Where? When?

A wealthy suburb with a history of racial discrimination is forced, by law, to designate sites for low-income housing. A group of residents organizes and tells the City Council “not near us!” The Council relents and designates a former landfill in a canyon accessible only by a high-speed thoroughfare previously identified by city staff as dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. No one seems to care.

Ralph Catalano, Piedmont Resident

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

” … and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election.”  Section 9.02 of the Piedmont City Charter

The City’s refusal to submit new proposed reclassified City zones to a vote by the citizens rests on the meaning of the word “reclassified” in the City Charter.   A newly released undated, unsigned legal opinion relies on a 2017 definition of  “reclassification” inserted in the City Code, but not submitted to the voters as an amendment to the City Charter. 

History shows Piedmont citizens have been urged to vote approval of  “reclassifications” of City zones at general or special elections in recent decades, yet the newly released legal opinion ignores these votes.

The City’s legal conclusions are inconsistent with the City Charter, City practices, and ballot measure history of asking Piedmont voters to approve zoning changes and Conditional Use Permit processes.

(Read the City’s legal opinion here)

The City of Piedmont is in an untenable situation. The City failed to appeal the allotment of 587 housing units in the city under the stated mandated Housing Element. The City failed to provide options that the residents could consider and then vote upon with sufficient time to then submit a HE plan.

Requirement for a Vote before land can be re-zoned. The areas under consideration for the Housing Element include park and municipal land, such as the Moraga Avenue properties and 801 Magnolia Avenue. These properties are in Zone B. Section 17.08 of the Code of the City of Piedmont is titled “Establishment of Zones; Zoning Map; Interpretation” and provides that the city is divided into five zones. “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.”  Section 17.22.020 states “The following are permitted uses in Zone B: …A single family residence … City building…Public School…Parks…Cemetery…Emergency shelter…”.Multi-family residences are not a permissible use in Zone B (Blair Park and 801 Magnolia).

Section 9.02 of the City Charter provides that “…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 may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document …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 Charter clearly states that the ONLY time a vote is not necessary is when property in Zones B, C, D or E is converted to a single family residence.

Requirement to submit a Plan. The state of California wants the City to present a plan showing where 587 units can be built within the boundaries of Piedmont by January 31, 2023. Failure to submit a plan by that date could result in various penalties; most of which do not apply to the city. The one penalty that could apply during a period of noncompliance is the ability of a builder to force the city to approve permits for building affordable housing. This penalty assumes there is property available for development (sale) in  Piedmont and that the cost of construction is such that the builder will reap a profit.

There have been many discussions in the city that we just submit a plan with the understanding that it is unlikely the housing will be built. However, recently the HCD responded to a plan submitted by Santa Monica that the city had to show actual timelines for construction of housing on any city owned sites. If Piedmont submits a plan that includes city owned property the state can then force the city to act on that plan. Any plan that is submitted can be enforced and by then we will have no voice in the process. Further, it will set a precedent that the zones in Piedmont are meaningless. https://smdp.com/2022/04/29/too-many-units-too-little-time/ .

The Choice. The decision is between three choices: 1) Submit a plan that includes park and municipal land without a vote to rezone those lands which is a violation of Section 9.02 of our City Charter and could result in overbuilding in the city center and Moraga Avenue as well as undermining our zoning laws or 2) Submit a plan that is contingent on a vote to rezone certain areas for multi-family housing or 3) Delay submission of a plan, provide the necessary information so the electorate can make informed decisions and schedule a special election with options so that we can decide the future of Piedmont.

If the City Administrator’s letter dated September 30, 2022 had been sent early in 2022 there would have been time for a Special Election. However, at this juncture we must decide which is less harmful to the city of Piedmont; the possibility of the Builder’s Remedy being exercise versus our right to vote on the reclassification of zones in Piedmont.

I believe we should delay submission of a plan. We must bring the matter to a vote in Piedmont which will offer us a voice in the process, resolve the conflict in the community, preserve our Charter, allow multi-family housing projects in areas zoned accordingly and prevent future litigation. The city has already spent almost a million dollars in analyzing where the units could be placed and the people immediately rejected the city center location. This time let the citizens of Piedmont decide by a vote – it will be worth the cost.

Almost two-thirds of Southern California’s cities failed to meet their state housing plan deadline. We should immediately determine locations in Piedmont for affordable housing, summarize the options in a clear format (including maps), mail the information to each residence, prepare for a special election and elect new leadership that keeps Piedmont informed and engaged with a vote.

https://www.ocregister.com/2022/07/11/southern-california-cities-get-more-time-to-rezone-land-for-housing/

Bridget Harris, Candidate for the Piedmont City Council

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

Do The Right Thing: Add A Site in Central Piedmont Site To The Housing Element

Can a Piedmont resident who finds the city’s history of excluding minorities morally offensive object, in good conscience, to the proposal to house 100 or more low-income families in Blair Park? Unequivocally, yes.

A half century of research reports that concentrating and segregating low-income families in places as isolated as Blair Park creates stigmatized neighborhoods that induce oppositional culture among residents, particularly children.  Don’t believe me? Go to the Google Scholar website (https://scholar.google.com/) and search on “stigmatized neighborhoods low-income housing.”

Is there a better way to comply with the State’s requirement for identifying sites for low-income housing? Yes, but doing so takes courage our City Council has yet to show.  The Council needs to identify 5 sites which can accommodate about 40 units each of low-income housing.  City staff, paid housing consultants, and a Council-appointed citizens committee worked months to identify more than enough appropriate sites without listing Blair Park.  Those locations, however, included several city-owned parcels in central Piedmont where homeowner opposition quickly scared the Council from choosing a site.  The site selection process, with central Piedmont excluded and with time running out to produce a Housing Element, has become increasingly opaque and arbitrary.  The Council has now, out of apparent desperation, turned to the politically safe but morally offensive solution of segregating 100 or more low-income families in Blair Park.

At this late date, the least segregated solution for Piedmont would include: 2 sites physically integrated into the 200 or so State-required market rate units planned for the area around the Corporation Yard; 2 sites on Grand previously suggested by the city staff; and 1 site in central Piedmont.  Highland Way, which now serves essentially as a parking lot, should be decommissioned as a street and made available for 40 units of low-income housing in central Piedmont.  The height and massing of such units need not exceed that of the institutional and commercial buildings around them.  Residents of the new units would be near schools, public transit, and services.  No public facilities would need relocation.

So yes, a Piedmonter offended by the city’s exclusionary history can, indeed should, oppose the Blair Park scheme because the Council has less segregated alternatives. Implementing these solutions will, however, take courage our Council will unlikely show unless Piedmonters offended by exclusionary policies make their concerns known.

Ralph Catalano, Piedmont Resident

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

Undiscovered by Piedmont Planners and Consultants, the deadline for State approval of the Piedmont Housing Element (HE) is NOT the previously relied upon May 2023 date.  The required State and City approval date is January 31, 2023.  This recently recognized date has required great urgency to promptly submit an HE plan to the Housing and Community Development Department for their prompt consideration and comments.  The new HE is not available at the time of this publication.

Following the November 8th City Council Election, on November 15th the City Council will move ahead to authorize the revised Housing Element and submit it to the State.  The time of the meeting was not provided nor the staff report.

The Piedmont Planning and Building Department has scheduled an informational, in person, November 9, Open House the day after the City Council Election to inform the public of the revised Housing Element.  This is NOT an occasion to gather public input for the City Council.  Broadcasting for home viewing access has not been announced.

Since August 1, 2022, Piedmonters have waited to receive information on the numerous changes and answers to questions regarding the proposed Piedmont Housing Element (HE) prior to consideration by the City Council and the subsequent HE submittal to the California Housing and Community Development Department.

Changes to the prior HE proposal have been kept well away from the public and the Planning Commission.  The newly proposed HE was not found on the city website.  An exception to public direct mail was an election influencing all city mailer along with various fliers found on the City’s heavily touted website piedmontishome@piedmont.ca.gov. 

At the November 15, 2022 City Council special meeting  the City staff, Planning Consultant and City Administrator will seek City Council authorization to submit the City’s Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) for review.

The Planning & Building Department will host an informational open house on Wednesday, November 9th where community members can learn about proposed updates to the Draft Housing Element as well as timelines for submittal, certification, and implementation process.  This event is not noticed as an occasion to take public input on the proposed changes to the HE.

On August 1st, 2022, the Piedmont City Council directed staff to analyze the viability of potential changes to the Draft Housing Element, including:

• Increased reliance on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to meet State-mandated housing production targets
• Relocation of affordable units in the sites inventory from the Civic Center area to the mixed-use zone on Grand Avenue
• Expansion of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan area to include all City-owned property along Moraga Avenue

Staff and consultants have completed the analysis directed by the City Council and will be
presenting a revised sites inventory that reflects the results of that analysis to the City Council.

The official State deadline for cities to adopt a compliant Housing Element is January 31, 2023.  Once the City submits a Draft Housing Element for review, HCD has up to 90 days to return comments with requested revisions. Working actively to minimize any potential period of non-compliance, Planning & Building staff are in regular communication with HCD reviewers. “The City is optimistic that once submitted, Piedmont’s Draft Housing Element will move through the review process swiftly.”  Piedmont Press Release.

“Informational Open House November 9
In person community members can learn more about the proposed updates to the Draft Housing Element
and next steps at an upcoming informational open house:
Wednesday, November 9, 5-6:30pm
Piedmont Community Hall in Main Park
711 Highland Avenue”

No new information was released with the announcement.  The open house is NOT scheduled to be an opportunity to take public input on the revised HE.  Given the location in the Community Hall and general format of the meeting, it is unlikely that home viewers can participate in the Informational Open House.

At the event, Planning & Building staff will share their information and answer questions about:

• proposed changes to the Draft Housing Element sites inventory
• timelines for Housing Element adoption and implementation
• what to expect over the next three years, as the City implements the policies and programs outlined in the revised Draft Housing Element.

 Only if the City meets the deadline approval of January 31, 2023 will there be 3 years for implementation, otherwise the City would have under a year for implementation.  Implementation of HE proposals will require zoning changes and trigger the voter approval per the City Charter according to numerous informed readers of the Charter.  Voter approval of zoning changes has been denied by City officials, who attempt to convince voters they have no right to vote on proposed zoning changes, including turning parkland and all single-family zoning into multi-family high density housing units.

The open house will also provide information about consequences for non-compliance with State deadlines and how they impact Piedmont, including the process known as the “builder’s remedy,” which limits a city’s ability to deny applications for new development while its Housing Element is out of compliance.

For more information about the Housing Element update process, community members can visitPiedmontIsHome.org, the City’s online hub for housing policy issues in Piedmont.

Staff are continually updating the site as part of the City’s ongoing effort to make the Housing Element update process more accessible.  The newly revised HE proposal was not provided with the City Press Release. Interested individuals are directed toward the city website piedmontishome@piedmont.ca.gov. 

Comments about the Housing Element can be emailed to piedmontishome@piedmont.ca.gov. 

To send comments to the City Council as a whole, please email citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov.  or send via U.S. Mail at the following address:

City Council
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611

READ the City Press Release below:

2022-10-31 Housing Element Special Council Meeting and Informational Open House

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.

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.

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.

Utilizing factual information and critical thinking to discuss issues allows voters to make informed decisions. Voters need to be heard and provide input on an issue that will forever change the community.

The Housing Element, while necessary, must be done with community input, excellent planning and leadership.  In the California Department of Housing and Community Development Department(HCD) “building block” of the Housing Element is “Public Participation.”

Below is an excerpt from the California Department of Housing and Community Department.

“Housing issues affect the entire community – residents, employers, and the
public and private sectors. The public participation requirement of housing
element law presents an opportunity to engage constituents in a dialogue 
defining problems and creating solutions.” Housing Element Building Blocks

Had there been better and early communication and outreach to the community, we would not be in this predicament of many citizens confused about zoning, density bonuses, and the Housing Element. Dismissing the community’s opinion without a vote is not the democracy I would like to see in this community or anywhere.

There may be a cost for a special election, yet the contribution to ensuring inclusivity by each voter in this community cannot be undervalued. As HCD recommends the following:

“While the housing element must address specific statutory requirements, it is ultimately a local plan and should reflect the vision and priorities of the community.”

We might miss the “looming” deadline. Yet, we will have done the right thing to identify the correct sites with thoughtful, measured decisions that are in keeping with the long-term strategic planning of the city along with maintaining the charm and beauty.

Saving money and time should never be a reason to remove the right and privilege to vote.

Cori Recht, Piedmont Resident

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

Response to Letter from City Administrator

Everyone in Piedmont received a letter from Sara Lillevand, the City Administrator, dated September 30, 2022. The City Administrator is hired by the City Council and reports directly to the City Council. Therefore, we can assume that the letter was vetted and approved by the five members of the City Council.

The letter is extremely misleading.

1. The letter is a not too subtle endorsement of three candidates to the City Council who oppose a vote on the Housing Element;
2. As stated in the letter, the City has been working on the issue for 18 months yet this city-wide letter was sent five weeks before the election;
3. The letter includes the statement that any future development would have to meet Piedmont’s design standards. This is not true, see Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles and Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego. Both cases illustrate that the state’s Density Bonus Law supersedes a city’s local ordinances and zoning laws. The Density Bonus Law provides developers with incentives and waivers of building restrictions for set-backs, parking and height.
4. The letter outlines the plan to include 132 homes on City-owned land (Moraga Canyon). This land is in Zone B (Park and Public Land). Zone C is zoned for Multi-family units. The plan is a de-facto re-zone which according to our City Charter requires a majority vote of the citizens of Piedmont.  Further, once the plan is approved a developer can enforce development using the state’s Density Bonus Law that overrides Piedmont’s design restrictions thereby making development economically feasible. At that point a vote will be too late.
5. Piedmont Municipal Code §17.08.010 provides that “[i]f a use is not permitted or conditionally permitted, it is not allowed.” Piedmont Municipal Code §17.22.020 lists the permitted and conditional uses allowed in Zone B. Multi-family units are not permitted or conditionally permitted in Zone B. To build multi-family units on property located in Zone B requires a vote to re-zone the land pursuant to §9.02 of our City Charter.

Adding 587 units to the city of Piedmont will forever change the city.  We must delay submission of the Housing Element plan until we understand all ramifications of the plan. We must review available options and then vote on those options. True engagement by the community requires a vote and the result will be a viable Housing Element plan.

Bridget Harris, Piedmont City Council Candidate

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