming. KCOM viewers are invited to submit questions during the forum by emailing lwvpiedmont@gmail.com. 

The League of Women Voters is a non-partisan organization whose mission is to promote active and informed democratic participation. Visit www.lwvpiedmont.org for more information.

Piedmont League of Women Voters