Why does the City not want a new City Council to consider the Housing Element?

The City is planning to have the proposed Housing Element approved prior to the November 8, 2022 Election and has agendized consideration of the Housing Element for the October 17, 2022 Council meeting.

The City is moving ahead of the City Council election to approve the Housing Element.  The regular October 3, 2022, City Council meeting was cancelled without explanation* during the contested City Council campaign when candidates and the public could have recorded their opinions at the meeting on the Housing Element or other issues.  The City Council during their regularly scheduled, but cancelled, meeting on October 3 could have amplified Housing information and made factual corrections to City positions.

Residents of Piedmont received the unprecedented City Administrator’s letter dated September 30, 2022 approximately a week before voters may begin voting in the election.  The letter disparages the positions of certain candidates and supports the positions of other City Council candidates, while claiming to provide factual information about the Housing Element. 

The City Administrator, Sara Lillevand and Mayor Teddy Kind are responsible for setting the Council meeting agendas. Lillevand has announced her retirement by April 2022 and King, is a “lame duck” and will no long be on the Council following the certification of the November 8 election.

Correction and amplification of information sent to voters by the City Administrator on September 29, 2022:

• The Charter states the Council shall proposes a zoning plan, but where zoning is proposed to be changed as within the proposed Housing Element voters must approve the zoning changes.
• An approved Housing Element is not just a plan to sit on a shelf, for the State requires implementation and developers and property owners gain legal rights.
• The Housing Element once approved by voters and the Council becomes law in Piedmont with all incumbent factors, such as lawsuits, site locations, property rights, and the rule of law.
• The City Council members and the City staff do not have the authority under the City Charter to change the zoning as proposed.  The Piedmont City Charter states clearly, “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;”
• Only the voters per the City Charter have a right to approve the proposed Housing Element zoning changes.
• The City owns much of the property proposed to receive a zoning change, but changes will need voter approval, if the City Council adheres to the City Charter.
• Referring voters to the City website leads to false and incomplete information.
• No written legal opinions on Piedmont voters rights, density, single-family housing, classifications, reclassifications, or Piedmont liability have been provided publicly, indicating legal problems, and avoidance of providing points and authorities for public consideration.
• Despite threats to Piedmonters, the Piedmont City Council and City staff have known of the need for voter approval of proposed zoning changes and failed to date to schedule voter consideration to meet the State deadline of May 23, 2023.
• The loss of local control by the City’s rejection of legally required voting over zoning is happening now in Piedmont, not because of Sacramento, but because the Piedmont City Council is not following  the City Charter and scheduling the required timely local election for continued voters control of zoning in Piedmont.
• The City continues to spend well over a million dollars on banners, consultants, puzzles, incorrect flyers, staff time, and a letter thwarting Piedmont’s City Charter and voters rights, while complaining about potential election costs.
• Sending a City letter to Piedmonters shortly before an election regarding  a contested campaign issue is legally questionable particularly by using false and incomplete factual information.
• The City Administrator’s letter mentions nothing about the duty of the City Administrator to uphold the City Charter as requiring voter approval of the proposed zoning changes.

 For decades, a core principle of PCA is following the rule of law and upholding voters rights. 

• UPDATE: The City Clerk announced on 10.3.2022, “The City Council meeting scheduled for Monday, October 3rd has been cancelled due to a medical emergency in the City Administrator’s family.” 

Piedmont Student Jasper Zietlow Named 2023 National Merit Scholarship Semifinalist

The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) is proud to announce Piedmont High School senior, Jasper Zietlow, is among the approximately 16,000 National Merit Scholarship Semifinalists for 2023. These students will be considered for 7,250 National Merit Scholarships worth nearly $28-million to be awarded this spring.

“I am delighted to be named a National Merit Scholar Semifinalist,” Zietlow said. “Learning has always been the greatest motivator for me and I look forward to continuing to grow academically and personally.”

“Congratulations to Jasper on this recognition for his outstanding work in the classroom,” added PUSD Interim Superintendent, Dr. Donald Evans. “Today’s 12th-graders have gone through a lot in their high school careers and we are proud to see our students continue to achieve despite the challenges brought by the pandemic.”

Over a million high school juniors were considered for the 68th National Merit Scholarship Program through their performance on the 2021 Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying test. To become a Finalist, the Semifinalist and their high school must submit a detailed scholarship application, in which they provide information about the Semifinalist’s academic record, participation in school and community activities, demonstrated leadership abilities, employment, and honors and awards received.

A Semifinalist must have an outstanding academic record throughout high school, be endorsed and recommended by a high school official, write an essay, and earn SAT® scores that confirm the student’s earlier performance on the qualifying test. Merit Scholar designees are selected on the basis of their skills, accomplishments, and potential for success in rigorous college studies, without regard to gender, race, ethnic origin, or religious preference.

In addition to Zietlow being named a Semifinalist, eight Piedmont High School students were named National Merit Commended Students. More than two-thirds (about 34,000) of the approximately 50,000 high scorers on the PSAT/NMSQT receive Letters of Commendation in recognition of their outstanding academic promise. PHS students named National Merit Scholarship Commended Students for 2023 are:

• Alexander Aubrecht
• Benjamin Kra-Caskey
• Hamza Mahood
• Evan Manolis
• Quinn Reilly
• Julia Shalev
• Russell Tan
• Chelsea Yi

Three types of National Merit Scholarships will be offered in the spring of 2023. Every Finalist will compete for one of 2,500 National Merit® $2500 Scholarships that will be awarded on a state representational basis. About 950 corporate-sponsored Merit Scholarship awards will be provided by approximately 180 corporations and business organizations for Finalists who meet their specified criteria, such as children of the grantor’s employees or residents of communities where sponsor plants or offices are located.

In addition, about 160 colleges and universities are expected to finance some 3,800 college-sponsored Merit Scholarship awards for Finalists who will attend the sponsor institution. National Merit Scholarship winners of 2023 will be announced in four nationwide news releases beginning in April and concluding in July. These scholarship recipients will join more than 368,000 other distinguished young people who have earned the Merit Scholar title. Visit www.nationalmerit.org for more information.

Dear Piedmont Senior Planner Macdonald,

     The requirement for Piedmont to add 587 new housing units to its current inventory of nearly 4,000 is huge and controversial.  Obviously, creating a few high density housing sites would be very disruptive to the “look and feel” of Piedmont, even in its few commercial zones.

     Is the City considering a gentler approach of slightly increasing the allowable number of units on existing properties?  Allowing more floor area and more impervious coverage of lots could be calculated to enable more ADUs or similar multi-family residences without drastically changing Piedmont’s primarily single-family look.  Is this being considered as an alternative to high density development?

     If incremental increase in housing density was offered as the solution, the next question would be how to implement actual construction.  While some individual homeowners might take advantage of incentives like tax breaks (primarily because they already desire an ADU on their property), that may not fulfill the entire 587 requirement.

Another implementation strategy might be to engage developers to design and build on the lots of willing property owners.  The developers would collect the rents and associated subsidies from those units until their investment and a negotiated profit margin were repaid.  Thereafter, the units would become the sole property of the lot owner, thereby increasing the value of the property for either its current owner or a subsequent owner.  The property owner would not be burdened with managing, financing, nor implementing the construction, but would have design veto over the project.  Again, the property tax that would accrue from the additional units’ value to the existing property could be waived for a number of years as part of the subsidy program.  Does this look like a feasible solution?

     Thank you for taking the time to consider these ideas.  I would appreciate your response when convenient for you.

I am a 44-year-long resident of Piedmont.  While retired now, I have a Masters degree in Urban and Regional Planning and worked as a GIS Consultant for many local cities and counties.

Sincerely,

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont Resident

An invitation is extended to publish on this site election information regarding candidates for Piedmont City Council and School Board –  photos, signage, endorsers, priorities, comments, and goals. Campaign information is welcomed from Piedmonters and the candidates.

To submit information click below:

Click here to SUBMIT OPINIONS, INFORMATION, COMMENTS, or ARTICLES

While greatly encouraging public participation in Piedmont elections and thanking those seeking election, the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

The City Council is urged to listen to the expertise of residents and take on the challenge – to investigate, question and push back against the ABAG / HCD 587-unit requirement and demand a fair process.

Dear Mayor King and City Council Members,

At the August 1st City Council meeting, in my rush to cover several topics, I was remiss in not thanking all Council Members and Staff for all their efforts to date on the General Plan. I apologize for that omission. In my career, I have served on a few Boards and fully appreciate the time and effort required by that service. Thank you.

Given the limited presentation time available to speakers at the meeting, however, I do feel that it is important to restate my position regarding the Draft Housing Element.

When Piedmont’s Housing Element requirement was initially announced, the Piedmont Planning Staff informed the residents that, even though the requirement of 587 units was nearly 10 times the previous requirement, ‘Piedmont should take on accommodating 587 units AS A CHALLENGE’. There was no mention of Piedmont challenging the 587-unit number despite the extraordinary increase over the previous General Plan requirement (60 units). If that discussion did occur between the Staff and the Council, then those minutes should be made available to clarify the record.

It appears to me that we are at a juncture where the solutions proposed in the Housing Element and the acceptance of some of those solutions by a significant number of residents are at odds. That is why I propose challenging the premise that 587 new units can be accommodated in Piedmont.

Why challenge the State HCD (Housing and Community Development Dept.) requirement?

One reason is that the State Auditor was directed to evaluate the needs assessment process that the HCD uses to provide key housing guidance to local governments. The Auditor’s report, dated March 17,2022, concluded that the HCD does not ensure that it’s needs assessments are accurate and adequately supported.

The Auditor found errors such as; not considering all the factors that State Law requires; no formal review process for the data it uses; the HCD could not support its use of various vacancy rates.

What was the HCD’s response to these very serious findings about their processes and due diligence?

The HCD said they would review their processes over the next year, but they did not commit to reviewing or modifying any of the current cycle of projections. The HCD 6th Cycle projected a need of 2,300,00 housing units for California. However, prior to that, in August 2020, the HCD projected a need of only 1,170,000 units for the same time period – about half the current requirement.

On the Federal side, Freddie Mac’s projected need for 6th cycle housing was 1,320,00 units in February 2020. These wide variations in projected housing need coupled with the State Auditor’s findings about the HCD’s procedures converge to magnify the need to examine the HCD 6th cycle requirement with a very healthy skepticism and to institute a very serious investigation or as some other like-minded cities have done – that is to band together and legally challenge the HCD on their process and projections.

We must remember that the General Plan is on an 8-year cycle and Piedmont will need to submit a Plan again in 2031. The State will likely impose another housing requirement on Piedmont then.

How many units will be required and where will those units go in 2031? What legacy will be left for the City Council of 2031?

All that adds to the urgency in challenging the 587-unit requirement now. To work toward an acceptable compromise of this issue with the HCD, it would also be very important for the City to establish an acceptable and attainable number of units that the planners believe can reasonably be accommodated in the current 6th cycle.

In any negotiation, if Piedmont can emphasize it’s prior compliance with the HCD requirements and exhibit a good faith effort to accommodate a significant new housing increase over prior General Plans ( say a 2-fold or 3-fold increase ) it would go a long way toward establishing the seriousness of Piedmont’s position and commitment.

Nevertheless, based on the uncertainty of the HCD population projection process, it is very important that we and other cities push back and demand more transparency and accuracy from the HCD now.

Another reason – numbers matter. Many of the objections to the Housing Element come down the extraordinary means needed to try to accommodate 587 units while trying to maintain a sense of identity for Piedmont. If, for example, Piedmont’s Housing Element were only a 3-fold increase over the existing requirement and Piedmont need only accommodate 180 new units, I believe that the Housing Element would now be approved and in our rear-view mirror. This is just an example, but it makes the point that numbers do matter – and accuracy and fairness of process also matter.

Another reason – our Fair Share. In the Aug. 1 Council meeting, many residents stated their beliefs that Piedmont should provide its fair share of housing units. I wholeheartedly agree, but how is the fair share derived? I believe that it is vital that our fair share should be derived from a fair and open process given the magnitude of its impact on our City.

There should also be some recognition of Piedmont’s constraints – that it is predominantly built-out and that the City faces reconstruction or new construction of its Essential Services Buildings ( ESB’s ) which could significantly affect some of the few available parcels in the City.

Recent meetings and discussions all expose the fact that the Housing Element, the structural integrity of the ESB’s (which, in my opinion, should be Piedmont’s HIGHEST PRIORITY) and a Master Plan for the Downtown parcels are all intertwined, yet none of these issues has a solid implementable plan. That fact strengthens the position that Piedmont should not proceed with submission of a Housing Element containing 587 units. That is why I strongly urge the City Council to listen to the residents and take on the challenge – to investigate, question and push back against the HCD 587-unit requirement and demand a fair process.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald Chandler AIA Piedmont Resident

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

Piedmont City Council and City Staff need to take Project Management Seriously –

“…, we have exceeded the original $15M estimate by a whopping $7.5M or 50%.” 

While cost overruns on public projects are sadly nothing new, the Pool project’s overrun before construction bids have been received and after scope reductions have been made is hard to fathom and extremely disappointing. 

With that in mind, consider that the City will soon have to face up to the State’s mandate to bring Essential Services Buildings or ESB ( police, fire and city offices ) up to State code requirements.    For comparison, consider that the Pool project is heading toward a $22-23M price tag while the ESB project costs, as compiled by the City Staff in April, 2020, was estimated to be between $80 to 100M – and that was with very preliminary plans and scope.  Without vastly better methods of cost control for the ESB projects, overruns of the scale of the pool project could easily cause a financial crisis for our small town.

A little background.   In the lead up to Measure UU, the Pool project was represented as a $ 15M project with a $4.5M Contingency added to cover latent conditions, change orders, scope changes, etc.  That resulted in the $19.5M Measure UU Bond. The $4.5M Contingency was prudent and warranted given the status of the plans at the time.

Now plans have been fully developed (and modified once to reduce the cost) and yet residents are still being asked to fund an additional $2.6M to complete the project.  There is also a separate special funding plan seeking $500K to install Heat Pumps to make the project all-electric.  So the project is currently about $3M over budget.   If we add the original $4.5M Contingency to the current $3M overage, we have exceeded the original $15M estimate by a whopping $7.5M or 50 %.   That is quite a miss and underscores my main message – that Piedmont must adopt a more rigorous and professional Project Management model.

What is that model?  It is one where the design team, the project management team and the estimating team all have equal weight and input into the project from the very early stages.  The team needs to avoid iterative design exercises – where a design is completed and then estimated and then often redesigned and estimated again.  The design and estimating processes must go forward simultaneously.  This management model is not new.  It is a model used by most major corporations or entities which have a significant building programs.  But these are top down decisions.  The Owner, in our case the City Council, must lead and require this model of Project Management if the City hopes to avoid replicating the Pool experience in the future.

Regarding the Pool project, it is up to the City Council to establish accountability for how the Pool project got to where it is.  I maintain that the issue is poor project management and definitely not hyperinflation as claimed by some.  ( Hyperinflation is defined as monthly inflation of 50% or more.- we are not experiencing that. )  No, our problem, our issue to resolve, is our current method of Project Management.   It is not serving us well.   We should not, cannot, continue to exceed our budgets and then go hat in hand to our residents to bail out our projects.

How Piedmont manages the Pool project moving forward and the ESB projects in the very near future will depend largely on the will of the City Council and City Staff to chart a different path.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald Chandler  AIA, Piedmont Resident

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

Questions on the proposed Housing Element were posed by Garrett Keating followed by Answers from the City Planning Department, plus Interpretations.

1. Is the relocation of the Corporation Yard to Blair Park being considered as part of the Moraga Canyon Site Assessment?

Answer:  City staff considered the broader policy issue of identifying City parkland in the Housing Element sites inventory, starting on page 157 of the Draft Housing Element. Ultimately, staff recommended a Draft Housing Element that did not include parkland in the sites inventory as a primary site. Blair Park was identified as a possible “alternative site” in the text description of the sites inventory. Dracena Park and all City parks were considered for housing sites during the development of the sites inventory in the Draft Housing Element.  On August 1, 2022, the City Council directed staff to include Blair Park in the sites inventory as a primary site as part of a proposed Moraga Canyon Specific Plan study in order to consider all of the interrelated changes that may be necessary to locate housing in Moraga Canyon and improve City facilities at the same time.

The Moraga Canyon Specific Plan study will start with a request for proposals (RFP) or request for qualifications (RFQ). The RFP or RFQ will include a project description for the types of land uses and changes to be considered.

2. The Housing Element 102 presentation projected 82 units for the Corporation Yard.  Does that assume the Corporation Yard is relocated to Blair Park? If not, can you tell me the acreage that is available for housing in the Corporation Yard and how you arrived at 82 units for the Corporation Yard (50+32)?

Answer: Here is some background about the corporation yard site for the purposes of the Housing Element sites inventory. The corporation yard, alone, is approximately 13.6 acres. It is an approximate number because this land is also steeply sloping in some areas, and it has existing uses and facilities. Of the 13.6 acres, 3.7 acres are expected to yield 132 housing units. 100 of the 132 would be multifamily residential units at approximately 50 dwelling units per acre.  Please see Figure B-1 from the Draft Housing Element below.

On August 1, the City Council directed staff to re-distribute the housing units identified for sites in the civic center area. It is possible that some of the housing units (mainly moderate and above moderate housing units) could be added to the corporation yard site and a new Moraga Canyon Specific Plan study. These units would appear, if necessary, in the next iteration of the Draft Housing Element sites inventory this fall. Also on August 1, the City Council directed staff to include Blair Park in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan study area.

Interpretation:  relocation of the Corporation Yard to Blair Park is currently not being considered in the identification of housing sites in the Housing Element.  The map shows that the Corporation Yard is to be maintained and staff does not indicate that they are considering it for housing.

3. The City Administrator discussed the income levels required for new residents to be eligible for low-income housing.  The City Administrator presented income data for city/PUSD employees, citing the number of employees that fall into the 4 categories between $69,000 and $150,000. I believe she concluded that 80% of city/PUSD employees are considered low-income.  Is that correct?  The income eligibility levels are based on the income for a family of 4.  Did the city administrator’s presentation account for this – are the employee numbers she presented for employees with families of 4 (or more) or were those incomes for individuals?

Answer: To follow up the email I sent on Monday, I confirmed that the income categories described on slide 10 of the presentation on August 18, 2022, were based on a family of 4 people and that the City and PUSD employees’ incomes were evaluated against this baseline family income. The analysis did not base the employees’ income categories on the size of their actual families.

Interpretation:  Using individual income levels of city/PUSD employees to characterize those employees’ eligibility for different low-income family housing overstates their eligibility.

4. The Planning Director presented a new total for ADUs of 142 and a new income distribution of 84/42/16 = 142. He attributed this new distribution to guidance from HCD and ABAG.  Can I obtain a copy of that guidance from the two agencies or can you direct me to a s source for it? 

Answer: Click on the following link to review the ADU projected income levels from ABAG guidance from June 2022: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-06/ADUs-Projections-Memo_final.pdf

Interpretation:  These new ADU allocations help Piedmont in that they count towards the city’s low-income unit target, lessening the need for low-income units elsewhere.  It should be noted the City has very little control over the actual rental or monthly rent of these units.

 Would moving the Corporation Yard to Blair Park make that side of Moraga Avenue more eligible for development.

“It is our understanding that a number of these facilities have significant capital deficiencies and that they are likely to require substantial renovation and/or replacement at some point in the near future. Because these sites are in strategic locations, it will be possible for the City to engage with the private sector to establish partnerships that would lead to the redevelopment of these facilities along with the identified housing programs.  These sites have value that the City can potentially leverage to attract private partners and to move forward on the basis of a public-private partnership that meets the community’s needs for improved facilities, along with the provision of additional housing.” From the City FAQ about Civic sites:

Both sides of Moraga Avenue can accommodate housing but on which side does the City have more leverage to improve facilities and add housing?  Working with developers, the City can certainly add low income housing to Blair Park but there are no facilities on that side of Moraga to improve, with the exception of the park.  The Corporation Yard offers multiple upgrade options. The City intends to expand Coaches Field to a 150 x 300 multi-purpose field and major reconfiguration of the space is needed.  The Corporation Yard itself is outdated – would a developer contribute to its relocation to eastern Blair Park for the right to develop the site?  The Moraga Canyon Specific Plan needs to include this analysis to achieve the best return to the community on the public land that will be converted to housing.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author and the City of Piedmont Planning Department.

READ PROPOSED  HOUSING ELEMENT :>  LWC_Piedmont_HEU_PRD_040822-compiledfix

Bridget Harris, candidate for the Piedmont City Council, voices, “The City Council should carefully consider applying the “Walkable Oriented Development” (“WOD”) approach to all possible locations and present the results to the community for approval before submitting any proposal for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.”

As the City of Piedmont addresses potential locations for additional housing to meet the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the following criteria should be considered:
1.      Maintain the culture and character of the City;
2.      Maintain traffic safety and security in the City;
3.      Minimize the loss of park land and open space;
4.      Offer locations that maximize the efficiency of construction and living.

A study by the American Enterprise Institute suggests that these criteria can best be met by “Walkable Oriented Development” (“WOD”).  This approach focuses development in areas within a ten minute walk of services and infrastructure. WOD focuses on the placement of multi-unit housing close to existing supermarkets, pharmacies, restaurants and public transportation.  It allows an increase in density while minimizing the need for the construction of additional infrastructure. WOD also makes it easier and less expensive for low income owners/renters to access necessary services thereby reducing traffic impact .

Piedmont doesn’t have a WOD location in the center of the City nor does it have a WOD area along Moraga Avenue.  It doesn’t make sense to force expensive and inefficient high density development in these locations.  However, Grand Avenue and Park Boulevard could become WOD areas with significantly less expense and disruption to the existing community.  The City Council should carefully consider applying the WOD approach to all possible locations and present the results to the community for approval before submitting any proposal for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. 
https://www.aei.org/wod/

Bridget Harris, Seaview Avenue, Candidate for City Council

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.