Language, impact, government involvement and principle –

For over an hour and a half on June 18, the City Council considered a controversial landscape ordinance proposed for Piedmont.  A number of residents spoke in favor of the principle of adopting new rules aimed at improving the environment by curtailing water use and transporting less green waste, while other residents found the ordinance unnecessary, inconsistent with existing Piedmont Municipal Code language, and intrusive on private property rights.

Katy Foulkes, former Piedmont mayor and council member, currently Piedmont’s elected  representative to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Board, asked the Council to adopt the ordinance to reduce the amount of water used in gardens.   She acknowledged that she had not read the ordinance and could not comment on the language.  She stated, “It is going to impact so few people; it is important to approve it.”

Others urged approval on environmental principles and implementation of the previously approved Piedmont Climate Action Plan (CAP), although the CAP emphasizes education and incentives, rather than mandates (except in a few limited circumstances related to new construction).  Anne Weinberger, a landscaper, and Margaret Ovenden, a member of Piedmont CONNECT, recognized that the ordinance would apply to a very small percentage of Piedmonters, but contended it was an important ordinance as a matter of principle.

Speaking against the ordinance was Valerie Matzger, former mayor and council member, current President of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation, and a 20-year local landscape designer.  Matzger noted her longtime commitment to the environment and recommended the use of organic pesticides and fertilizers as one way to protect the environment.  She noted the ordinance was inappropriate, overly bureaucratic, and unnecessary for Piedmont, stating the Council should “Nip this in the bud.”

Piedmont resident Joseph Gold was also strongly opposed to the ordinance based on adding another level of bureaucracy and preferred the Council focus on priorities – police, fire, schools, etc.  He stated, “Keep government out of our gardens.”

The Planning staff composed of Kate Black, Kevin Jackson and Jennifer Feeley had revised the proposal to accommodate issues previously identified by the public and Council.  However, questions and concerns persisted.

Council Member Garrett Keating, Piedmont’s Council representative on the StopWaste JPA, was firmly in favor of approving the ordinance and, to reach consensus, was willing to change or remove language in the ordinance that Council members found unacceptable.  Mayor John Chiang worked to seek a solution to newly presented issues at the meeting.

Council Member Jeff Wieler was the most outspoken critic of the ordinance, finding it so poorly written he was embarrassed for government.  He found fault with the ordinance’s lack of clarity as to rebuilding a home and various wording, as well as the required Checklist.  He questioned the origination of the $22,000 grant funding, which Keating clarified came from the San Francisco. This led Wieler to question why it was not coming directly to Piedmont as our money. Considering the projected few properties impacted by the ordinance, Wieler felt the ordinance was a waste of time.

Council Member Bob McBain stated since it applies to so few, the ordinance has no validity.  He said he had received phone calls and emails from many, many people who were opposed to the ordinance.  McBain felt landscaping education and information was preferable for Piedmont’s good, intelligent citizens who can make decisions on what makes sense to them.  He preferred cooperative efforts, rather than legislating another mandate, and noted that Piedmont does not have the resources for enforcement.

Vice Mayor Margaret Fujioka raised additional concerns regarding poorly drafted language.  She was particularly concerned about overly broad discretion by the Council and lack of specifics upon which the Council could grant a waiver to the ordinance. She advocated education over legislation.

Mayor John Chiang came off “of the fence” after hearing the other members of the Council and City Administrator Geoff Grote  who acknowledged that the majority of the Council was not comfortable with the ordinance as the appropriate approach for the City.  Using a “carrot rather than a stick” could be more effective and avoid many of the regulatory concerns.

After discussion, Council Member Keating’s motion to approve the ordinance died for a lack of a second.

“Landscaping must conform to guidelines …..”

Revisions to a proposed Piedmont landscaping ordinance drafted by StopWaste.org will be considered by the City Council at its June 18 meeting. Slight revisions to Section 17.18 have been proposed by the City planning staff in an effort to address some of the private property concerns raised by the public and Council Members at a June 4 Council meeting regarding hedges, lawns, plant specifications, local control, and cost.  Perhaps in error, Chapter 17.18.3. (a.ii) still defines all use of the term, “Bay-Friendly Landscaping Guidelines means the most recent version of guidelines developed by Stopwaste.org”

Chapter 17.11 has not been revised and still refers to the “most recent version” of Stopwaste.org rules.  Chapter 17.11 covers “City owned and/or operated” properties, which include the Art Center, Central Park, Moraga Canyon/Blair Park, etc.

The proposed ordinance will require a landscape plan to obtain a permit for any type of new building in Piedmont.  At the discretion of the Public Works Director or Planning Commission, a landscape plan may also be required for other types of permits and variances affecting existing landscaping.

“Automatic” Future Restrictions by StopWaste

Residents expressed concerns about future StopWaste restrictions automatically becoming Piedmont law without hearings within the Piedmont community. The Council directed a revision of this language. The Staff Report notes revisions have removed this language for residential and commercial properties, but not City property:

“If Stopwaste.org makes changes to the criteria under the Scorecard, it would not affect any residential or commercial properties in Piedmont, but would affect very large public projects on public land under the existing Civic Bay-Friendly Landscape Ordinance that affects public properties in Zone B.” (At p. 26.)

The Checklist continues to refer to obsolete language in the original model ordinance.   The ordinance also continues to use terms not entirely consistent with terms used in other parts of the Piedmont Municipal Code.  

Hedge and Lawn Restrictions

Hedge and lawn restrictions were raised as a concern by residents.  (See comments.)  All restrictions on hedges and lawns remain in the ordinance.  Specific plant selections must adhere to the guidelines.  However, the type of projects which must comply with the restrictions on hedges and lawns has been limited.  Revisions limit compliance with the StopWaste Checklist (version 2.1 dated December 2011) to:

(1) Rehabilitated Landscapes and new construction associated with Rehabilitated Landscapes for public agency projects and private commercial developments that require design review and/or a building permit;

(2) Rehabilitated Landscapes and new construction associated with Rehabilitated Landscapes which are developer-installed in multifamily developments that require design review and/or a building permit; and

(3) Construction of a new single-family residence on a vacant property which is homeowner-provided and/or homeowner-hired that includes a total project Landscape Area equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet, and that requires design review and/or a building permit.

“Multi-family” will include private homes with legal second units, and also homes with illegal and unintended second units if conversion to a legal unit during the process of obtaining a permit is proactively undertaken by the homeowner or staff pursuant to newly adopted 2011 Housing Element provisions.

Residents are required to obtain a building permit when landscaping plans include installation of a 30 inch retaining wall, demolition of an existing potting shed, erecting fences or trellises, installing lighting, and features common in landscaping.  (See detailed list below.)

In general, ordinance would not apply to existing private homes without second units.

If passed, the law would apply to new single-family residential projects on vacant lots that plan to install 5,000 square feet or more of irrigated plant areas. However, the ordinance would apply to re-landscaping for existing multi-family residential buildings, if the project requires design review or a building permit and if the re-landscaped area is at least 2,500 square feet or more of a 5,000 square foot irrigated planted area. The same requirements would apply to re-landscaping a City-owned area in a park or next to a City facility. 

The Fiscal Impact – Compliance Costs and $22,000 Grant

A “Bay Friendly Landscaping Compliance Officer” must certify compliance. This position is currently defined as the Public Works Director or his designee, but a certification system by independent professionals is envisioned by StopWaste in the future.  StopWaste.org estimates the total added cost of compliance with an independent professional will be $2,500 to $4,000 per project.  Staff costs associated with certification have not been estimated by StopWaste or Piedmont staff.

Piedmont City staff indicates StopWaste.org has reviewed the revisions and assured Piedmont it will receive a $22,000 grant from StopWaste if the ordinance is passed as revised.   Staff noted, “While it is typically not possible to make changes to model ordinances, StopWaste.org agreed to allow Piedmont to make changes to address the unclear language.”

How many private residents are currently affected?

At the last hearing, the Council asked staff to determine how many private properties the proposed ordinance might impact. Staff determined there are 57 privately owned vacant lots subject to the ordinance. Staff believed 34 of these lots would be unlikely to install 2500 square feet of landscaping due to their size. The other 23 lots are larger and would be subject to the ordinance if a single family residence were built on them. Staff noted 6 are landlocked, many are steep and difficult to develop, and others are currently used as pools or garages for an adjacent lot.

According to staff, there are an estimated 117 homes with “unintended” second units and an unspecified number of homes with suspected illegal second units.  If “proactively required” to convert to legal units due to recent 2011  requirements added to the 2011 Housing Element, these private homes would come under the “multi-family” provisions of the Bay Friendly proposed ordinance (in addition to homes with legal units).

Other cities and other regulations

Staff no longer recommends approval of the ordinance, but instead presents the ordinance for the Council’s consideration.

Staff currently maintains and distributes StopWaste.org Bay Friendly Landscape information including Guidelines, a Checklist and a list of Bay Friendly plant materials to all members of the public. Staff indicates they can continue to do so whether or not the ordinance is approved.

The Bay Friendly restrictions are in addition to existing regional and state restrictions on landscaping.  At least four other agencies currently regulate landscaping:  CA-WELO, the Cal Green, the C&D Ordnance, and East Bay Municipal Utility District Requirements for New Water Service. Staff has prepared a spreadsheet comparing the proposed requirements (Exhibit G) of Stopwaste.org Bay Friendly Basics with the existing sets of regulations imposed by four other agencies.  (See below.)

When a Building Permit May be Required

The following types of landscape-related work will generally require permits, though Design Review is often not necessary.  Check the codes listed.

The following commentary was published by The Piedmonter and submitted to the Piedmont Civic Association:

The bad process that led to the Undergrounding debacle was made worse by the sham City “Audit” which included two members of the City Council who voted for the giveaway, then investigated themselves and accepted their own report.  The staff liaison was the City Administrator who bears the ultimate responsibility for the taxpayer loss.

City Hall had little desire for taxpayers to know why two million dollars were used for private benefit. During the Undergrounding an additional $275,000 of taxpayer money was taken for “storm drains” on Crest Road, drains that were never intended to be installed.  Rather than reclaim taxpayer funds or investigate, the City’s solution was to reclassify the theft as “street repaving.”  The City’s response to the Kurtin’s Undergrounding lawsuit was a frivolous defense that ate another $550,000.

The Undergrounding Debacle led both the LWV Task Force and 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee  to recommend standard practices for any major project in town, including monetary risk assessment, independent construction management and contingency fees.  None of these recommendations were present Dec. 5, 2011 when four Council members voted approval of the Blair Park Project.  What was present was (1) the City Engineer’s report which found the PRFO supplied numbers lacking sufficient detail for a meaningful examination (2) a proponent project manager (3) no recommendation for contingency fees (4) Planning Commission findings that the project was ugly and deficient in all respects, and (5) an unanalyzed traffic plan that included an experimental roundabout.  This was a flawed and biased process.  Apparently as a tactical maneuver, Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization (PRFO) has withdrawn the project because of the expected success of the Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC ) and pending Oakland litigation.  Residents asked that Council rescind the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in hopes of bringing our community back together.  Instead, the Council chose to honor the PRFO intent: “The EIR may be useful if there is any future project developed at Blair Park. ” (blairpark.org)

”The PRFO “Gift” just keeps on giving as taxpayer cost approaches $470,000.   The Feb. 7 dramatic defeat of Measure A should have been a wake-up call to City Hall that the electorate was disgusted by biased City processes and an unneeded tax measure.  But on May 7 the Council had only high praise for PRFO, further deepening the community divide.  The bad process is not a result of ignorance, our populace is too bright.  Piedmont government is by some for themselves and calculated deception is the result.  I am not a recipient of this generosity, yet I pay the same high parcel taxes.  Until we have real community discussion and input, and a City Administrator who serves all residents equally, my only recourse is to vote down City parcel taxes.  I will not waste my money and feed elite special interests.

Rick Schiller, Piedmont resident

Editors Note:  All opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Lawsuit Discussions Continued to May 18 –

An agreement has been reached between Piedmont and the city of Oakland to extend the deadline  for Oakland’s legal action against Piedmont until May 18, regarding construction of a sports complex in Blair Park.  > Click to read more…

A Resident Explains Benefits of Local Field

It is sad and disappointing to see Friends Of Moraga Canyon sue the City of Piedmont about Blair Park.  Let me explain some of the benefits and reasons to Piedmont and Oakland residents why they should not sue, and why so many in both cities are in support of building Blair Park:

• If FOMC successfully sues to stop Blair Park, it will deny both Piedmont and Oakland kids the ability to play soccer and other sports as there are no other local fields available.

• There are more than 200 Oakland kids playing on Piedmont Youth Soccer Club teams, in addition to Oakland kids who play on other Piedmont sports teams, such as baseball/softball and lacrosse.

• 300 players a week can practice soccer at Blair Park instead of in Alameda, including kids from Oakland.

• Since the fields in Alameda will NOT be available to PSC after 2012, having Blair Park field will fill that void.  Without Blair Park, Piedmont sports clubs will have to turn players away,

• Many Montclair, Rockridge and Oakland soccer teams will benefit from playing games locally at Blair Park, instead of having to drive to Alameda to do so.

• No other city will provide Piedmont youth sports clubs with field space as their own clubs are in dire need as well.

• Studies show that there will be a 1-2% increase in traffic on Moraga Avenue during the hours that sports groups use Blair Park; not enough to impact traffic, and an even smaller fraction of the time on an annual basis.  Of the traffic going to Blair Park, the vast majority will remain in Piedmont, not impacting traffic at the Harbord/Moraga intersection in Oakland or elsewhere.

• The benefits to our environment and sports families of building Blair Park are huge.  No longer needing to travel to Alameda will mean, on an annual basis for soccer alone, more than 100,000 miles NOT driven and more than 100,000 lbs of carbon NOT emitted into our community.  In addition, hundreds of hours of driving time will NOT be spent by players and their families during rush hour traffic, greatly reduced the risk of being involved in car accidents, as well as the considerable monetary savings to our Piedmont and Oakland families.

• There will be a net increase of 39 trees at Blair Park, with 74 existing oak trees remaining while removing many beetle-infested trees (at no cost to the City).  The new trees will actually reduce CO2 emissions, while the existing trees do not as they are fully grown.  There will also be a dog park, a grassy glade area to play and many other nice amenities for the entire community to enjoy throughout the entire year.

• Building Blair Park is privately funded and the maintenance will be paid for by the user groups.

• The traffic mitigating measures in the Blair Park plan will make travelling on Moraga road much safer and not cost the City anything, another win-win.

I hope FOMC would see the greater good of accepting the City Council’s decision.  Furthermore, the majority of letters and speakers to the council about Blair Park were in favor, the environmental and community benefits of building Blair Park are much greater than keeping it unused and inaccessible as it is today.  Most of the recent changes, such as a roundabout, moving the entrances to the park and lowering the retaining wall were due to feedback from FOMC.  After 5 years of review and analysis, it was time for the city to decide to move forward with this project.  Just because one may not like the outcome of a city’s decision, should not mean that one must sue.

Mark Landheer
President, Piedmont Youth Soccer Club

Editors Note:  The opinion expressed is that of the author and does not necessarily represent the opinion of PCA.

Oakland Agency Criticizes Piedmont’s Environmental Report –

The Oakland City Council has previously considered potential litigation against Piedmont over Blair Park actions, and will do so again on December 20.

> Click to read more…

A resident asks whether the berm wall along Moraga Avenue will be a landscaped slope or an eyesore –

Members of the City Council,

Attached you will find copies of the brochures of SIERRASCAPE WALLS and TENSAR Earth Technologies, Inc. detailing the system that is proposed by ELS, Architecture and Design in their Final Proposed Master Plan and Additional Detailed Information.

As you can see, unlike the architects renderings and photo shopped pictures depict, this is a system designed as a cheap reinforced soil solution for grade separation > Click to read more…

Urgent Public Safety Dispatch from the Police Department –

The City of Piedmont has just recorded its third robbery for this month [October].  This morning a victim talking on a cell phone was robbed of her purse at gunpoint.  The robbery took place on Oakland Avenue at Sunnyside Avenue, the same location where an earlier robbery took place, when that victim was asked for directions. > Click to read more…

On August 8, the Planning Commission devoted three hours to the hearing on the Linda Avenue townhouse project for the defunct PG&E substation site before voting to recommend that the City Council approve it and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  This was a milestone in a three year process that began with a March 28, 2008 application.  > Click to read more…