Planning Commission Meeting

1 PIEDMONT PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting Minutes for Monday, October 28, 2024 A Special Session of the Piedmont Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 28, 2024, both in person and via ZOOM teleconference, in accordance with Government Code Section 54953. The agenda for this meeting was posted for public inspection on October 14, 2024, in accordance with the General Code Section 54954.2 (a). CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Jajodia called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Rani Batra, Aradhana Jajodia, Julie Ortiz, Raffi Zaroukian, and Wayne Rowland Absent: Commissioner Justin Zucker Staff: Planning & Building Director Kevin Jackson, Associate Planner Gopika Nair, Assistant Planner Joshua Muller, and Deputy City Attorney Deepa Sharma REGULAR CALENDAR The Commission considered the following items as part of Regular Calendar: Conditional Use Permit, Non-Residential Sign Permit, Design Review Permit and Variance, 29 Wildwood Avenue, CUP2023-001, SIGN2023-001, DRPC2023-025, VAR2024-002 The applicants request a Conditional Use Permit, Non-Residential Sign Design Review Permit, Design Review Permit and Variance to demolish an existing gas and auto repair station at 29 Wildwood Avenue and replace it with a 14-stall electric vehicle (EV) charging station. The applications propose the construction of new canopy structures, fencing, EV charging kiosks, exterior lighting, auxiliary equipment, landscaping and commercial signage at the site of the existing gas station and auto- repair shop. The applicants are seeking a variance to allow for the construction of a proposed canopy structure within the street-yard setback along Wildwood Avenue. Director Jackson stated that staff has reviewed the application materials for consistency with the standards for approval. With a number of conditions, the project would meet the criteria for approval. A resolution has been provided that the Commission may choose to adopt. The resolution recommends that the four application be approved, subject to a number of conditions for each permit type, including concerns about noise, privacy, and light spillage. The resolution also recommends the adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS- MND) in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed project. The IS-MND was prepared with the assistance of LSA Associates. The initial study analyzed 21 environmental factors. The IS-MND concluded that the project would have less-than-significant impacts with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures in the various topic areas required by CEQA Guidelines. As such, the City of Piedmont has determined that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA determination. Shanna Guiler, representing LSA Associates, stated the comments received about the IS-MND included concerns with construction, hours of operation, operational noise, location of noise measurements and noise levels, construction vibration, release of benzene and other hazardous of materials, and the potential of the project to generate electromagnetic fields associated with the equipment. Ms. Guiler summarized the responses to the comments that are attached to the IS-MND. Assistant Planner Muller stated the CUP is required to change the use that was on site. The project proposes that the hours of operation be 24/7 and an off-site manager with remote capabilities monitor the site. Mr. Muller stated that staff is recommending conditional approval of the CUP based on the following findings: The applicants

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 2 indicate there will be regular site service personnel visits. EV use in Piedmont is substantial and growing and there is a need for EV charging infrastructure. The parcel is located within a mixed-use district. The 24-hour operation could benefit irregular schedules. The creation of an EV charging station would help the City achieve its climate action plan goals. Staff is recommending five conditions of approval for the CUP with a modification to the third condition of approval for Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program. Assistant Planner Muller stated the variance is required to construct a canopy within the street yard setback along Wildwood Avenue. Staff is recommending conditional approval of the variance request based on the following findings: The unusual circumstances for the lot include the pointed corner and the setbacks associated with it, which would reduce the buildable footprint of the lot. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding areas and other lots for Zone D. If the variance is not granted, it would constitute an unreasonable hardship, based on the optimal operation of the facility and the protection of the infrastructure on the site. Assistant Planner Muller stated the design review permit application requests the construction of two canopies, installation of 22 light fixtures on the underside of the canopies, installation of charging stalls, associated charging infrastructure, and a 6- foot Trex fence. Staff is recommending conditional approval of the design review permit subject to a number of conditions of approval including that the rear fence along the perimeter be replaced with an 8-foot solid concrete wall. Additionally, the equipment would need to meet the 50-decibel sound limit on mechanically generated noise. Mr. Muller summarized staff’s recommended findings for conditional approval of the permit. Assistant Planner Muller stated the non-residential sign design review is to install four brand signs on the facia of the canopy, three bay header signs to the columns, and six free standing brand specific signs. None of the signs will be backlit. Mr. Muller summarized staff’s recommendation for conditional approval of the application, including the findings on which this recommendation is based. Commissioners asked the following questions: • Is Benzene within the acceptable levels? • Will the signs be backlit. • How are the 50 decibels of sound/noise measured? • Will there be any testing/monitoring after operation begins? In response, Ms. Guiler stated the Phase 2 investigation for initial soil and gas samples exceeded environmental screening levels and to further assess environmental impacts a tier 2 evaluation was conducted and the results indicated the cumulative risk and cumulative hazard quotient were below the commercial use threshold. Staff responded by stating that the signs will rely on the ambient light and won’t be lit from within. The 50 decibels will be measured by being gathered at the nearest property line in proximity to the proposed equipment. The baseline measurement has been conducted as part of the initial study. The testing of the proposed equipment, once installed and operating at typical conditions, shall occur prior to the scheduling of the final inspection to determine compliance with the City’s noise level requirements. Testing/monitoring after operation is not required. Public testimony was received from: Lydell Lauro, representing Shell, stated globally Shell wants to bring EV charging to consumers under E-mobility. The Shell EV Charging Stations will benefit Piedmont because Shell is trusted, reliable, and fast. Piedmont has the highest EV vehicle

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 3 adoption rate in the state. The site has evolved over the decades. The EV charging station will bring a convenience to residents. EV charging stations are unique because they are in the adoption phase, and there is not another place down the road to go. The estimated trips per day are less than 400 and three sessions per charger, per day. Jeremy Randolph, representing Shell, stated the site is a prominent fixture in Piedmont. The proposed design will have 14 charging stalls covered by two canopies and a small equipment yard. The site has an irregular shape on a corner lot. The location is the gateway into Piedmont. The equipment yard will be owned and operated by PG&E. The under-canopy lighting and charge bay lighting will be on 24/7. The lights can be dimmed at night when not in use, and motion-activated to return to a specified brightness when there is a customer there. The station will be operating at the specified sound limit. The site is designed for all vehicle types. The canopy signage and free- standing signs are part of their global design standard. Trash can locations have not been determined yet. The noise concerns of the neighbors are valid. The switchboard and power cabinets need to be accessible. PG&E own the transformers and the switch, and they can’t be underground because the transformer is too big and the water table is higher than anticipated. Shell’s equipment is proposed to operate significantly below the ambient noise in the neighborhood. Mathew Lyons, representing Shell, stated the 24-hour operation is important to provide all drivers with equal access to the same charging experience, day or night. Charging should be available for nighttime emergencies. The site being lit at night will provide a safer environment. The site needs to be visible from the street will allow more effective monitoring of security cameras. There will be a soundproof wall installed for residential consideration to mitigate noise. Sites will be equipped with security cameras, monitored by Shell 24/7. Other similar properties are all under development with the same operational model. An in-house team or a third-party vendor would monitor the cameras, along with receiving alerts and notifications. In-house standard response time is same day response. Shell has sky software which shows what stalls are available and in use, and is visible through the app. The fence is proposed to be at the property boundary. For equipment barriers, there are no fences proposed at this time. There is landscaping around the PG&E equipment. The break in landscaping is for the location of the switch gears and power cabinets. Site maintenance operations will be monthly. Vanessa Oklejas, resident at 35 Wildwood Avenue, stated she wants an EV charging station but limited hours of operation. Malcom Talcott, resident at 22 Wildwood Avenue, stated hours of operation should be 6:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. to lessen the noise, robberies, and carjackings. No other businesses are open 24/7. The electric equipment should be in an underground vault. There should be an air compressor for tires. Mike Gallagher, resident at 1256 Grand Avenue, expressed his concerns about mechanically generated noise and low frequency EMF. Miguel DeAvila, resident at 1205 Grand Avenue, stated the EV hub is a terrific idea. A 24/7 operation would be an actual and attractive nuisance. He stated that the intensity of use will increase. The hours of operation should be 6:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. The electric equipment should be underground. Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Zaroukian stated he supports the project. There needs to be conditions of approval for fencing around the equipment and a concrete wall on the north property

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 4 line. The brand sign is out of balance with the canopy. Commissioner Batra expressed concerns about a 24/7 operation. She stated the hours of 6:00 a.m. – 10 p.m. is appropriate. More fencing and vegetation are needed around the equipment. The signage is out of scale with the canopy. She also expressed her concern about the novelty of this facility in a residential area. Commissioner Rowland stated he agreed with Commissioner Zaroukian’s comments. The EV charging station is so important for the transition to electric vehicles. We cannot save ourselves from urban noises. He does not believe nighttime use will be common or a nuisance. Downlighting is good. The sound will be dissipated by wall and distance. He suggested that a vine or foliage growing off the wall would dissipate sound too. He supports the project. Commissioner Ortiz agreed with Commissioner Batra’s statements. Generally, people plan around EV charging, therefore 24/7 accessibility is not needed. She asked questions about the operational model and security. There needs to be an enclosure around the equipment, such as fencing and landscaping. The signage needs to be in proportion with the canopy. Commissioner Jajodia agreed with Commissioners Batra and Ortiz. The site is surrounded by residential properties. Nighttime workers have access to other facilities. She supports the 6:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. hours of operation. The equipment needs to be enclosed and landscaping is needed along the wall. She would like to see the signs reduced from four to two signs on the canopies. A condition of approval is needed for a tree protection plan. Assistant Planner Muller provided information on potential conditions of approval in response to the Commissioner’s discussion. Director Jackson clarified that on the mechanically generated noise, the building code requires that any noise from mechanical equipment must be no more than 50 decibels at the nearest property line. During the review of an application for the building permit, the applicant will have to submit information and calculations to demonstrate that the equipment meets the 50 decibels limit at the property line, otherwise the building permit will not be approved and issued. Resolution 001-CUP-23, 002-VAR-24, 025-DRPC-23, 001-SIGN-23 WHEREAS, Shell Recharge, represented by Jeremy Randolph, submitted applications for a Conditional Use Permit, Non-Residential Sign Design Review Permit, and Design Review Permit to the City of Piedmont (City) on November 9, 2023, and an application for a variance from setback requirements on January 25, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City, acting as the Lead Agency as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) §21067, prepared an Initial Study for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to ascertain whether the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was the appropriate and proper environmental analysis, given that the incorporation of specified mitigation measures would result in the project having no significant effect on the environment; and

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 5 WHEREAS, an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) was prepared and filed with the State Clearinghouse on July 12, 2024; and circulated for public comment for a period of 20 days; and on September 14, 2024, was again circulated for public comment for a period of 30 days; and WHEREAS, the City received nine comments on the draft IS-MND, which discussed noise impacts, exterior lighting, water service and conservation, soil contamination mitigation, electromagnetic interference and radiation; and WHEREAS, the IS-MND identified certain potentially significant adverse environmental impacts from the Project and recommends certain mitigation measures regarding such effects; and WHEREAS, the City of Piedmont Planning Commission considered the proposed IS- MND together with any comments received during the public review process, and the public was provided an opportunity for oral testimony at the October 28, 2024, Planning Commission hearing; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2024, the application was deemed complete, and notices were sent out to property owners within 500 feet in conformance with the notification requirements provided in City Code division 17.64; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the Planning Commission received and reviewed written comments; and WHEREAS, prior to the scheduled special meeting, the Planning Commission received and reviewed the application materials and visited the site; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2024, the Piedmont Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the applications, received public testimony, and discussed the proposed demolition of an existing gas station and the construction of an EV charging station; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Piedmont does hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order, based on the oral and written staff reports, oral and written public comments, and all other project documentation in the record, as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. CEQA Review and Recommendation. 1. The Planning Commission makes the following findings and recommendations with respect to the IS/MND: a. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the IS/MND, comments received during the public review period, and the written responses to any comments prior to acting on the project. b. The IS/MND adequately describes the environmental impacts of the Project. On the basis of the whole record before it, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment.

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 6 c. The MND has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. d. The MND is complete and adequate and reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the project. e. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment because the MMRP is a condition of approval of the Project, and with the MMRP, all identified impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Piedmont hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the MND for the Project. 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in the IS/MND, which is incorporated herein by reference. 4. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission has based its recommendations are located in and may be obtained at https://piedmont.ca.gov/services/permits/planning/active- projects/29_wildwood_e_v_charging_station_application SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Recommendation. A. Recommend the City Council conditionally approve the application for conditional use permit (CUP2023-001), making findings for all of the criteria in Section 17.68.040 (1) through (3), adding consideration of any conditions of approval the Commission thinks appropriate as follows: 1. The proposed use is compatible with the City of Piedmont General Plan and conforms to City Code Chapter 17 Planning and Land Use because it is a commercial use for minor automobile servicing within an existing commercial zone of the City, the proposed facility will serve Piedmont residents, the proposed use is compatible with the conditional uses allowed in Zone D per section 17.26.030 of the Piedmont City Code, and the proposed use is consistent with General Plan policies LU 2.1 and NR&S 15.2 and Climate Action Plan action T-4.1A. The proposed EV charging station will facilitate the transition to zero emissions vehicles, which is essential to the City’s achievement of its climate action goals. 2. The use is primarily intended to serve Piedmont residents (rather than the larger region) because the number of chargers, the scale of the facility and its location at a gateway to the City is appropriate and convenient for Piedmont residents to be regular users, and the charging station is located at a confluence of other local commercial facilities used by Piedmont residents. Additionally, the operational characteristics of the facility will provide charging opportunities to Piedmont residents that work night or irregular hours, including doctors, nurses, hospital and public safety workers. Furthermore, a survey of Piedmont voters carried out by FM3 Research in June 2020, with a sampling error of 4.9 percent at the 95 confidence level found that 25 percent of Piedmont voters are electric vehicle owners, that 4 in 5 support expanding access to EV charges in Piedmont, that renters are especially supportive of increasing EV chargers in Piedmont, that the proposed facility is located in close proximity to properties constructed with multi-family rental development, that 49 percent of EV owners were likely to use public chargers, and that approximately half of respondents

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 7 who do not have an EV would be more likely to buy one if electric vehicle charges were more widely available and accessible in Piedmont. 3. The use, including the proposed operation of the facility 24 hours a day 7 days a week, will not have a material adverse effect on the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the proposed use will not substantially change traffic or parking impacts, as compared to the previous use as a gasoline fueling station and auto repair service the use for electric vehicle charging will greatly reduce the use of toxic fuels and substances and noisy machinery, and the proposed use will have no adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood in that the previous and proposed uses are for minor automobile servicing, and does not demonstrate a tendency to adversely affect surrounding property values. The 8-foot-tall perimeter wall, as recommended as a condition of approval by staff, and canopies provide barriers and screening that sufficiently mitigate any adverse impacts that might occur as a result of EV charging during daytime and nighttime hours, including light, noise, and potential electrical and magnetic emissions. The operation of the facility 24 hours a day 7 days a week will: a) help improve the health safety and welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the full availability of the chargers will facilitate the transition to zero emission vehicles and the resulting improved air quality and reduced noise from internal combustion vehicles; b) be available to residents and workers that work nighttime shifts (e.g., doctors, nurses and other hospital workers, public safety workers) and that experience nighttime emergencies; and c) increase site security through lighting and CCTV monitoring. EV chargers are installed and used at private residences throughout Piedmont with no reported adverse impacts related to noise, health or safety. B. Recommend the City Council include 5 conditions of approval on the Conditional Use Permit (CUP2023-001) as follows: 1. Terms of the Approval. A review of the conditional use permit shall occur as provided in City Code section 17.68.050.A, and the conditional use permit shall have the following operational characteristics: Operating Hours: 6:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m., 7 days a week. Types of Staff/Personnel: Zero on-site. Off-site customer experience manager and customer support. Contracted, dispatched, and site service personnel. 2. Site Maintenance. To ensure site operation and maintenance standards are met, the Property Owner shall employ an off-site manager, who shall be responsible for coordinating ongoing maintenance, including cleaning, repairs, landscape maintenance, and collection of solid waste. The landscape shall be maintained weekly by a landscaping crew and kept in good order. The site shall also be visited in-person monthly by a representative of the Property Owner to evaluate site conditions and determine if corrective action is necessary. Prior to final inspection, the Property Owner shall submit a site maintenance plan for the maintenance measures described in this condition. The plan shall be subject to staff review and approval. 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that requires all mitigation measures described in the IS-MND be implemented by means of project conditions, agreements or other measures, as set forth in the MMRP, found on the City website via hyperlink, and incorporated herein by reference. The Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of the MMRP, and requires the implementation of the measures identified in the program. 4. Defense of Legal Challenges. The Property Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers,

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 8 employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Property Owner’s project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Property Owner’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Property Owner, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Property Owner is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Property Owner of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.. 5. Sound and Vibration Mitigation Plan and Review. As required by the Director of Public Works, the Property Owner shall submit a plan prepared by a licensed engineer of the Property Owner’s choice that fully assesses the existing site conditions for the mitigation and monitoring of vibration and decibel levels at the Project during construction (including being periodically present at the construction site during excavation and foundation work). If, in the Engineer’s sole discretion, such monitoring indicates that the sound or vibration levels exceed those anticipated in the Property Owner’s Construction Management Plan and/or the Sound and Vibration Mitigation Plan, all work on the Project may be immediately stopped by the City and may not resume until the City Engineer is fully assured that the sound and vibration transmissions generated by work on the Project can be maintained at or below a reasonable level and duration • Peer Review. The City, at the Property Owner’s sole expense, shall retain an independent engineering consultant to perform a peer-review of the Property Owner’s Sound and Vibration Mitigation Plan and advise the City in connection with the Property Owner’s proposals. The City Engineer shall select this independent engineering consultant, whose services shall be provided for the sole benefit of the City and whose reports and recommendations can be relied upon only by the City. The independent engineering consultant shall also review the building plans during the permit approval process and may provide periodic on-site observations during excavation and construction as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The Property Owner shall provide payment for this at the time of the Building Permit submittal. SECTION 4. Variance Recommendation. A. Recommend the City Council approve the application for setback variance (VAR2024-002), because it meets the findings under Section 17.70.040 as follows: 1. The underlying lot and existing improvements present unusual physical circumstances because the lot is irregularly shaped and has frontage on two streets (approximately 69 percent of the site perimeter), exceptionally constraining the buildable area of the property, particularly in areas that are most distant from neighboring residential properties.

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 9 2. The project is compatible with the immediately surrounding neighborhood and the public welfare because it will improve air quality, the 1-story structures are at the same or smaller scale as surrounding residences and commercial buildings, the previous canopies were located within the street yard setbacks, most all nearby commercial buildings are located within street yard setbacks, it continues the property’s use for minor automobile servicing, and it offers the community an essential service for the attainment of its climate action goals. 3. Accomplishing the improvements without a variance would cause unreasonable hardship in planning, design or construction because it is important that each charging space be covered in order to help protect the electrical equipment from contact with rain, in order to provide drivers the benefits of shade and the protection from other environmental exposures, and in order to provide additional screening between the property and neighboring residential properties that mitigates light and sound intrusion and increases privacy. SECTION 5. Design Review Permit Recommendation. A. Recommend the City Council conditionally approve the application for design review permit (DRPC2023-025), making the findings under Section 17.66.060 as follows: 1. As conditioned, the proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines because the low height, 1-story scale, streamlined aesthetics, and wood and metal materials are appropriate for the proposed use for minor automobile servicing, the Grand Avenue Commercial District, and adjacent residential neighborhood. The site is proposed to have landscaping, lighting and other amenities that are aesthetically pleasing and facilitate its proposed use and its integration into the neighborhood. The project is consistent with the following Design Guidelines: 3.03, 3.09, 3.11, 3.12, 3.12, 4.04, 4.05, 7.02, and 7.06. The project is also consistent with the following General Plan policies: LU 2.1 and NR&S 15.2, and Climate Action Plan Priority 4 and Objective T-4. 2. As conditioned, the design has little or no effect on neighboring properties’ existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light because the height of the proposed canopies is 13 feet, the views from surrounding properties are not significant as defined in City code section 17.90.010, and per the photometric plan included with the application the installed lighting will not spill onto adjacent properties. In addition, the wall along the property lines abutting neighboring residential properties and the canopies above the charging stations provide screening to adequately mitigate any light or sound intrusion between properties. 3. As conditioned, the proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because it reconfigures the existing lot to better accommodate vehicular traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns. As shown in the plans, one of the existing curb cuts is proposed to be removed and a curb is proposed to be constructed along the perimeter of the facility area to better define the sidewalk area and reduce driveway crossings of the sidewalk. The proposed directional signage, and new pathway materials will improve pedestrian safety on-site. Above-ground electrical equipment is adequately protected by bollards, fencing and other devices. B. Recommend the City Council include 32 conditions of approval on the design review permit as follows: 1. Sound. The proposed mechanical equipment shall meet the sound requirements of a maximum 50 decibels (dBA) at the nearest property line as proscribed in Building

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 10 Code Section 8.02.020 EE if the quietest ambient noise level is below 50 dBA Leq. Should ambient noise levels exceed 50 dBA Leq during the quietest hour of operation, the equipment shall not result in a 3 dBA noise level increase above the quietest ambient noise hour. Prior to the operation of the project, a current 24-hour noise level measurement shall be gathered at the nearest property line in proximity to the proposed equipment. Additionally, testing of the proposed equipment, once installed and able to be operated at typical conditions, shall occur prior to the scheduling of final inspection to determine compliance with the City’s noise level requirements. Should it occur that operational noise levels exceed the requirements of this condition, additional mitigation will be required to bring operations into compliance. Any modifications in order to meet the sound requirements including a sound barrier or an enclosure are subject to staff review and approval. Modifications to bring operations in compliance shall be made within 45 days. 2. Lighting. All exterior lighting for the facility shall be directed so that there is no glare and minimal spillage of light on to the adjacent residential properties. 3. Barriers Abutting Adjacent Properties. Rather than fencing, a new free-standing wall shall be constructed along the property boundaries adjacent to 1246 Grand Avenue and 31 Wildwood Avenue to mitigate any noise, visual, or potential electrical or magnetic emission impacts on the adjacent residential properties. The new wall shall have a height of 8 feet and be constructed with stucco or similar material(s) with the result being a solid wall of durable quality. The wall shall have a minimum density of 4 lb/ft2 or be sound rated with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) of 20. The wall should be free of gaps. The wall shall step up in height from a height of 3 feet at the property lines along Wildwood and Grand Avenues to a height of 5.5 feet at a distance 5 feet from the property line to a height of 8 feet at a distance 10 feet from the property line. The final design shall be subject to staff review and approval. 4. Environmental Hazards. As proposed in the application, the underground fuel storage tank(s) and hydraulic lifts shall be removed in compliance with the requirements of the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health and the California State Water Resources Board. Prior to the issuance of a building permit as required by the Chief Building Official, the applicant shall provide a plan, including necessary testing, to verify compliance with all local, state and federal regulations regarding removal of any underground fuel storage tanks and the disturbance, removal, and/or remediation of hazardous materials (if any) on residential properties, public rights-of-way, and/or in the proximity of schools, including soil contamination, lead- based paint and asbestos. Said plan for the proper removal and handling of hazardous materials shall be provided on the appropriate sheets of the construction plan sets and included in the Construction Management Plan. 5. Contractor’s General Liability Insurance. To ensure that the contractor doing work in the City will be responsible for damages caused by the work to City property or to neighboring property, the Property Owner shall require all contractors performing work on the Project to maintain General Liability Insurance for protection from claims for damages because of bodily injury, including death, and claims for damages, other than to the contractor’s work itself, to property which may arise out of or result from the contractor’s operations. Such insurance shall be written for not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. The insurance shall include an endorsement requiring 10 days prior notice to the City if the insurance is to be cancelled or changed, and Property Owner shall immediately arrange for substitute insurance coverage. If the contractor’s insurance carrier states in writing that it is unable to provide the required endorsement, Property Owner shall be responsible for providing the City with the required notice if the insurance is to be cancelled or changed. Property Owner’s failure to provide such notice shall constitute grounds for revocation of the City’s design review approval

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 11 and/or permit. If the Property Owner does not have a general contractor, the Property Owner shall maintain property insurance and coverage for contractors, which is substantially equivalent to the contractor's requirement of this section. 6. BAAQMD Compliance. The applicant shall comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations related to any building demolition. The Demolition Notification form is available on their website at www.BAAQMD.gov/forms. 7. Modifications to Conditions. Any insurance or security requirement, or related Condition of Approval, may be implemented and, if necessary, modified in a reasonable manner with the joint agreement of the Director of Planning & Building and the City Attorney, consistent with the intent of the condition. 8. C&D Compliance. Compliance with Section 9.04 of the Municipal Code, which governs the recycling of construction and demolition debris, is required for all phases of this project. 9. Defense of Legal Challenges. The Property Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Property Owner’s project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Property Owner’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Property Owner, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Property Owner is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Property Owner of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 10. Setback from Property Line Verification. Prior to foundation inspection, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official written verification by a licensed land surveyor stating that the construction of the canopies is located at the setback dimension from all property lines as shown on the approved plans. The intent is to verify that the approved features are constructed at the approved dimension from the property lines. 11. Building Height Verification. Prior to foundation and/or frame inspection, the applicant shall provide the Building Official written verification by a licensed land surveyor stating that the roof of the new structures are constructed at the approved heights above grade. 12. Encroachment Permit. Before the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner shall apply for an encroachment permit to allow for the construction within the public right-of-way or public easement. 13. Sewer Main Condition and Repair. City records indicate that City storm and sewer mains and associated easement(s) may be located near the proposed construction

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 12 next to the east property line. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner shall submit a revised copy of the survey prepared by Blew and Associates, P.A. to show sewer manhole covers and any easements. Said easements and manhole covers shall also be shown on the building permit drawings. The applicant shall also work with City staff to verify the location and depth of the storm and sanitary sewer mains. In addition, the City shall videotape the existing sanitary and storm sewer mains to assess their pre-construction condition in order to make a determination as to whether any repairs to or replacement of the sewer main is required prior to the commencement of excavation and/or construction. If it is discovered that the existing sewer main is not within the existing easement that will allow for maintenance of the sewer line, the applicant shall dedicate additional easement widths to accommodate City maintenance of the sewer main. (The City is responsible for the cost of the main line, and the property owner for costs of the lateral.) All proposed charging station facilities associated with this project shall provide at least ten feet clear of the City’s sewer and storm drain facilities to all for maintenance. As part of the final inspection the same sanitary and storm sewer lines shall be inspected as required by the Director of Public Works, who shall also determine if the sewer lines were damaged as a result of the construction and therefore must be repaired at the applicant's expense. The applicant is responsible to locate their private sewer lateral and note such location on the building permit drawings. 14. Stormwater Design. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board requires all projects, or a combination of related projects, that create and/or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface to comply with Provision C.3.i of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. As required by the Chief Building Official, the Property Owner shall verify the total area of impervious surface to be created and/or replaced within the scope of this project, or this project combined with other related projects and/or permits, and incorporate the site design measure(s) required under Provision C.3.i into the plans submitted for a building permit. Copies of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit are available from the Piedmont Public Works Department and on-line at cleanwaterprogram.org. 15. Final Landscape Plan. Before issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner shall submit for staff review and approval a Final Landscape Plan. The final plan shall comply with City Code Division 17.34 and Section 17.33.30, and shall not propose plants near the driveway that could obscure visibility of pedestrians on the sidewalk or vehicles on the street from drivers backing out of the driveway. Landscaping along the freestanding wall along the northern property line shall include the planting of vines to grow on and cover the wall surface. Upon the determination of the Director, minor differences in the number, size and/or species of vegetation between those shown on the approved landscape plan and those installed at the time of final inspection that do not involve an increase in hardscape or structure coverage may be subject to staff review and approval. Significant differences between the vegetation installed at the time of final inspection and vegetation shown on the approved landscape plan are subject to a design review permit. 16. Landscape Irrigation. To ensure the long-term health and viability of the plant materials on-site, the Property Owner shall install irrigation for the proposed landscaped areas. The irrigation plan shall comply with all relevant landscaping requirements and regulations, including but not limited to MWELO. 17. City Facilities Security. The Property Owner shall provide a specific cash deposit, letter of credit, bank guarantee, or other similar financial vehicle (“City Facilities Security”) in the amount of $100,000 as established by the Director of Public Works. This financial vehicle serves as an initial sum to cover the cost of any potential damage to City property or facilities in any way caused by Property Owner, Property Owner’s

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 13 contractors or subcontractors, or any of their agents, employees or assigns, and related in any way to the Project. The Property Owner is responsible for the full cost of repair as determined by the City Engineer prior to final inspections. The form and terms of such City Facilities Security shall be determined by the Director of Public Works after consultation with the Property Owner. The Director may take into account any of the following factors: the cost of construction; past experience and costs; the amount of excavation; the number of truck trips; the physical size of the proposed project; the logistics of construction; the geotechnical circumstances at the site; and City right-of- way and repaving costs. a. To provide clear baseline information to assist in determining whether damage to the City’s facilities has been caused by the Property Owner or others working for or on behalf of Property Owner, the City will document such facilities (including, without limitation, streets and facilities along the approved construction route as specified in the Construction Management Plan, to establish the baseline condition of the streets and facilities. The City shall further re-document the streets as deemed appropriate after the Project commences until the Director of Public Works determines that further documentation is no longer warranted. As part of the documentation, the City may water down the streets to better emphasize any cracks or damage in the surface. The Property Owner is responsible for the full cost of the documentation and repair work as determined by the City Engineer, and shall reimburse the City for those costs prior to the scheduling of final inspection. b. When the City Facilities Security is in a form other than cash deposit with the City, the proceeds from the City Facilities Security shall be made payable to the City upon demand, conditioned solely on the Director of Public Works’ certification on information and belief that all or any specified part of the proceeds are due to the City. 18. Consultant Cost Recovery. In order to accommodate the scope and nature of the Project proposed by the Property Owner, if the Director of Planning & Building deems it necessary to retain independent consultants with specialized expertise, including the City Engineer, the Property Owner shall make a cash deposit with the City at the time of the Building Permit Application in the amount of $5,000 to be used to pay for the fees and expenses of such City consultants, or in any way otherwise required to be expended by the City for professional consultant assistance. If the cash deposit has been reduced to $2,500 or less at any time, the Director of Planning & Building may require the Property Owner to deposit additional funds to cover any further estimated fees and expenses associated with consultants retained by the City on a regular basis or specifically for the Property Owner’s Project. Any unexpended amounts shall be refunded to the Property Owner within 90 days after the Project has an approved Final Inspection by the Chief Building Official. 19. City Attorney Cost Recovery. If there is a substantial additional commitment of City Attorney’s time required to accommodate the scope and nature of the Project, the Property Owner shall, at the time of the Building Permit Application, make a cash deposit with the City in the amount of $5,000 to be used to offset time and expenses of the City Attorney relating to the Project. If such cash deposit has been reduced to $2,500.00 or less at any time, the Director of Planning & Building may require the Property Owner to deposit additional funds to cover any further estimated additional City Attorney time and expenses. Any unused amounts shall be refunded to the Property Owner within 90 days after the Project has an approved Final Inspection by the Chief Building Official. 20. Site Safety Security. The City and the public have an interest in not having an unfinished project blighting the neighborhood and undermining property values. These public interests are primarily safety and aesthetics, and diminishment of property values. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Property Owner shall provide a specific cash deposit, letter of credit, bank guarantee, or other similar financial vehicle

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 14 (“Site Safety Security”) in the amount of $100,000 to ensure that the Project site is not left in a dangerous or unfinished state. a. The Site Safety Security shall be in an amount to include three components i. safety, which means the cost to make the site and structure safe if construction should cease midway through the Project; ii. aesthetics, which means an amount to install and maintain landscaping all around the Project to protect the immediate local views from neighbors and public property; and iii. staff and consultant time to evaluate and implement this condition. If, as the Project proceeds, the expected cost of these components increases beyond the original estimate in the opinion of the Director of Planning & Building, the City may require the Property Owner to increase the amount of the Site Safety Security by the additional amount. The Property Owner shall provide City with written evidence of compliance within 15 working days after receiving written notice of the additional required amount. The City shall retain, at the Property Owner’s expense, an independent estimator to verify the total expected costs to complete the Project and any subsequent revisions. b. The form and amount of the Site Safety Security is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning & Building. Payment to City under the Site Safety Security shall be made payable upon demand by the City and prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, conditioned solely on the Director of Planning & Building’s certification on information and belief that all or any specified part of such Performance Security is due to the City. c. The Site Safety Security shall not be released until the Project has an approved Final Inspection by the Chief Building Official. However, if sufficient work has been completed according to the benchmarks and construction values, as established under the Construction Completion Schedule, the Site Safety Security may be reduced to the extent the Director of Planning & Building in his sole discretion determines is appropriate. 21. Construction Management Plan. The Property Owner shall develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall identify the point(s) for access to the property for construction and address noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking, debris removal, dust control, sanitary facilities, site safety security emergency access, and other potential construction impacts, as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the Project, including the construction route. It shall incorporate the appropriate components of relevant hazardous waste mitigation plans as required. The City Building Official has the authority to require modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary throughout the course of the Project and until the Final Inspection. a. Construction Site Control of Stormwater. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board requires all projects that disturb the site to comply with Provision C.6 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit in order to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants and other regulated materials during construction. As required by the Chief Building Official and prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall develop and submit a construction stormwater management plan as part of the Construction Management Plan to achieve timely and effective compliance with Provision C.6. Permit Provision C.6.c.ii provides sources for site specific, and seasonally- and phase-appropriate, effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) that may be incorporated into the stormwater management plan. Copies of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit are available from the Piedmont Public Works Department and on-line at cleanwaterprogram.org. b. Neighboring Property Owner Permission. Should the execution of the Foundation/Shoring/Excavation Plan require excavation into a neighboring property or if access onto the neighboring property is necessary for

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 15 construction, the applicant shall submit, prior to the issuance of Building Permit, a written statement from the neighboring property owner granting permission for access onto his/her property for the purpose of excavation and/or construction. 22. Construction Completion Schedule. Work on the Project, once begun, shall be promptly executed with continuous good faith and reasonable progress. Since timely completion of this Project is of the essence, the Applicant shall submit for approval a Construction Completion Schedule, which will specify, in detail, the duration and percentage of the project as a whole for each phase. a. The Construction Completion Schedule with associated construction values for each benchmark shall set forth completion dates for the following benchmarks as needed: i) Completion of Excavation; ii) Completion of Retaining Walls; iii) Completion of Foundation; iv) Completion of Rough Framing; v) Completion of Electrical; vi) Completion of Plumbing; vii) Completion of Mechanical; viii) Completion of Fire Sprinklers; ix) Completion of Home; x) Completion of Hardscaping and Landscaping; and any further construction benchmarks and conditions of occupancy as may be determined by the Director of Planning and Building. b. Before the Project begins, the Director of Planning and Building shall make a determination as to the reasonableness of the proposed completion dates applicable to the Project, and that determination shall constitute the Approved Construction Completion Schedule and be binding on the Applicant. The City may, at the Applicant’s sole cost, engage the services of a consultant to review the proposed Construction Completion Schedule and, to the extent the period allocated for any work appears unjustifiable, recommend to the Director of Planning and Building a reasonable completion date for any benchmark. c. In the event of a change in scope of the Project that would alter the benchmarks dates set forth in the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, or in the event the Applicant fails to meet a benchmark set forth in the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, the Applicant shall immediately submit a request to amend the Approved Construction Completion Schedule to the Director of Planning and Building. The request to amend shall be accompanied by a new proposed Construction Completion Schedule in compliance with subsection (a) of this condition of approval and the Director of Planning and Building shall evaluate the proposed amendments to the Approved Construction Completion Schedule in accordance with subsection (b) of this condition of approval. d. The failure of the Applicant to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, or any amendments to it approved in conformance with subsection (d) of this condition of approval, shall constitute a nuisance under the City of Piedmont City Code (“City Code”). The failure of the Applicant to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule may result in the City pursuing administrative citations pursuant to Chapter 1 of the City Code, nuisance abatement pursuant to Chapter 6 of the City Code, or any other remedy available to the City under the law. Additionally, if the Applicant fails to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, the Director of Planning and Building, at his or her sole discretion, may make a claim against the Property Owner’s Site Security, if one is required, in order to complete the benchmark. The Director of Planning and Building, at his or her sole discretion, may refer the application to the Planning Commission for public review and direction. 23. California’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: Property Owner shall comply with the requirements of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that went into effect December 1, 2015, by submitting the following required information to the Building Department: a) Landscape Documentation Package that includes the following 6 items: i) Project Information; ii) Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet; iii) Soil Management Report;

Special Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2024 16 iv) Landscape Design Plan; v) Irrigation Design Plan; and vi) Grading Design Plan. The Landscape Documentation Package is subject to staff review and approval before the issuance of a building permit. b) Once a building permit has been issued, the Property Owner shall submit a copy of the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet, to the local water purveyor, East Bay Municipal Utility District. c) After completion of work, the Property Owner shall submit to the City and East Bay Municipal Utility District a Certificate of Completion, including an irrigation schedule, an irrigation maintenance schedule, and an irrigation audit report. The City may approve or deny the Certificate of Completion. 24. ADA Requirements. All sidewalks fronting the project must meet both City and Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Standards. As part of the development of this project, the applicant shall verify if all sidewalk slopes meet ADA Standards, including pedestrian access crossing all driveways. If any sections of sidewalk are found to be out of compliance with both City and ADA standards or are found to be damaged, the applicant shall be responsible for reconstruction all out of compliance and damaged sections with new compliant sidewalk as part of this project. If any public sidewalk improvements are needed that require construction of a public sidewalk that extends beyond the current public right-of-way, the applicant shall dedicate a Public Access Easement over those portions of sidewalk that are outside the public right-of-way. 25. Grand Avenue Excavation and Paving. If any portion of this project requires the applicant to excavate in Grand Avenue (whether it be associated with site improvements or offsite improvements), the applicant shall first obtain an encroachment permit from the City. Due to recently paving the portion of Grand Avenue fronting the project, Grand Avenue between Wildwood and Fairview is currently on the pavement moratorium list (excavation in any street on the moratorium list is typically prohibited unless it is associated with an emergency or other extenuating circumstances). Should any construction associated with this project require excavation in the paving on Grand Avenue, the applicant shall be subject to paving requirements that will be more significant. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the encroachment permit issued by the Piedmont Public Works Department. 26. Waste Receptacles. As called out in the plans, solid waste and recycling receptacles shall be located within the on-site common areas. The plans shall be revised to show an enclosed area for the storage of garbage and recycling carts. The final location and enclosure design are subject to staff review and appro

1 City of Piedmont Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda Monday, October 28, 2024 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA Piedmont Planning Commission meetings are conducted in person at City Hall Council Chambers. As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Please see the end of the agenda for information on how to participate virtually. Call to Order Roll Call Disclosure of ex parte communications and identification of conflicts of interest Regular Agenda 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, NON-RESIDENTIAL SIGN PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND VARIANCE 29 Wildwood Avenue CUP2023-001, SIGN2023-001, DRPC2023-025, VAR2024-002 The applicants request a Conditional Use Permit, Non-Residential Sign Design Review Permit, Design Review Permit and Variance to demolish an existing gas and auto repair station at 29 Wildwood Avenue and replace it with a 14-stall electric vehicle (EV) charging station. The applications propose the construction of new canopy structures, fencing, EV charging kiosks, exterior lighting, auxiliary equipment, landscaping and commercial signage at the site of the existing gas station and auto-repair shop. The applicants are seeking a variance to allow for the construction of a proposed canopy structure within the street-yard setback along Wildwood Avenue. CEQA Determination: The City of Piedmont has completed an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the proposed project. The IS-MND concluded that the project would have less-than-significant impacts with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures in the various topic areas required by CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. As such, the City of Piedmont has determined that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA assessment. Adjourn Members of the public may participate in the meeting virtually in the following ways:

2 • Computer or smart phone: Click on https://piedmont-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81433792168 • Telephone: Dial (669) 900-9128 and enter webinar/meeting number 814 3379 2168 To comment using the Zoom platform, click the “Raise Your Hand” button to request to speak when public comment is being taken. You will be asked to unmute yourself when it is your turn to make your comment. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. If you are dialing in by telephone, dial *9 to request to speak and *6 to unmute yourself when called. The meeting is also available for life and archived viewing on the City’s website at https://piedmont.ca.gov/government/meeting_videos as well as on KCOM TV, Comcast Channel 27 or AT&T UVerse Channel 99. Agenda Item Material The materials for the agenda items listed above are available for review upon request by contacting Planning & Building Director Kevin Jackson at kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov. A response will be provided during regular business hours 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Procedural Notes 1. The Planning Commission welcomes you to its meeting which is regularly scheduled for the second Monday of each month. Your interest and participation are encouraged and appreciated. Members of the public will have an opportunity to be heard during the public portion of a hearing. While it is not mandatory, you are requested to give your name and address, comments and/or questions. In order that all interested parties have an opportunity to speak, please limit your comments to the specific subject under discussion. Time limitations are generally three minutes but shall be at the discretion of the Chairperson. You are not required to give your name and address, but doing so makes the meeting more efficient, enables the recording secretary to properly attribute comments in the meeting minutes, and will enable the City to send future notices concerning this application if there are any. 2. Applications are generally scheduled in the order in which they were submitted, but the Planning Commission reserves the right to change the order of applications on the agenda or change items from one calendar to the other without further notice. Each applicant is advised that if her or his representative is not present to speak to this application, her or his application may be acted upon and possibly denied. This meeting is required to end at or before 11:30 p.m. unless a majority of the Commission votes to continue the meeting. If your item has not been heard prior to the 11:30 p.m. deadline, your item may be continued to a future meeting. 3. APPEAL – Any decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Piedmont City Code may be appealed by any interested party within ten (10) days to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Division 17.78, Appeals; Calls for review. 4. The Planning Commission may take a dinner break at approximately 7:00 pm. Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email the City Clerk at cityclerk@piedmont.ca.gov or call (510) 420- 3040 who will make their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. Information about reasonable accommodations is available on the City website at https://piedmont.ca.gov. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II] In accordance with G.C. Sec. 54954.2 (a) this notice, and agenda were posted on the City Hall bulletin board and also on the Piedmont Veterans Hall on October 14, 2024.