“…housing is strictly a matter for local officials.”

“(T)his court finds that the (Housing Accountability Act) is unenforceable to the extent the HAA conflicts with or purports to disregard otherwise enforceable portions of the city’s Municipal Code regarding review of housing development projects,” Judge George Miram ruled.

In its December 7 editorial the Chronicle’s Editorial Board warned that the ruling’s “startling conclusion” is a threat to housing construction in charter cities across California.  “In charter cities, the judge ruled, housing is strictly a matter for local officials.”

“This is a dramatic challenge to state officials. It has the potential to derail their authority not just in San Mateo but in more than 120 charter cities across California.” Read the Editorial here.

On November 21, 2019, the Bay Area Council asked Attorney General Xavier Becerra to request a rehearing of the case.  The Council noted “A terrible and misguided court decision in San Mateo County threatens to undo and undermine a raft of recent [housing] legislation …”

“In a stunning judgement, Miram effectively ruled that the state does not have a role in guiding or enforcing zoning, land use and permitting decisions in cities that are governed under their own charters.”

Local Control and the Opportunity for Meaningful Citizen Input into Planning is a Problematic Issue  in Piedmont.

Piedmont neighborhood groups have complained of lack of citizen input and local control when faced with changes that raised health concerns, destruction of views, harm to aesthetics, loss in property values on Maxwelton and elsewhere. When residents offered modifications to improve projects Planning Commissioners supported, they lost on appeal.  Others complained to no avail, when told they “cannot comment on” proposed development.

700 local citizens signed a petition in opposition to the proposed dispersal of cell towers (68 cell towers ultimately envisioned spread across virtually every street in Piedmont).  Resident Bruce Mowat opined that the response would change, “Once those ‘Above Highland’ realize that most of the future 68 sites will be sited on locations like Seaview, Hampton, St. James, Estates, etc.”

Piedmont’s Staff and City Council have been eager to maximize increased housing in Piedmont.

Under the leadership of City staff, Piedmont has surged ahead of many California communities in prodding Piedmont homeowners to build additional housing units on their property.  Ignoring the citizen argument that Piedmont’s status as a Charter City gave it more autonomy and self-determination, State goals to drastically erode single-family neighborhoods were embraced.  Standard off-street parking requirements have been ignored, modified or eliminated.  Neighbor privacy concerns have been brushed aside along with safety and property line violations. 

Zoning laws per Piedmont’s City Charter have been forfeited in the multi-family, single-family, and commercial zones.

“An effort to take legal action against San Mateo for the City Council’s decision to reject a proposal to build a 10-unit condominium building off El Camino Real in 2018 hit a stumbling block earlier this month when a judge ruled the city did not violate the Housing Accountability Act when the council denied the project’s approval based on height differences between properties.”

Read the whole Peninsula Daily Journal article here

The San Francisco Chronicle December 5 report “California Could Lose Housing Leverage over Cities under Court Ruling” suggests Piedmont was overeager to modify its zoning regulations:

A judge’s ruling in San Mateo County is raising fears among developers and advocates for more housing construction that the state will lose its leverage for forcing cities to build their way out of California’s affordability crisis. The judge said the city of San Mateo was not obligated to follow a state law on housing approvals because it is a charter city — a system that gives local governments greater control over their own affairs. There are more than 120 charter cities in California and housing is tight in many of them, including San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose.

California Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) issued a statement against the San Mateo County Superior Court ruling exempting charter cities from the requirements to impose multi-family projects in all neighborhoods and essentially eliminate single family zoning:

“The San Mateo trial court’s ruling exempting charter cities from a key component of our housing laws is disappointing and patently ignores the very real need for more affordable housing in our communities. We want local governments to act in partnership with the state to address our housing and homelessness crisis. California has provided more than $1 billion to local governments over the past two years alone to streamline local procedures, update planning documents, and provide infrastructure financing to accompany new housing.”

Piedmonters have observed numerous changes in Piedmont’s single-family zoning with the proliferation of vehicles parked on city streets and reduced or eliminated on-site parking requirements. State requirements do not allow notification of neighbors when new housing units are added to single-family dwellings or requirements for off-street parking.

At the December 2, 2019 Piedmont City Council meeting, Councilmember Betsy Andersen enthusiastically welcomed “a good thing,” Piedmont’s receipt of an SB 2 state grant to streamline the production increase of two-family housing and multi-family housing projects in Piedmont.++

Information on SB 2 – 

https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2019/May/SB-2-Planning-Grants-Are-Available-Find-out-How-t

https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/planning-grants.shtml

Special Piedmont Unified School District Board Workshop 

on Student Stress (AP and Honors Courses, Homework, Grades, College Admissions):

Monday, December 9, 2019

3:30 pm – 6:30 pm

760 Magnolia Avenue, Piedmont School District Conference Room

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

For more information, contact 510/594-2607

Thanks go to those attending the Climate Challenge Showcase on November 7!!

City staff was so impressed by the high turnout, and by the palpable excitement you showed to reduce our greenhouse gas footprint. Every day on this job reminds us all what a special community we serve, and the community’s dedication was especially apparent on November 7.

On that note, the City set a very ambitious goal for the Challenge – 200 households signed up in six months – but Piedmonters have gone above and beyond again. Residents have already met the goal, just a month and a half into the Challenge. Congratulations!!

With support, the City has decided to take even more ambitious action. We are increasing the goal to 300 households by March. If you have friends or neighbors who have not yet joined the Challenge, please tell them about it and encourage them to join!

We are also turning our attention to emissions reduction. We’re asking residents to reduce emissions by 450 tons of CO2 by March 2020. This will be a tough goal to meet, even considering the amazing work being done to reduce emissions. The City is here to help – Assistant Planner Mira Hahn and I are at City Hall (120 Vista Avenue), ready to brainstorm ideas, and we will be sending out tips to reduce emissions once a month between now and March.

In the end, though, it will be up to all of you to meet this tough goal. Luckily, Piedmonters are an incredibly dedicated and conscientious lot – we have full faith that you will rise to this challenge and greatly reduce Piedmont’s emissions, to secure a better future for coming generations.

Why Join?

Go to > https://www.piedmontclimatechallenge.org/

Let’s give this everything we’ve got.

Sincerely,

Justin Szasz

CivicSpark Climate Fellow, City of Piedmont

Phone: (510) 420-3085 for more information.

On Wednesday, November 18th, I went to my first Recreation Commission meeting. I am a student at Piedmont High School and I had to do something that contributed to government in some way for my Civics Class. I honestly thought it was going be pretty boring, but I was happily surprised.

The Recreation Commission meets once a month. They deal with all matters pertaining to public recreation, including parks, playgrounds,etc.  More specifically, they deal with maintaining and creating areas in Piedmont. In the meeting I attended, they talked about Pickleball and maintenance of Coaches Field. 

Two of my Friends, my brother and I left for the meeting and arrived at 8:00 PM. We took the seats in the back and waited for the members of the commission to get started. There were 7 commissioners and 5 other people who attended the meeting. The commission was led by Steve Roland.  He directed the meeting.

It started off with Jackson Sterns talking about sports programs struggling to get kids involved. Dick Carter, a commissioner, mentioned the poor conditions of Witter Field, specifically the turf, which is poorly maintained.

The main meeting topic was a discussion of Pickleball. One of the people attending the meeting complained about there not being enough time to play because of the lights turning off too quickly. He also talked about how Pickleball and tennis players were getting along pretty well. Pickleball has exploded and become very popular.

During this time, we decided to go up and speak. My friend, Holden, spoke about water polo. My brother, Pierce St.Claire, Georgie Brayer, and I talked about the conditions of Witter Field. All of us have played sports and used Witter Field extensively during our time in the Piedmont School system. The field is clearly overdue for serious maintenance.

It was super fun talking and attending the meeting. I enjoyed the various subjects and learning about the growth of PickleBall.

While we were able to communicate our concerns about Witter Field, We didn’t realize that it was actually a School Board issue, not under the jurisdiction of the Recreation Commission. Even though we didn’t go about it conventionally, the commission was happy that we attended and they were really respectful to our blunder.

I found the experience to be very educational.  I learned a lot about public meetings and forums and I am very glad to have attended!

Robert St.Claire, Piedmont High School Senior

Council relents and removes the language change in the  proposed Special Municipal Parcel Tax Ordinance to be voted on at the March 3, 2020, Primary Election.

On December 2, 2019, Piedmont’s contract City Attorney, Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, continued to maintain her opinion that the proposed language change was not substantive.  Her opinion was disagreed with by many in Piedmont.

Vice Mayor Teddy King noted her concern over changing the language if the result was the same, for it added voter confusion. She stated many residents had stated the change from INCLUDING  to MAY INCLUDE was substantive.

Speakers Hedi Gerken, Kathleen Quenneville, and Liane Campodonico agreed with King, that the language should not be changed, while voicing it would be a substantive change allowing services to be dropped by the Council.  The Council had also received opposition to the language change by  emails, letters, and comments.

Council member Betsy Andersen, an attorney, stated she had proposed the change to clarify language, but withdrew her proposal upon believing flexible options would be available, and there would be no guarantee of funding for the named services.  

Questions were raised as to whether or not the 9 listed service items would be funded, if funds were available.  The answer appeared unclear. Some had  assumed that the parcel tax funds were delineated as a funding source for specific services; however, it has been Council practice during their May budget sessions to pool funds rather than specifically assigning the parcel taxes to specific services. During the budget sessions, the Council makes a determination on whether or not the parcel tax needs to be levied to support city services.

Services named in the ordinance are:

• police and fire protection,
• street maintenance,
• building regulations,
• library services,
• recreation,
• parks maintenance,
• planning and public works
• and similar services.

The Special Election for the parcel tax will held on March 3, 2020. Mayor Bob McBain and Council member Jennifer Cavenaugh will write the supporting arguments in the “Voter Information Guide.”  

Opposition arguments for the “Voter Information Guide” are due to the City Clerk on December 13, 2019, with rebuttals due on December 20, 2019.  For specific information contact the City Clerk, John Tulloch at 510/420-3040. 

Click > Notice of Election – 2020 Special Municipal – Measure for official ballot language and election protocols.

“Agenda Insight” to be presented before December 2, 2019 City Council meeting:

Item 3, the first item on tonight’s regular agenda, is the second reading of Ordinance 746 N.S. to renew the Municipal Services special Tax for 4 years effective July 1, 2021, and to place this before voters in a special election on March 3,2020, consolidated with the California Presidential Primary on that date….

Although most aspects of this renewal reflect no change, there is a word change that appears to have an impact. The wording of the present parcel tax says, “If in any fiscal year the City Council shall determine that municipal services INCLUDING but not limited to…” and then it names 9 services which must be included in general fund expenditures, with support from the parcel tax if other city income isn’t sufficient to cover them.

At the first reading of this ordinance, last meeting, that language was changed to, “municipal services which MAY INCLUDE but are not limited to..” and then lists the same 9 services. The staff report calls this a non-substantive change, but many people read it as a very substantive change because it gives Council the flexibility to remove any service from this list. The 9 services are police, fire, street maintenance, building regulations, library, recreation, parks maintenance, planning, and public works.

If the Council wants to put this on the March ballot, they must pass the second reading tonight because they are up against a deadline for submitting the final ballot language to the Registrar of Voters…..

Item 4 is consideration of a resolution approving procedural details for the Special Election of March 3… Of particular interest to voters, this item also sets the 75 word ballot question to read, “Shall Ordinance 746 N.S. which maintains essential police, fire, and paramedic services, prevents the reduction in maintenance of City parks, greenspaces and other public areas, and prevents the loss of recreational and other public services, by renewing the City of Piedmont’s expiring parcel tax for four years… be adopted?”

….Interestingly enough, this ballot language is almost the same language we voted on in 2016, so all 9 services were not mentioned last time around either. However, in both 2016 and 2020, it is the language of the resolution we are voting on, not the 75-word summary, and the language of the resolution has changed.

Ann Chandler, Piedmont Resident