If you have not already voted in the November 8th City Council election, here are some of the pressing issues, in random, not priority order, the new City Council majority will be addressing:

• Adding 587 new dwelling units in Piedmont
• Following the Piedmont City Charter on voters rights, zoning, budgets, loans, administrative authority
• Hiring a new City Administrator
• Completing the Aquatic Center on time and within budget
• Providing transparent open and available processes by the Council, Committees, and Commissions
• Adherence to the California Brown Act, sunshine law
• Encouraging diversity, inclusion and opportunity
• Protecting Piedmont’s historic architecture and character
• Supporting Piedmont’s urban forest and sustainability
• Improving street and sidewalk conditions for vehicles and pedestrians
• Evaluating utility undergrounding for all of Piedmont
• Improving Police and Fire Department facilities
• Providing safety and protection for Piedmonters
• Controlling costs

READ the candidate’s official statements beside their photographs.

Six candidates are seeking election to three seats on the Piedmont City Council. Voters can vote for up to three of the candidates. The election is on Tuesday, November 8, 2022. The candidates are shown below in alphabetical order with their ballot statements copied beside their photographs.

Betsy Smegal Andersen

City Council Member

My education and qualifications are: My priorities on the Piedmont City Council have been community health and safety, financial stability, and strong city-school relations. During my time on Council, we have renovated Hampton Park and the Corey Reich Tennis Center, invested $3.75M for future pension needs, facilitated in-town COVID-19 testing, allocated funds to modernize police and fire dispatch, and maintained a balanced budget. Currently, we are rebuilding the city-owned Piedmont Community Pool, thanks to voter-approved Measure UU. As a lifelong resident, I appreciate the challenges and opportunities as we develop strategies to meet our climate action goals, address the state housing crisis, and replace aging infrastructure. Prior to serving on Council, I volunteered on the Public Safety Committee to promote emergency preparedness and chaired the Recreation Commission with a focus on improving recreational facilities and opportunities for all ages. I attended Piedmont public schools, majored in Public Policy at Duke, earned my law degree from UCLA, and practiced law for nearly two decades. My husband, Robert, and I raised our daughters here, Jane (PHS ’18) and Ellie (PHS ’21). If re-elected, I will continue to listen thoughtfully to all voices as we work together to strengthen the community we call home

 

Nancy “Sunny” Bostrom-Fleming

My education and qualifications are: Once upon a time there was a chubby little rich boy who lived in a mansion. He was driven in a limousine to school where he faced name calling, shoving, pinching. His mother sang, taught him piano & knitted him sweaters. He earned two doctorates. One music, one in theology, trained as a Presbyterian minister, married, had two children, four grandchildren, & millions of stepchildren. You might be one of them. His name was Fred Rogers and he lives in your heart. He never forgot the pain he experienced when he was helpless as we all have been or will be. His sweater is at the Smithsonian. My name is Sunny. I ran before. I promoted cameras at Piedmont’s entrances that keep your family & pets safer. My father taught me to swim when I was six months old. When I went to Katrina to help I realized that African-Americans are at a great & deadly disadvantage as far as swimming education is concerned. We can start a program to promote water safety for all children in America, saving thousands of lives. The issues before us are among the most important in our histor

Jennifer Long

Appointed City Council Member

My education and qualifications are: I am running for City Council to serve our beautiful community and maintain its greatness as it grows and evolves. With an impending pool build, critical infrastructure repair (and or replacement) and housing development, Piedmont is poised to be a city with the future in mind. In these unprecedented times, our city needs leaders who understand the interests of our citizens to maintain its excellent schools and outstanding public services such as the police and fire department. My perspective as a current member of the council and my direct engagement with the Piedmont community allow me to get to the essence of what is needed to create and maintain a safe, inclusive, and fiscally-sound community. My experience as a current city council member, attorney and life coach provide me with a solid foundation to tackle the matters that lie ahead for Piedmont. Through my work in various community organizations and with my connections to a variety of community members from sports teams to schools, I have a deep understanding of what makes Piedmont the outstanding community we all love and how to make it evolve into a city we will continue to be proud of in the future.

Bridget McInerney Harris

Estate Planning Attorney

My  education and qualifications are: I seek election to the City Council to serve the community with a strong commitment to public safety, fiscal discipline, realistic growth and common sense. I believe we can improve our community’s engagement regarding the increased housing requirement imposed by California by introducing more public forums and clear accessible diagrams of what is being discussed and debated. Importantly, I would advocate that all residents should vote before any park or city land is used for multi-family units within the city of Piedmont. Another top priority is public safety with additional support for the police and fire departments; improving both facilities and funding. I would be honored to put my knowledge, work ethic, and love for Piedmont to work as your City Council member. I earned my B.S. from the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, my JD from Gonzaga University, and my Taxation LLM from Georgetown University. I have practiced tax law locally for more than 40 years. We have resided in Piedmont since 1986, raising our four children here. I serve on the Executive Boards of the Piedmont Boy Scouts and Order of Malta Clinic in Oakland, a provider of free medical care to uninsured patients in our community.

Tom Ramsey

Architect

My education and qualifications are: Piedmont’s a great town. 25 years ago, my family moved here for the public schools, and now that our daughters graduated PHS, we stayed for the friendships, location, and services delivered by the city. I value safe neighborhoods, and I expect fiscal responsibility. Our town does have work to do. We have a pool to build as construction costs increase. We have public facilities with deferred maintenance issues. We have the difficult task of navigating the state mandates for housing density in a small town already built out and full of beautiful historic homes and civic buildings. I’m an architect, a problem solver and for over 30 years I’ve been building and leading diverse teams around the Bay Area. I’ll leverage my professional experience and my seven years on the planning commission to continue to accommodate growth while preserving Piedmont’s physical character. I’ve served on committees: Seismic Advisory, Design Guidelines, Measure A1 and I’ve worked with Piedmont’s youth through Scouting’s Community Service Crew for over a decade. I’m confident that when our town is fully engaged and works together, we can successfully resolve the issues in front of us; that’s what makes Piedmont a great town. vote4tomramsey.com

Jeanne Solnordal

Broker

My education and qualifications are: I am running for the City Council to bring a much-needed perspective and balance to our beautiful city. Many voices are underrepresented, especially those residents who oppose the plan to add 587 units of affordable housing to Piedmont at a cost of around $850,000 per unit. I am well-educated, having earned a Juris Doctorate degree in 1994 after working for the IRS for 18 years. In 1994 I obtained a Broker’s license and established a property management company which I still run. My legal (landlord/tenant) and tax accounting experience will be very helpful to Piedmont going forward. I will work to prioritize the city’s needs and will be fiscally responsible with your hard earned taxpayer dollars. My family has lived in Piedmont since 2002 and our children attended Piedmont schools. I served as a Girl Scout leader, President of Millennium Parents Club, a school volunteer, and assisted in organizing the Spring Flings and Harvest Festival. Currently, I am serving on the Public Safety Committee. Piedmont is a unique and desirable place to live. Let’s keep it that way.

If you have not already voted in the November 8th School Board Election, below are listed, in random, not priority order, some of the pressing issues the new School Board members will face;

• Hiring a new superintendent
• Teacher contracts – compensation and conditions
• Open enrollment – out of Piedmont admissions
• Student and teacher retention
• Budgetary controls
• Communication with parents and the community
• Diversity, inclusion and opportunity
• Safety on campuses 
• Excellence in education for all students
• Healthy learning environment
• Counseling for all students
• Completion of new facilities
• Working collaboratively with the City
• Open transparent governing

Shirley Hooi

Entrepreneur/Businesswoman/Mother

My education and qualifications are: COVID-related online learning has forced PUSD students to endure an unprecedented period of educational losses and mental stress. Now is a crucial period to help our students get back on track. I believe that parent, student and community member involvement in school board decisions is critical. Their opinions should be considered in the selection of the superintendent, along with issues regarding school curriculum and teacher retention/recruitment. As a product of the Oakland Unified School District, PUSD was regarded as the epitome of an exceptional public school education. Families strived to move to Piedmont to raise their children in a community in which a public school education was comparable to the local private schools. Unfortunately this has changed and PUSD continues to lose students to local private schools every year. My immigrant parents instilled in their children the belief of education and hard work as a path out of poverty. Now as a PUSD parent, it is my role to instill the same beliefs upon my children. If you support this philosophy, now is the time for me to be your voice on the school board. Get Involved: www.shirleyhooi.com

Ruchi Medhekar

Healthcare Executive/Parent

My education and qualifications are: I’m running for school board for four primary reasons: i) to strengthen district academics at all grade levels, ii) to foster curiosity and creative thinking in our students; iii) to strengthen positive relationships between teachers, administrators, and parents; and iv) to provide equitable opportunities that promote students’ emotional well-being. I have benefited tremendously from a strong STEAM education – graduating from MIT with undergraduate degrees in biology and chemical engineering, and a PhD in microbiology from UCLA. Currently, I work for a healthcare IT company, responsible for product and strategy. I grew up in the Bay Area and have lived in Piedmont since 2016. My husband is a local physician, and our daughters are in kindergarten and 4th grade at Beach. I’ve volunteered in many capacities at Beach, for PUSD, and our city: as classroom parent, VP and president of the Beach Parents Organization, on the Tri-School Site Council, Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) Committee, and the district’s Budget Advisory Committee. I am on the board of the Piedmont Education Foundation and on the Piedmont Recreation Commission. These opportunities have helped me understand the needs of different stakeholders in the district, which will be invaluable in achieving my goals.

Lindsay Thomasson

Parent

My education and qualifications are: As the parent of students currently at PMS, Havens, and in preschool, I have held numerous volunteer roles over the past five years, giving me a robust understanding of how our district works, its strengths and weaknesses. I served as Havens’ Parent Club President, on the LCAP Committee, Superintendent Community Advisory Committee, and Wellness Center Committee, to name a few. As a member of PUSD’s Board of Education, my priorities would be to ensure PUSD has the leadership and resources to provide students an excellent, well-rounded academic experience, including the hiring of a superintendent aligned in our goals, and attracting and retaining well-qualified, diverse, engaged educators. This will allow PUSD to truly equip students with the essential critical-thinking, STEAM, and language arts skills needed to succeed at the universities and in the careers of their choosing. I have attended California public schools my entire life, culminating in degrees from Cal Berkeley and UCSD. Piedmont schools are the foundation of our community, yet the past three years have been divisive. To move forward we must engage in meaningful community dialogue, be pragmatic and creative, ensure all stakeholders are engaged in our decision-making processes, and always put students first.

Piedmont students demonstrated remarkable achievement overall on the CAASPP, ranking second among California unified school districts in English Language Arts (ELA) and third in Math.

(Piedmont, Ca., October 26, 2022) – Students in the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) rank near the top of the list among school districts in California taking part in the California Assessments of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP).

The CAASPP is a collection of computer-based assessments in English Language Arts/Literacy, Mathematics and now, Science. The CAASPP replaced the paper-based Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program beginning in 2014.

Last spring, Piedmont students in grades 3– 8, and 11, participated in the 2021-22 CAASPP for English Language Arts and Math. Students in grades 5, 8, and 12, participated in the Science test “CAST”.

The California Department of Education released school, district and state aggregate results on October 24, 2022.  Piedmont students demonstrated remarkable achievement overall on the CAASPP, ranking second among California unified school districts in English Language Arts (ELA) and third in Math.

Click below to view comparisons, scores, and links:

CAASPP Release.docx

PUSD Students Show Improvement in Local Reading Assessments (Piedmont, Ca., October 26, 2022) –

The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) reported local reading assessment data collected this fall to gauge the progress students made at all grade levels and where intervention and support may be needed. District reading benchmark assessments assess students’ progress toward end-of-year learning targets, inform teachers’ instruction, and provide valuable data for teachers and specialists to design intervention and extension lessons for students.

A summary of results is available by grade (View slidedeck).

When compared to 2021, PUSD students in grades 7-12 showed improvement in the combined percentage of students assessed as ‘advanced’ or ‘proficient,’ and in all grades but one, showed gains in the percentage of students assessed as ‘advanced.’

“With the many challenges students have faced over the past three years, to see these types of numbers and how, in many cases, they are increasing, is very encouraging,” said PUSD Interim Superintendent, Dr. Donald Evans. “That being said, our teachers and staff remain focused on ensuring every one of our students is reading at a high level and will continue working toward that goal.”

Fall Reading Data collection is an essential part of the process for providing intervention for students not meeting grade-level benchmarks. Using a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), teams of educators at each school site are able to develop a plan for how to support students and ensure they make the appropriate progress each year. PUSD is in its second year of developing systems of support districtwide and reading is the area of focus for 2022-23.

Reading Assessments

Piedmont Unified School District Press Release

Here’s my perspective on School Board Candidate Shirley Hooi’s Public Records request:

The school district is planning and in the process of making many changes to the curriculum and educational materials as part of anti-racist, anti-white privilege, and pro equity directives from their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Director and Director of Curriculum and Instruction.  Obviously, Shirley Hooi, or any candidate for school board, might find it useful to obtain educational materials from the school district.  Her request was a legitimate request made only a few days after announcing her candidacy.  The school district anticipates dozens of California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests throughout the year and allocates the appropriate resources to fulfill them in a timely manner.

In this digital era, where entire Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) textbooks are online, it’s reasonable to expect that the requested educational materials existed in digital format and thus would be producible via email.  Or that at least one physical copy of such materials is maintained in the district office.  So, it’s not obvious that the CPRA request was inordinately burdensome.   When Shirley became aware that her request was burdensome, she did reduce the scope of her request to just the most recent year.

There are excellent reasons why reasonable people are concerned about the quality of education at Piedmont schools. The California test scores, the state and national rankings, declines in enrollment, reports from various parent clubs, and the contents of Piedmont’s School Board meetings all indicate that Piedmont’s schools need to refocus their efforts on academics.    From my personal conversations with each of the school board candidates (over thirty minutes each), and from their presentations in various public forums, they all aim to have PUSD refocus efforts and return to the high-quality education previously produced.  The key difference among them is that Shirley Hooi believes the curriculum is delving into too many social areas that are traditionally the domain of parents.

Dai Meagher
Piedmont resident and PHS graduate

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Piedmont Police PRESS RELEASE

At 4:21 am this morning October 20, 2022, Police officers observed multiple wooden pallets on fire in the ACE Hardware parking lot on Grand Avenue. Officers worked to put the fire out with fire extinguishers and were assisted by the Piedmont Fire Department.

Later in the morning, Halloween decorations were lit on fire in the 300 block of Wildwood Avenue and the 100 block of Sierra Avenue.

No one was injured and there was minimal property damage in all the events.

An unknown subject was captured on video at the involved locations.

If you have any information related to this subject or additional video of unusual activity related to these events, please contact detectives at (510) 420-3000.

Joint Recreation Commission and Park Commission Agenda
Wednesday, October 19, 2022     7:30 p.m.

Consideration of a Recommendation to City Council on the Use of Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant Funding for Upgrades to the Piedmont Middle School Sport Courts, including Pickleball Court Improvements and Replacement of a Pedestrian Foot Bridge in Piedmont Park near Bushy Dell Creek – 

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend that the City Council revise the Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant Funding to include two projects: upgrades to the Piedmont Middle School (PMS) Sports Courts including Pickleball Court Improvements and replacement of a pedestrian foot bridge in Piedmont Park near Bushy Dell Creek

BACKGROUND:

On October 20, 2021, the Recreation and Park Commissions held a special virtual meeting to review the Prop. 68 Per Capita project proposal to create a new outdoor space in Piedmont Park. There was a robust discussion among Commissioners and the Joint Commissions voted 10-2 in favor of recommending the project to City Council.

Following the Commissions’ recommendation, the City Council on December 6, 2021 approved designation of the City’s share of Proposition 68 Per Capita grant funding for an outdoor Recreation Department preschool and public space near the Community Hall. Staff proceeded to finalize project costs for the grant application and worked with Coastland Engineers to develop plans and a cost estimate for the approved project. After careful evaluation of several options which included cost savings alternatives, the engineer’s estimate exceeded the grant amount by approximately $200k. With a project that substantially exceeded the grant funds, staff considered alternate projects that would be appropriate for this grant.

DISCUSSION:

The grant funds must be used as capital outlay for recreational purposes and grant recipients are encouraged to utilize the award to rehabilitate existing infrastructure and address deficiencies in neighborhoods lacking access to the outdoors. As part of the grant resolution for the acceptance of the State funds, the City is encouraged to take actions that promote diversity and inclusions in their parks.

Piedmont’s total combined grant allocation is $184,932. Because Piedmont does not qualify as a disadvantage community, the grant requires the City to contribute matching funds of $46, 233 which is 25% of the grant award resulting in a total project budget of $231, 165.

In reconsidering project designation for the grant, the Recreation and Public Works Departments reviewed projects that were shovel ready and would improve existing recreational and park facilities as well as serve multiple recreational users and park visitors.

Two projects are proposed for the grant funds:

Project 1: Additional upgrades to the Piedmont Middle School (PMS) Sport Courts including new plexipave acrylic athletic court surfacing over the existing asphalt surface, striping for pickleball, volleyball, street hockey, and badminton, new basketball back boards and padding, portable volleyball net system and a water bottle filling station.

Beginning in 2018, the Recreation Commission’s Subcommittee on Tennis Court Use and Pickleball reviewed the management of the City’s tennis facilities and programming as well as the growing interest in pickleball in Piedmont.

The subcommittee recognized the need for careful and specific planning to introduce a new recreational activity into a community with severe recreational space constraints. They performed diligent work over the course of seven months and arrived at a number of recommendations that were presented to and adopted by the Recreation Commission on January 16,2019 and City Council on March 4, 2019. Their primary recommendation for pickleball was to explore a partnership with PUSD to renovate the Physical Education (PE) hardcourt surfaces at PMS to create a first class pickleball facility with a tennis quality surface lined and painted, for use by school and public. The courts would allow for multiple uses including badminton and basketball, in addition to pickleball that could be open to the community during non-school hours.

The Capital Improvement Projects Committee (CIP) also recommended the PMS Sport Courts as one of their top three priority projects for consideration in their 2019 report delivered to Council at the May 11, 2019 City Budget Workshop. On June 3, 2019, the City Council approved a reimbursement and a use agreement with PUSD regarding Piedmont Middle School Sport Court renovations and Council approved an appropriation in the 2018-2019 fiscal year of $50,000 from the unallocated balance of the General Fund towards the removal of existing asphalt, grading and installation of new asphalt as well as installation of new net posts and nets on the three existing PMS Sport Court surfaces. Funding at the time was not adequate to include the desired “tennis quality surface” that was requested and recommended for courts of this type.

The project also included restriping the existing PE lines and the addition of striping for six regulation sized pickleball courts to be used with portable nets. Since the PMS Sport Courts were renovated and hours established for pickleball play at Hampton, Beach and PMS, the popularity and growth of pickleball in Piedmont (and nationally) has skyrocketed. Across the three sites where pickleball is played in Piedmont, approximately 1200 players use Piedmont courts each month (some playing for the first time and others playing multiple times per week).

While the interest in pickleball has expanded to all age groups, it is by far the largest older adult/senior activity offered in Piedmont. The PMS Sport Courts have provided for a highly used space for pickleball in Piedmont hosting about 700 players each month. The 6 courts also allow the pickleball group to offer tournament play twice per month, frequent clinics and a monthly community potluck. On Saturdays and Sundays, you will typically see 24 people playing and 24-32 players waiting to play.

Due to demand, PRD has recently added evening play at the PMS courts which has been well received with 3-4 courts always full. The PMS Sport Courts will continue to accommodate school Physical Education classes and activities and allow the Recreation Department to offer after school drop-in and structured programs for a variety of sports.

The loss of the Rec Basketball Courts due to the Community Pool project and requests to provide informal volleyball play near the schools will both be accommodated at the PMS Sport Courts. The improved striping and tennis court surface will provide users with a consistent surface, grip and traction while playing. The improvements funded by the grant would be managed entirely by PUSD, with the City reimbursing PUSD up to $100,000 for expenses related to resurfacing, striping, basketball backboards with padding, portable volleyball net system and a water bottle filling station. PUSD will absorb the cost of construction management and long-term maintenance.

Project 2: Replacement of a pedestrian foot bridge in Piedmont Park near Bushy Dell Creek Within Piedmont Park, a small creek tributary crosses one of the main paths near where Bushy Dell Creek enters the culvert adjacent to PUSD softball field.

A wood pedestrian bridge, estimated to be over 20 years old spans the tributary. This bridge was first identified as being deficient in 2015 and a funding source has yet to be identified. The wood decking was temporarily patched with plywood as the decking was in need of repair and in 2019, Public Works contacted several contractors and explored options for replacing the bridge. Due to the location and access, it was determined that the bridge could not be prefabricated and craned into place, but the replacement would involve a custom design to fit the site conditions.

Early discussions on bridge replacement were halted during the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2022, Public Works staff has worked with Pacific General Engineering to prepare preliminary designs and a cost estimate to replace the bridge, install new abutments and include handrails that comply with current building code. The proposed bridge will utilize steel beams and wood components for the decking and the handrail. Final design and an engineer’s estimate will be prepared by the city engineer. The new bridge installation will require adjustments to the existing path and limited landscape repair adjacent to the new structure. The grant will be used to cover the fabrication and installation of the bridge and the repair and upgrades to the landscape and path adjacent to the bridge. Grant, funding for the bridge and associated landscape improvements will be approximately $150k and will expend the remainder of the grant.

READ THE FULL REPORT AND AGENDA DETAILS FOR PARTICIPATION LINKED BELOW:

10-19-22 Joint Recreation and Park Commission Meeting

City must adopt a substantially-compliant Housing Element in three months.

Piedmont is required under State law to adopt a compliant Housing Element by January 31, 2023, or the City will be subject to severe penalties, including loss of much zoning control the very next day.   I don’t think decision-makers or the community are fully tuned into the gravity of the situation.

The laws are not the same as they were five or six years ago, so this lack of awareness may stem from not having experienced this situation before. However, the world has changed. Given the lack of movement on the Housing Element, we are headed toward a train wreck, and all of the granular discussions and work on the element may be moot if the City does not adopt a substantially-compliant Housing Element in three months.

The State Dept of Housing and Community Development (HCD) just clarified 10 days ago that the 120-day grace period that we as a community have been told the City has applies only to the shortened zoning implementation period (one year vs. three years). Everything else, including the dreaded “builder’s remedy” that was enacted by the State in 2019 under which a City loses zoning control, kicks in the following day. See letter from the State to this effect regarding San Francisco here https://twitter.com/derivativeburke/status/1578070771972247552/photo/1

So, come February 1, 2023, anyone can propose any building of any height anywhere, and as long as there is a modest affordable component, they don’t need to comply with zoning regulations, and the City would have no power to deny it. It doesn’t matter what height or setbacks the proposed development has. Santa Monica has seen 4,000 non-zoning compliant housing units—many of them 10 to 15 stories in the middle of neighborhoods—approved in just the eight months their element has not been in compliance. See https://smdp.com/2022/10/12/new-15-story-project-automatically-approved-due-to-late-housing-element/ There are numerous such examples from Southern California where Housing Element deadlines were a year or two ahead of ours, and undoubtedly we will see the same happen in the Bay Area come early next year.

Even if the City has a certified element say by May of next year, if someone files a development application in April, they would be grandfathered and the City would not be able to deny these projects. They just need to get the application in. These projects are not subject to non-objective design review under State law, so nothing can hold them back.

We are already out of time to have a State-certified Housing Element by January end, given that HCD has 90 days to review a first draft and the City has not turned one in. The City can, however, still adopt a substantially-compliant element by the due date and continue to seek State certification. While ideally the City should have State certification as proof of its compliance, it can still assert substantial compliance with State laws while certification is sought. We can do this soon by using the last Housing Element draft and updating housing sites with the direction the Council provided in early summer, and then sending this for HCD review. If there are changes that result from HCD review, the City would make changes, and re-adopt.

Many community members have disagreements with aspects of the current proposal, as do I (I think densities along Grand can be much higher in five- or six-story buildings and along Highland in say four stories than what staff proposals state, numbers in Moraga Canyon should be lower as that area is not walkable or accessible to services and has steep slopes, and the City should also encourage small-plexes in existing neighborhoods). But the broader interest of the community rests on having a compliant, adopted element in place.

Some have pointed that the City Charter demands a vote on allowing multifamily housing on Public lands. They are right, and anyone with a straight reading of the Charter would come to the same conclusion. But if City rules (whether through charter or a City Council action) run afoul of State laws and the City is not able to fulfill its RHNA obligations and have a Housing Element in place in time, all that is irrelevant. Recent court cases do not favor local opposition to State rules. We are also past the time for a vote, even though technically the Charter demands it, and the City leadership should have been attuned to this much earlier. But now waiting for a vote or inaction otherwise will result in alternatives that are much worse. We are running out of time to stop someone from proposing 15-story buildings along Grand or Highland avenues, or maybe a five story-one next to your house, resulting in totally unplanned, non-cohesive development.

All cities are racing to adopt the Housing Element by the January 31st deadline. Just Google San Francisco or Oakland Housing Element and you will find dozens of articles. This should be the single highest priority in the community right now. We need THIS council to move on this now and for the NEXT Council in January to keep marching with this in the broader community interest, regardless of what happens in the upcoming elections. Not to mention our obligations under State law to meet our share of regional housing need and support housing for a diversity of incomes.

Rajeev Bhatia, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

City Council to Consider Pool Bid Rejection October 17

The project team recommends rejecting the current bids for construction of the new Aquatic Complex at the October 17 meeting because all of the bids came in over the combined total of the bond allocation plus other available funds.  The lowest bid is $24.6 million.  Measure UU, approved by Piedmont voters in November 2020, authorized the sale of $19.5 million in general obligation bonds.

Numerous Piedmonters and professionals in the design and construction field, have questioned the likelihood of the Aquatic Center projected costs meeting the available funds.  Supply chain issues and labor shortages have contributed to the rise in cost of construction at this time,

Between July 2020 and July 2022, the California Construction Cost Index increased by 30%, making this a difficult time to undertake a significant construction project such as Piedmont’s proposed Aquatic Complex.

Read more:

https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=19022654

https://piedmont.ca.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalId=13659823&pageId=19026121

READ AGENDA HERE.

Why does the City Council want to take away voter control over Piedmont zoning? An elaborate effort is in progress to remove voters from deciding proposed zoning changes.

Do voters comprehend that the end of single-family zoning controlled by voters is currently being proposed by the City Council?

The City Council could have proposed to legitimately change the Charter language to take zoning control away from voters.  However, this action was not included in the recent ballot measure proposing numerous Charter changes.  The changes were approved by Piedmont voters.

The State requires 587 new housing sites in Piedmont.  The State does not specify how or where these units will go. And despite Piedmont’s recognized hilly terrain, substandard streets, and built-out condition, Piedmont needs to find areas within the City where the housing can be built.  Piedmont government does not have to build the units, but conditions and land must be available to all qualified entities (whether individual property owners or developer companies or non-profit corporations) to build the 587 housing units.

Piedmont is somewhat unique in that the City Charter does not bestow on the City Council the right to make the proposed zoning changes, unless approved by Piedmont voters. The State does not take voter rights away, for the State only requires complying with the regulations for building the 587 dwelling units. 

The City Council, not the State, is the government entity proposing to take voters rights away by changing zoning without voter approval.  

Piedmonts have for numerous decades retained the right  by law under the City Charter to control the zoning changes as proposed by the City Council in the Housing Element.  The City Council is not permitted to make the proposed zoning changes unless approved by the voters. 

Many want Piedmont voters to adhere to the City Charter and control zoning changes in Piedmont.  Others want the City Council to have complete control over changing single-family usage to multifamily high density use without voter approval.

The City Council members are sworn to uphold the laws governing the City of Piedmont.  The City Council appears to assume Piedmont voters will not vote to do what is best for Piedmont, thus they plan to eliminate Piedmont voters rights.  The City Council has shown a lack of confidence in Piedmont laws and Piedmont voters, thus opening the City up to litigation by those who want the City Charter as written to be upheld.

As Piedmont Election Voting Continues, the City Enters the Debate Among Candidates –

Using fliers, the City at great expense, continues to provide incorrect information on voters rights attempting to influence the current election on a primary election issue – voters rights regarding zoning.  

The latest flier by the City of Piedmont’s poses questions and answers written in italics, PCA responses are in bold.

Does the City Charter require a vote of the electorate to enact the zoning changes proposed in the Draft Housing Element? 

No. Piedmont’s City Charter explicitly states that the City Council is responsible for adopting and modifying the General Plan, which includes the Housing Element. The City Charter requires voter approval to change zoning district boundaries or move properties between zones. The Charter does not require a vote to modify uses and densities in an existing zone without changing boundaries. 

This and other inappropriate City statements are attempts to justify prior and proposed illegal actions taken by the City of Piedmont based on ill advice from counsel regarding the City Charter and the City Code.  The answer above does not conform with the wording in the City Charter and the City Code. 

Every zone in Piedmont has been designated as allowing single-family use/classification.  This includes the Public, Commercial, and Multifamily zones. Counsel’s advice has been to interpret Piedmont’s zoning incorrectly, allowing Single-family zoning uses to mean “all housing is housing” permitting multifamily high density housing wherever there is single-family zoning.  This is a perversion of the City Charter and the City Code which require voter control over the uses and classifications within a zone.  

Implementing Counsel’s advice eliminates single-family zoning in Piedmont and voter control as required under the City Charter.

The City Charter states:

“provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a single-family dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.”

The City Charter state:

SECTION 9.02 ZONING SYSTEM 

“The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgement be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a singlefamily dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above. “

From the City of Piedmont website, it states, “ Piedmont is divided into five districts or zones. Within each zone only certain uses of land and buildings are permitted and certain other uses of land and buildings are restricted or prohibited. Other uses may be “conditionally” permitted if they meet certain criteria.”

All Piedmont zones are zoned for single-family use.

ARTICLE 2. ZONING DISTRICTS: USES AND REGULATIONS 17.20

 Zone A: Single family residential 17.22

 Zone B: Public facilities 17.24 

Zone C: Multi-family residential 17.26 

Zone D: Commercial and mixed-use commercial/residential 17.28 

Zone E: Single family residential estate

C. City Charter.

“The city’s zoning ordinance is also subject to the City Charter, particularly Section 9.01,

General Plan, Section 9.02, Zoning System, and Section 9.04, General Laws Applicable. Those sections read as follows: Section 9.01 General Plan. The City Council shall adopt, and may from time to time, modify a general plan setting forth policies to govern the development of the City. Such plan may cover the entire City and all of its functions and services or may consist of a Planning & Land Use 17-3 combination of plans governing specific functions and services or specific geographic areas which together cover the entire City and all of its functions and services. The plan shall also serve as a guide to Council action concerning such City planning matters as land use, development regulations and capital improvements.

Section 9.02 Zoning system.

The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have the power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgment be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a single-family dwelling maybe voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a singlefamily dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.

Section 9.04 General laws applicable. All general laws of the State applicable to municipal corporations, now or hereafter enacted, and which are not in conflict with the provisions of this Charter or with ordinances hereafter enacted, shall be applicable to the City. The City Council may adopt and enforce ordinances that, in relation to municipal affairs, shall control as against the general laws of the State. In this subsection C, Section 9.02, the prohibition not to reduce, enlarge, or reclassify a zone without a vote is understood to mean the city may not change the zone boundaries, or change (reclassify) a property from one zone to another.  [ Language was produced by the City Planning Department, yet never voted upon by Piedmont electors. The City Code trumps any added language to the City Code.]

The City Charter does not state that a vote is required to amend regulations within a zone, such as allowed uses or density.

The City Council by accepting that voters have no control over “allowed uses or density,”  denies the zoning code which specifies the uses within zone – public, commercial, single-family, and multifamily.  What do the zone classifications mean if not how the area can be used within boundaries of the zone mean? 

 This analysis makes clear that a vote of the electorate is only required to alter the size and boundaries of existing zones, not to modifying uses within a zone.

This statement is incorrect.  To add multifamily high density uses to single-family use without voter approval obviously enlarges the area for multifamily zoning use/classification and reduces the size of the existing zone.   

Items regarding voter approval and illegal zoning changes can be found in City records including legal opinions and actions taken for the following:

CITY CODE:

“17.08.010 Establishment of zones. The zoning system of the City consists of two parts: (1) the City Charter, which contains the zoning policy and requirements for voter approval of zone classification changes; and (2) this chapter 17 of the City Code.

 The City is divided into five zones as follows:

• Zone A Single family residential zone 
• Zone B Public facilities zone 
• Zone C Multi-family residential zone
•  Zone D Commercial and mixed-use commercial/residential zone 
• Zone E Single family residential estate zone 

Within each zone, certain uses of land and buildings are allowed as permitted or conditional uses, and certain other uses of land and buildings are restricted or prohibited. If a use is not permitted or conditionally permitted, it is not allowed. Other regulations may apply.”

Corrections and comments concerning all of the incorrect statements made in the recently distributed City flier have not been made. 

To read the entire City flier, click >charter-requirements-housing-element (1

The City Council meeting of October 3, 2022 was cancelled because the City Administrator had a family emergency.  Now, the previously announced October 17, 2022 City Council consideration of the Housing Element is not on the Council agenda for the meeting.

The Housing Element adding 587 new dwelling units in Piedmont is one of the most pressing issues facing Piedmont’s future as a city, but has apparently, though unannounced, hit another snag.

Many Piedmonters had not realized the importance of the issue until recently. It appears both the Piedmont Planning Department and the City’s planning consultants misunderstood the State’s Housing Element deadline.   Piedmont and its costly consultants failed to realize January 2023 may be the deadline rather than May 2023 for submittal of the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for consideration.

Upon hearing from the public, the City Council required the Administration and Planning staff, along with the $1M consultant to answer a number of questions prior to further consideration of the Housing Element.  Information was to be presented and considered at the Council meeting on October 17.  There  has been no announcement or information on when the Housing Element will be publicly considered.

October 17, 2022  AGENDA HERE.