Open Letter to Piedmont Planning Director Kevin Jackson

Dear Planning Director Jackson,

I attended the November 30 community workshop about the proposed Moraga Canyon housing project.  You and I spoke about several issues, and you welcomed me to send you follow-up observations.  I am concerned about the project’s isolation, the low-income residents’ separation, and the willingness of the project’s managers to incorporate community feedback into the plans.

The first part of the community meeting was a presentation by City staff and the project planning consultants to describe the project and its four options.  Then, the assembled people were invited to speak one-on-one to various project team members at poster-board stations along the perimeter of the room.  No opportunity was given for workshop attendees to question the project planners as a group.  General questions about the overall nature of the project would not be answered by staff personnel who were designated to discuss specific options at individual poster-board stations.  This gave me and several other people the feeling that the City isn’t really interested in hearing and addressing our concerns.

I am concerned about the isolation of the 132 new units planned for the Moraga area.  There is no “urban fabric” connecting that location with the rest of Piedmont, except for the heavily-trafficked Moraga Ave.  Walkers or bike riders would not see other Piedmont houses for over a quarter mile.  Isolation may be a more severe problem for residents of the 60 subsidized units who may not have cars available for both going to work and for shopping or going to school.  This problem could be mitigated if the City were to operate a shuttle bus, similar to the shuttles that Emeryville operates to and from the MacArthur BART station.  A Piedmont shuttle could take residents down Moraga, along Piedmont Ave., across MacArthur to Grand Ave., up Grand to Oakland Ave., up Oakland to the City Center, and then along Highland back to Moraga.  Connection to the BART station might even be included in the route.  The City could operate the shuttle for the first five years, and then evaluate whether the amount of ridership justifies continuing, perhaps with support from passenger fees.  This solution was mentioned when we spoke at the meeting, Mr. Jackson, so I am reminding you now and requesting that it be given serious consideration.

A more serious problem is the planned separation of the below-market units from the market-rate units.  This is a terrible idea that will have dangerous consequences.   It would create a low-income “ghetto” in the midst of high-income housing.  Low-income residents would be stigmatized whenever there was a problem like graffiti, or trash, or theft.  The higher-income residents would instinctively blame any grime or crime on “those people” living in the separate, nearby buildings.  Numerous studies have shown that when lower-income people are physically integrated into a higher-income housing project discrimination is minimized.  Indeed, the lower-income residents become better integrated into the community, and their own economic circumstances improve faster than those living in separated housing.

While you agreed that integration was a good idea, Mr. Jackson, you contended that separation was necessary because the subsidized housing had to be built as a separate project.  This was not my experience when I developed housing for low and moderate income people, financed by both Federal and State programs, a few decades ago.  Section 8’s below-market rental housing units were part of a larger market-rate project financed through HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).  There was no physical difference between the rental units.  A local non-profit corporation bought the project from a for-profit developer who gained the tax-shelter benefits from selling designated subsidized units at below-market rates.

In Piedmont’s project, some of the 132 units could be sold to individuals (72 at market rate, 60 at below-market rate), with unsold units being sold to a non-profit agency which would rent the market-rate units and the subsidized units together, with no physical distinction among the units.  They would be seamlessly included within the 132-unit project.  No ghetto.  No separation.  There are many different ways to finance such mixed-income projects – direct subsidies, tax credits, a combination of county, State and Federal funding, perhaps even some philanthropy.

We discussed this possibility at the community meeting and you asserted that an integrated project was not feasible; there would have to be two separate projects.  I implore you to go back and investigate State and Federal subsidy programs more thoroughly.  Creating a new housing community that separates residents by their economic status creates a danger that will cost our City financially and socially in the decades to come.

I hope you, the planning consultants, and the City Council act on these concerns productively, and demonstrate that you do respond to community residents’ feedback.

Sincerely,

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

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

Tiny Forests are a Bargain, Typical Cost Equals 5 Street Trees

While Piedmont removed a block-long tree canopy for a public construction project, ecologically concerned communities are demanding “tiny forests” in addition to preservation of the tree canopy.

Tiny Forests are created by sowing multiple layers in a dense arrangement of shrub and canopy plantings.  “The plants compete for resources as they race toward the sun …”  reports the New York Times.  Woodlands and healthy canopies absorb carbon dioxide, but tiny forests multiply the ecological effect on little land, absorbing storm water, suppressing weeds, remaining lush through droughts, and “grow as quickly as ten times the speed of conventional tree plantations.”  In Cambridge, MA 1400 shrubs and saplings grow in a basketball size plot after only 2 years.

New York Times, 8/27/2023

Adding a tiny forest to a community with a sufficient tree canopy provides a boost to the reduction of the community carbon footprint.  It should never be a choice between a tiny forest and the protection of a neighborhood tree canopy.  Street trees are also important for healthy communities.  Tree canopies

• Remove pollutants from the air, soil and water
• Release cool the surrounding areas, mitigating the urban heat island effect
• Intercept rainfall and reduce stormwater runoff
• Provide shade and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Provide carbon sequestration
• Aesthetic effect Increases adjacent property values

Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee

Tuesday, May 9, 2023 6:00 p.m.

Police Emergency Operations Center, 403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont

A broadcast of the meeting will not take place. Minutes are not kept of the meetings.  The public can attend the meeting and, if desired, may make visual and audio recordings of the meeting. 

No meeting materials, such as the Budget and Financial Plan, were publicly distributed with the meeting announcement. Materials should be publicly available at the meeting.

Regular Agenda

1. Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Financial Update

2. Review Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget and Consideration of FY 2023-2024 Budget Report

3. Review Long Range Financial Plan

4. Review of Public Safety Dispatch Staffing

Announcements, old business and consideration of future agenda items .

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee are available for public inspection in the Finance Department during normal business hours.

QUESTIONS  CONTACT:

Michael Szczech
Finance Director
City of Piedmont
(510) 420-3045

Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email the City Clerk at cityclerk@piedmont.ca.gov or call (510) 420- 3040 who will make their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. Information about reasonable accommodations is available on the City website at https://piedmont.ca.gov. Notification at least two business days preceding the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]

In accordance with G.C. Sec. 54954.2(a) this notice and agenda were posted on the City Hall bulletin board and also in the Piedmont Police Department on Friday May 5, 2023. 

City staff  seek community members to help create a plan for electrifying
Piedmont’s residential buildings.

The City staff of Piedmont is soliciting letters of interest from community members willing to serve on a task force that would help develop a plan for how to electrify Piedmont’s existing residential buildings. 

Submit letters of interest by Tuesday, May 16th

ElectrificationTaskForce@piedmont.ca.gov

The Building Electrification Strategy Task Force, appointed by the City Administrator, not the City Council, will work with staff to better understand existing barriers to home electrification and create a strategic framework for equitably moving Piedmont’s building stock off of natural gas.

Residential building electrification essential for meeting Climate Action goals
Transitioning Piedmont’s existing residential buildings from natural gas to clean electricity as
soon as possible is crucial for meeting the ambitious emission reduction targets established by
the City’s Climate Action Plan.

Despite substantial investment in climate action work – which has earned a Beacon Spotlight
Award for Sustainability Best Practices from the Institute for Local Government for two
consecutive years – Piedmont is not presently on track to meet its greenhouse gas emissions
reduction goals.

Most emissions come from gas gas furnaces and water heaters.

The gap is largely due to natural gas use in residential buildings, which accounts for roughly half
of Piedmont’s in-territory emissions. Because much of Piedmont’s housing stock is old and
large, heating and cooling these homes requires greater than average energy use. For each year
between 2017 and 2020, annual emissions just from residential buildings exceeded Climate
Action Plan targets for total emissions in Piedmont by 2050. Most of these emissions came from
natural .

The City is now seeking to draw on the wealth of expertise within our community to create a
strategic plan for expediting this transition. The Task Force will be charged with developing an
Existing Building Electrification Strategy that will guide future policies and programs related to
residential building electrification.

Staff have approached several community members who have previously engaged with the City
on electrification and sustainability initiatives about their potential interest in serving on the task
force. To ensure that the task force incorporates diverse perspectives and wide-ranging expertise,
we are also soliciting interest from the community at large.

If you think you can help, send an email to ElectrificationTaskForce@piedmont.ca.gov letting us know:

• Why you’re interested in serving on the task force
• What unique skills, experience, or perspective you would bring
Submit your letter of interest by Tuesday, May 16th. The City anticipates making task force
appointments by the end of May.

For questions about letters of interest or the Electrification Task Force, contact Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk John Tulloch at jtulloch@piedmont.ca.gov or (510) 420-3040.

“Piedmont has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”

Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee report

Some highlights from the April Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee  (BAFPC) meeting:

Four Year Capital Improvement Program: 

Estimates to replace/renovate Essential Services facilities, City hall basement and Recreation Building:     $16, 450,000. – 52,585,425.

STAFF INCREASES:

Proposed FY23-24 will include a part-time Facilities Project Manager:            $100,000/year

Increase in Planning Department Part-time staff:                                           $180,400

Increase in Planning Department Supplemental and Consulting service:       $519,000

Consulting for Moraga Canyon Specific Plan:                                                  $700,000

2 new dispatch positions Police Department:       $282,000, 5-year cost = $1, 518,000

TAX INCREASES:

2 new dispatchers would require a 11% increase in the parcel tax.

TAX REVENUE:

Property taxes receipts were 8% above the previous year (well above expected) and the real property transfer tax for 20222/23 was projected to come in at $4.7M, almost $1M above estimates.

For more details email Finance Director Michael Szczech, mszczech@piedmont.ca.gov.

In year’s past, City Council would have the assistance of two citizen committees to assist in reviewing these spending and tax increases.   The Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) would meet every two years prior to the parcel tax being put on the ballot for renewal. The MTRC held public meetings and met with all department heads to review service levels and department needs.

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC ) has replaced the MTRC but is not conducting the comprehensive review of city departments the prior committee once did. With the addition of the Measure UU assessments, the likely increase in the parcel tax, and a possible new bond for essential service buildings, the BAFPC should revisit its 2018 study of taxes in comparable cities to assess the long-term impact of these new tax adoptions on Piedmont.  That study found Piedmont’s tax levels acceptable based on comparison with Hillsborough.

The other committee was the Capital Improvement Projects Committee (CIP) which reviewed staff and citizen proposals for capital improvement projects.  With Piedmont’s conservative budgeting, there’s always a surplus in city revenues at the end of the year and CIP annually met to review proposals for capital projects from staff but also from residents.  Residents filled out a form and presented to the committee. The Indian Road, Ronada/Ramona and Kingston traffic islands all were initiated through the CIP process.  CIP seems to have been disbanded after COVID – the committee is no longer listed among the city’s commission and committees.  In my experience, the CIP provided a good reality check to staff proposals.  For example, in response to a question from a BAFPC committee member, staff said the primary criteria for CIP is safety and that is true.  This year’s top CIP project is the Piedmont Park – Guilford stairs at the cost of $388,000.  That project was initiated by a fall on the stairs and what could have been addressed with a handrail has morphed into a major beautification project.  Has this project diverted funding from other safety projects like Park Way and Highland where a pedestrian was hit by a car? A CIP committee asking these questions earlier in project development would provide significant cost savings.

The opening line of the first BAFPC report was: “Piedmont has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.”  That was speaking to the payroll and benefits obligations of the city at the time.  Piedmont is receiving record tax revenue and should reconvene the CIP and MTRC committees so it doesn’t slip back into a spending problem.

Garrett Keating, Former Member of the Piedmont City Council

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

 On Tuesday May 9, The Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) will meet again at 6:00 pm in the EOC (Emergency Operations Center  of the Piedmont Police Department at Highland and Vista Avenues.)

The important BAFPC meetings, unlike Piedmont Commission meetings, are not broadcast or video recorded by the City. Minutes are not kept of the Committee meetings, although required by the City Charter.  The public may attend and participate in the meetings with a right to obtain all materials distributed to the Committee members. The public has a right to make audio and video recordings of the meetings.

City Council makes appointments to Commissions & Committees from a talented pool of 37 applicants.

The Piedmont City Council made 22 appointments to fill vacancies for City Commissions, Committees, and appointed volunteer positions at a special meeting on April 4, 2023.

In a testament to the spirit of volunteerism embedded in this community, 37 residents applied to serve on City of Piedmont bodies during this year’s recruitment. Applicants spanned all ages and stages of life, ranging from 5th generation Piedmonters to those who arrived less than two years ago. During interviews with the City Council on April 4th, prospective Commissioners were united in their passion for service and love for the city they’ve made home. With only 5 minutes to make their case, they spoke movingly of their appreciation for Piedmont’s “small town” feel, how much they value the outstanding services they receive, and their desire to give back. The nearly three hours of interviews painted a positive and hopeful picture of Piedmont’s future, with a deep and talented pool of residents eager to use their skills.

Click below to read the names of the appointees:

2023-04-13 Commission and Committee Appointments

The revised Draft Housing Element appears to respond reasonably to nearly all the concerns and suggestions expressed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).  Responses to HCD’s following concern should, however, be improved.

“…a large portion of the lower‐income RHNA is isolated in three remote areas on the boundaries of the City yet a significant portion of the moderate and above moderate RHNA is located throughout the City. The element should evaluate these patterns and based on the outcomes of this analysis, consider identifying additional sites and add or modify programs to promote housing mobility throughout the City (Not limited to the RHNA)”

I believe Piedmont’s defense of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan process should be stronger.  The revised Element should make clearer that the process will produce a plan for an entirely new neighborhood of 132 housing units, 60 of which will be affordable to low-income families.  This new neighborhood will be socio-economically, and likely racially, more diverse than Piedmont as we now know it. It will have its own physical, social, and political identity shaped by policies agreed among Piedmonters in compliance with State requirements.  It will be a place where residents benefit from good design, good schools, good public services, and good intentions to build an integrated neighborhood.  It can, in short, be everything that HCD and Piedmonters hope to achieve through the general plan process. It must, of necessity, be at the periphery of the community because no other location in Piedmont presents an opportunity to build an entire neighborhood of 132 mixed-cost housing units.As I and others have previously noted, the only threat to realizing this desirable objective arises from the possibility that the neighborhood will, by plan, be internally segregated.  The threat arises, ironically, from good intentions. The Council added Blair Park to the Specific Plan area to make possible the rearranging of existing Canyon uses including the city corporation yard. 

Given previously studied and documented safety hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians accessing Blair Park, moving the corporation yard there (where the original Blair Park plan of the early 20th century assigned it), would allow more space on the safer side of Moraga to realize a socio-economically and physically integrated community.  Including Blair in the plan, however, has led some Piedmonters to suggest assigning all 60 low-income units there. 

As has been argued before the Council and elsewhere, this scheme would physically, functionally, and socially isolate residents and put them at risk of accidental trauma.  Presuming, however, that good land-use planning and decent policy prevail, no residential uses would be allowed in Blair Park and a new, safe, neighborhood of 132 homes, including 60 for low-income families will grow around an enhanced Coaches Field.

HCD’s concern that the revised Element shows no low-income units in central Piedmont appears reasonable given that city staff, city-paid consultants, and a Council-appointed Housing Committee all recommended that the Council locate at least some low-income units there. 

Council’s attempt to explain its decision to exclude low-income families from central Piedmont has been muddled at best, leaving observers (apparently including HCD) to infer that organized resident resistance to low-income housing drove the choice. 

I urge the Council to correct this inference by further revising the Housing Element to include the following strategy.  Keep the current assignment to Grand Avenue of low-income units (other than the 60 intended for Moraga Canyon) in the Element as the “default option.” But, as recommended by the Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign (i.e., PREC), also begin a Central Piedmont Specific Plan process to identify possible locations for at least some of these units.  The spirit and intent of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan process should, in other words, apply to central Piedmont. 

As the Moraga Canyon process specifically calls out possible use of public lands and rights-of-way as sites for low-income housing, so should a Central Piedmont Specific Plan.  Highland Way, for example, serves essentially as a parking lot.  Structures equal to or lower in height and massing to the adjacent church and office building could be built there without denying access to the church or businesses.  The Central Piedmont Specific Plan could also coordinate with the Moraga Canyon Plan to ensure that the city has locations for all essential public functions.  Indeed, the Piedmont Unified School District could also participate in the planning to ensure its needs for physical space are met as well.

Ralph Catalano, Piedmont Resident

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

The City’s planning staff will bring the updated Housing Element to the City Council for adoption at their regular meeting on Tuesday, Monday, March 20^th.

Since receiving comments on the City’s draft Housing Element from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on February 16^th, staff and consultants have been working to address the issues raised by State reviewers – primarily adding clarity, elaboration, and definitive scheduling for a number of the proposed programs.

The revised Housing Element is a 630 page document available here.

The document was published by 9am on Friday, March 17^th as part of the agenda packet for the March 20^th Council meeting. Changes from the previously published draft Housing Element are shown in track changes.

For example, on page 329 under

Emergency Shelters/Low Barrier Navigation Centers

the lines of red text with slash through are cut and replaced with adjacent blue text.

AGENDA:  March 20, 2023 Meeting:

https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf?v=QH2wsa4Z2&v=QH2wsa4Z

The annual call for city volunteers to serve on Piedmont commissions and committees is open until the deadline of March 29.

All residents have to do is fill out a simple form and sit for a brief interview with City Council ( City Volunteer Information). In particular are there any real estate gurus or prognosticators out there who are willing to serve on the Budget and Financial Planning Committee (two vacancies)? This influential committee conducts long-range projections of city revenues that form the basis for tax increases and bond initiatives and these projections consistently come up short by several millions of dollars due to spiky home prices and property taxes.

One committee residents cannot apply for is, for lack of a better name, the Climate Action
Committee. Rather than solicit volunteers, Council decided to have the City Administrator
select this committee to seek experts in energy technology/efficiency and residential
retrofitting to assist the city in developing a building electrification strategy. The two key words
in that charge are “residential” and “electrification”. As the city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)
noted in 2018:

“Piedmont is a built-out city, which means energy efficiency gains will largely need to come
from upgrades to existing buildings. While California’s building code is moving towards zero-net
energy (ZNE) for new residential construction, this will only apply to the few Piedmont homes
either constructed on the City’s remaining empty lots or as a result of the demolition and
rebuilding of existing homes. … The combination of the age of Piedmont homes, their size, and
the low rates of new home construction mean Piedmont will have to aggressively pursue
energy efficiency upgrades for existing homes to meet its climate goals. The following
measures address building energy consumption through a strategy of first disclosing
information, then reducing electricity and natural gas consumption, and ultimately, fuel-
switching from natural gas to electricity.”

And where is Piedmont on meeting its climate goals? The goals are defined as reduction in
metric tons of CO2 since 2005 and as the figure below shows, Piedmont is making little or no
progress. The slight declines from 2018 to 2020 basically track the decrease in home heating
which has gone up in the ensuing years. The 2021 GHG inventory will be telling as that year had
the highest number of home heating days over the past decade. And for 2023, turning out to
be another cold year, the number of home heating days is 16% ahead of 2021. On top of that,
the State has lowered the GHG reduction targets to 50% by 2030 (24.5 Metric ton CO2 for
piedmont) and to ZERO by 2050. So try as Piedmont might, Sacramento has moved the targets
but doing so follows the science.

This state of affairs is why staff came forward this month with a proposal to establish a
committee to develop a building electrification strategy (several Bay area cities have already
done so). To underscore the City’s commitment to meeting its GHG reduction goals, the City
Administrator cited two recent achievements: the hiring of a full-time sustainability coordinator
and the building of an all-electric pool. On the first point the City Administrator is correct.
Alyssa Dykman, Sustainability Program Manager, has an advanced degree in
sustainability/environmental management, has made incredible gains in city sustainability
programs during her short tenure and is an excellent communicator – sign up to receive her
program newsletter: Sustainability Newsletter. The all-electric pool, while a great symbol for
the future, has little impact on reducing the City’s GHG, less than 1%. An all-electric pool will
save substantial operating costs over its lifetime.

The City Administrator should also have mentioned a third achievement – the adoption of the
Reach codes. First, they won an award! Reach codes are local building code requirements that
go beyond the California Building Code (CBC) to achieve higher levels of energy efficiency and
GHG reduction – cities can “reach” beyond the CBC – and Piedmont was one of the first cities to
develop these codes for home remodels, the bulk of construction in town. Secondly, the Reach
codes dovetail with the symbolism of the pool – home rebuilds/remodels need to be all-electric
if the City is going to meet its GHG targets. Reach codes only apply to building permits above
$50,000, which is why staff’s idea of a building electrification strategy for the whole city is
forward-thinking.

Some on Council critiqued how the Reach codes were brought forward, suggesting they were
done so stealthily by advocates who didn’t do sufficient community outreach. The Reach Codes
held multiple public meetings and hearings at City commissions, were discussed extensively on
local forums, and were vetted with the California Energy Commission. What staff and advocates for the Reach codes didn’t have was Zoom, a full-time City Communications Director and a
$750,000 consultant as other recent city initiatives have. With these new communication tools
now at the City’s disposal, no doubt a building electrification strategy will be well publicized and
vigorously discussed. But there’s no need to re-invent the wheel here – community surveys
have consistently shown that 66% of Piedmont support electrification. What is needed are
elected leaders who will back up community sentiment and the past proclamations of City
Council and get moving on implementing substantive change that will reduce Piedmont’s GHG.

Those interested in serving on a Climate Action committee should contact Alyssa Dykman, Sustainability Program Manager at sustainability@piedmont.ca.gov.

Garrett Keating, Former City Council Member

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