Does Piedmont have a City, Council, or Staff Attorney?

Piedmont’s long-standing City Attorney, Michelle Kenyon, retired this month. Piedmonters didn’t get a good look at her work – most of the legal analysis she prepared was not available to the public under attorney-client privilege, and the more complex legal matters for the city were contracted out to specialists. She frequently did provide advice on the Brown Act and synthesize convoluted Council discussions into motions.

Kenyon’s one legal interpretation made available to residents was a memo regarding the city’s charter requirement that a vote be taken when a zone (single-family residential, commercial etc) was to be changed. (Piedmont is a charter city which requires its citizenry to vote when the use or size of a zone is changed: https://www.piedmontcivic.org/category/pca-commentary/). In a nutshell, Kenyon determined that a zoning “change” meant only a change to the area of the zone and not what went on within it, the zone’s designated use. For example, as long as your neighbor’s 10,000 sq foot lot didn’t change in size, it could be rezoned for any activity – residential, commercial or governmental – without a vote of the Piedmont citizens. She bolstered this interpretation by citing long-standing Council approvals of conditional use permits as evidence that a zoning change did not require a vote, equating a single conditional lot use with wholescale zone use. Her interpretation was counter to that of a prior city attorney:

“Staff is correct on the general scope of the Council’s legislative authority. I was the deputy City Attorney for Piedmont for many years and advised the planning department. I was also the City Attorney in Orinda for 11years, until 2006. In both cities, I had a major role in the creation of new zoning codes. In Piedmont, the boundaries of a zone and the general land use within the zone are subject to voter approval. The City Council decides the specific rules and regulations within any zone, but the rules and regulations must be consistent with the charter description of authorized uses in a zone.” June 7, 2012

For background on the city charter see: (https://www.piedmontcivic.org/2022/07/26/piedmont-city-council-rejects-voter-control-over-zoning-reclassifications/) and the adjoining attachment for Kenyon’s analysis and a critique.

Recently the new City Attorney, Deepa Charma, provided guidance on potential State Water Board penalties when City Council voted to close the Linda Park Dog run. As background, the City had received a complaint of stormwater run-off from the dog run from a neighbor but had not in fact been cited for this by the Water Board. When asked by Councilmember Ramsey to speak more about the potential penalties, she did just that, failing to mention that the City was not facing them at the time nor that such penalties are only applied as a last resort in mediation of cited violations. Internal Water Board emails clearly show that the Board had not discussed penalties with the city and was in fact surprised by the abrupt closing:

“We received complaints from a member of the public about erosion and dog waste at the park, and Ali reviewed conditions at the park and determined that the sediment and dog waste could discharge to a nearby storm drain inlet (and probably does during the rainy season). Ali reached out to the City to pass along both the complaint and his concerns. The City let him know about some interim measures they had implemented. They weren’t adequate, so Ali asked them to develop a plan to make more permanent, long-term improvements and we agreed with the City on a due date. The City developed three options, but before they submitted the plan to us, apparently the City Council chose the option that stopped dog use. This was a surprise to us, as we thought they were on the path to making changes to continue the dog use there. Ali’s engagement was constructive and we never discussed fines/penalties with them. Our conversation was around the measures needed to have a dog park that’s not discharging sediment or dog waste to the storm drain.”
Internal Water Board memo, April 24, 2025
https://piedmontpov.com/linda-dog-park-closure-service-and-process/

Neither City Attorney was anywhere to be found during the hearings on the proposed electric vehicle charging hub at the closed Shell gas station on Wildwood Avenue. Many hearings were held at the Planning Commission and City Council with neighbors pleading for limited hours of use (6:00 am – 10:00 pm) as opposed to the 24/7 operation proposed by Shell. The limited hours were finally approved by City Council. 10 months later on Sep 22 the neighbors were informed by the City that Shell had asserted its rights under state law (CGCS 65850.1 and 65850.71) and will be operating the charging hub 24 hours a day. Also the aesthetic element of canopies over the charging stations and air for tires was removed by Shell. Turns out, to advance the development of electric vehicle charging capacity throughout California there are state laws initially enacted in 2015 that prohibit local jurisdictions from putting restrictions on the operations of charging stations. In other words, the approval of charging hubs is a ministerial decision for municipalities, something the Planning Department routinely laments when it is setting housing policies. With the law on the books since 2015, why was this state authority not highlighted by the City Attorney at the hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council that drew such strong neighbor involvement? Residents and Council should have been informed by the City Attorney of this critical information.

What these three examples of legal service have in common is that they show the city attorney does not always represents the interest of city residents. To the contrary, the city attorney renders decisions that serve city staff. In the case of the charter, Kenyon was working with a city administrator with a background in community development who didn’t want the opinion of residents on how to rezone Piedmont. Her tortuous interpretation of the word “change” and conflated history of conditional use permits provided City Council enough wiggle-room to avoid a vote. With the Linda Avenue dog park, the head of Public Works either didn’t have the bandwidth or know-how to solve problems at the park so chose to have the park permanently closed. Shaded advice from Charma about non-existent fines persuaded Council to eliminate the dog park. It’s hard to tell who in City Hall is pulling the strings on the charging hub. Perhaps Council to show it was “fighting” for the neighbors with its groundless decision to limit hours?

So, judging from this history, Piedmont has a staff attorney, not a city attorney. It does have a City Council though, 4 of whom are attorneys. Perhaps they can serve as city attorney and do a better job of cross-examining the staff attorney in the future.