Frustrated neighbors of a property under development at 77 Wistaria Way told City Council members on Monday night that the city has abdicated oversight responsibility in allowing the project to move forward.
The city says its hands are tied under provisions of state law SB 9.
Property owners Geoffrey Gibson and Kira Mead submitted applications to build a single family home on the empty lot at 77 Wistaria Way twice in 2022 but were rejected both times after neighbors and the city objected to the project’s size and scale on the hillside location, according to Planning Commission documents from November 2022.
In December 2023, the city ministerially approved a new proposal from the property owners to split the existing vacant lot so that each parcel will feature a single-family residence, with one containing an accessory dwelling unit. The new addresses would be 67 Wistaria Way and 77 Wistaria Way. A building permit was issued in early July and construction was expected to start on July 16.
Residents who spoke during public comment say their appeals and requests for information have been met with silence or delays by the city. A meeting was held on July 5 between city staff and residents, several days after the building permit was issued. Neighbors say the lot, which is situated on a steep hillside on a narrow one-way street between Wildwood Gardens and Woodland Way, is part of a wetland ecosystem that should preclude development. (Wildwood Creek runs from Wildwood Gardens to Oakmont Avenue.) An attorney for the concerned residents on Monday night asked city staff to examine the project site to make sure that what is being constructed is what has been approved, to make sure the amount of permeable surface adheres to code, and to check the project’s retaining wall specifications.
“I’m concerned about the method [in which] the Wistaria project is being handled without public knowledge or input,” said David Ashton, who lives near the site. “Please temporarily halt construction until you have time to review.” Sixty-eight people have signed a petition calling for the city to suspend the building permits.
The city’s attorney told councilmembers that legally there is nothing that prevents the city from informing its residents that a project has been approved. In other jurisdictions approved planning applications are sometimes posted on the city website, she said.
SB 9 was signed into law in 2021 and went into effect in January 2022. The law is intended to streamline the process for a homeowner to create a duplex or subdivide an existing lot if it can meet certain qualifications. It also means local control over residential development is greatly diminished. But the law’s validity is up in the air after an LA County judge struck down that law in April 2024, saying that it does not provide housing restricted for low-income residents and therefore cannot override state constitutional protections afforded to local zoning practices. If the ruling is appealed and upheld, it would expand to affect California’s 121 charter cities, including Long Beach, Los Angeles and San Francisco. (See Los Angeles Times, May 2, 2024)
By law from the City Attorney comments, the City is neither required to inform neighbors of SB9 lot splits and ADUS, nor is the City precluded from informing neighbors of applications. While these are “by right” applications, the central isse of Piedmont Design Review (which is quite rigorous) is neighbor’s right to privacy and light and that neighbor’s are informed early in the process. Under SB9 and applyhing to ADUs, the neighbors would have not veto power. However being notified early on would afford neighbors an opportunity to speak to applicants and voice potential concerns. Then away from City processes perhaps there might be adjustment from reasonable applicants. There is little burden on staff to publicize a weekly list of SB8 and ADU applications.
I would also like to see City Planning take the most active possible position to afford affected neighbors whatever right to light and privacy can be afforded within the constrains of SB9.
The Yimby/developer majority in the state legislature have passed SB9 specifically to prevent this type of neighborhood opposition from stopping housing construction.
Whether that’s right or wrong is debatable. But, given the Socal Superior Court’s striking down SB9, the City should suspend the building permit until the legality of SB9 is resolved.
According to the California Constitution, a charter city is in charge of “municipal affairs”. The State can only overrule a city on a matter of statewide significance.
Interesting process question Mike. One councilwoman seemed to indicate that because the decision was being appealed the permit could go forward. But as a recent example, wasn’t the People’s Park project held up while that CEQA decision was appealed? Until the court addresses the charter city vs state rights question it seems appropriate to suspend the permit. Council seems more interested in weakening the charter though.
I suspect that there’s enough concern, and possibly there’s an interested attorney or two, to consider filing an injunction to try to prevent construction that may soon be determined to be illegal.
I may be wrong but I think the City attorney’s direction to “keep it short” was because these questions came during Open Forum and not an agendized discussion. Open Forum is meant for topics not on the agenda and for that reason Council can’t delve too deep into a matter. But it sounds like the City is not prohibited from notifying neighbors about these SB9 projects. That would apply to ADUs as well. I think this is a service residents expect.
This is not a inclusive housing development project ..
I encourage every Piedmont citizen to review the plans for the two luxury 3,700 sq foot residences + an intentional 800 sq ft ADU ..
I am pro housing …
I am also pro build on this property if the process properly considers .
– Wetlands
– Design & obstruction
– Fire and safety ( the “Way” born as a path is not 20 feet wide) .
– Neighborhood notification
—
“They paved paradise & put up a parking lot”
You would think that we would have learned from our urban mistakes .
DI
SB 9 allows cities to develop standards for lot splits — such as minimum frontage along streets, access/distance from streets, setbacks from creeks, sizes, etc., to protect public health and safety. It doesn’t seem like Piedmont has done any of this. Furthermore, the City can require an agreement that one of the resulting units will be occupied by the original owner (to prevent developers from doing this) — if Piedmont required this, the City should let people know that.
There is no reason for lot splits to be permitted in secrecy. As the City Attorney said, many cities publicly post all development activity.
Great point John. The developer signed an affidavit stating they would live on the property from the date the lot split was recorded. But of course that is impossible. And what enforcement of the violation of an affidavit is there?
This is a true environmental issue .
77 Wistaria has a creek ( Merritt Creek ) on the subject property that is now documented as “wetlands” .
The presence of “wetlands” disqualifies the subject property from SB9 guidelines …
The fact that the City has not paid any attention to this documented fact and our sensitive creek system is very unusual .
I rely on the City to protect the Permit / Design protocol process for every buyer and seller we represent .
Every citizen should inquire about this civic issue and protect the liberties and value of their home ..
Sincerely
DJ
Historically in Piedmont neighbors have had so much power to kill projects. Design and building permit review processes take so much longer here than the average California cities, which is already so much longer than the national average. We have a housing crisis, and it can feel sometimes like preferences of neighbors is held above the development of new places to live. While it’s well known that the neighbors of the Wistaria project have organized themselves to squash this project and basically would have only been happy with a little cottage being built, if anything at all, I wish this article would hold up the other side that the owners have actually been heroic in their diligence and efforts to make something happen here. Can you imagine having the appetite and ability to purchase a raw lot and design a home for your family only to have a whole neighborhood band against you? I think it’s so sad. People in opposition of this project are wholly unaffected by it if you look at those signatures. I think it’s mob mentality. Had there been a spirit of curiosity and openness at those early planning meetings the neighbors could have had say in the design and they were basically warned by a planning member that their opposition could lead to the owners using SB-9. Short sighted and hostile. Lastly, the creek mentioned only runs because of run off and dumping, there is no way this project will harm it which has already been looked into by a scientist.
I would love if this article could explore how SB-9 can, when used by creative and innovative people, lead to the very things we need most in California: more homes! The project design is handsome and thoughtful and will make two families very happy. Let’s move forward Piedmont!
Great points. We need housing.
Over the next 8 years, the Housing Element is adding over 1000 units to the 4000 Piedmont currently has. As a percent, that’s bigger than any other city I’ve seen. There are obvious objective standards that can be applied to SB9 development. I wonder how Piedmont’s view ordinance will be affected by SB9.
Residents comments can be viewed during the beginning of the meeting:
https://piedmont.granicus.com/player/clip/2959?view_id=9&redirect=true
City staff has slow-walked the implementation of SB9 for some reason. Other cities implemented the required ordinances, surveyed their communities and planned for SB9 growth in their 6th cycle housing elements. Piedmont did none of that. The story says the two units were approved in December 2023 – before the Housing Element was completed. Projecting that out 8 years, Piedmont could have claimed 16 units towards is RHNA target. Other cities did this and got the credit. Piedmont didn’t and instead jacked up housing density at Ace and Moraga Avenue to appease HCD. Bad planning.
Did anyone on Council ask the City Attorney if the city could inform neighbors when an SB9 application is SUBMITTED? Same for ADUs. That is what neighbors need to know so they can at least raise their concerns about the development with staff. SB9 is ministerial but I don’t think that prohibits the city from notifying neighbors that an application has been submitted.
Perhaps the Court will protect charter cities like Piedmont from SB9 development but the real threat to Piedmont’s charter is City Hall. Changes being proposed to the City Code will preclude voter approval of zoning changes, currently anllowed under the charter. Under this new code language, duplexes and triplexes could be allowed on virtually any lot in Piedmont. This makes home test-downs much more viable. A second reading of this ordinance is coming up at Council.
The question of notification of SB9 application did come up but the City Lawyer gave a non-answer I would say. She implied the residents and City Council have no role in the process so what is the point of notification? The way it is set up there seems to be absolutely no opportunity for oversight of the Process to ensure Codes and Law are followed.
I saw that answer by the city attorney -it struck me as pretty evasive. She cited no specific language from SB9 that expressly prohibits notification yet when prompted by a council member to say no, she said no. Neighbors have a definite interest in knowing in advance about changes coming to adjoining properties. I see the Planning Department is holding a public meeting on August 5 to explain new housing laws, perhaps the city attorney will give a definative answer at that meeting.
The city attorney was asked by Tom Ramsey. Mr. Ramsey asked if he could simply ask a question and the city attorney gave a long diatribe as to how he could only ask a simple question. He had to frame his question yes/no. His question was can adjacent neighbors be notified of an SB9 application. Her response was that there was no need to notify neighbors; there is no requirement to and notifying neighbors of an SB9 application near them when they can have no input was not something the city wanted. Mrs. Anderson followed up and you could hear an audible gasp when the room heard the city attorneys response “How would neighbors be notified an application had been approved?” [In the case they want to appeal in the required time frame?]. She said the city doesn’t need to do anything. The city attorney appeared ill prepared to answer these questions when citizens have asked these questions three different times now.
So an application can be filed in secret, without notice to anyone; approved by any staff member; city council believes it has no authority over any staff decision; building permit appeals are rejected because it came after the secret SB9 approval that they won’t tell you about. No transparency, no oversight, no nothing and one day the bull dozer shows to the house on your left, rights front and back. It’s easier to build multiple new units on a single lot than to get a remodeling permit and bypass the planning commission.
It’s stunningly ridiculous.