Very low income housing units top the list –

At the Council meeting on August 5, the Council approved an agreement with Barry J. Miller in the amount of $34,780 for preparation of an update to the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan.  The planning costs for compliance with the state law continue to rise.  State laws require all cities to update their General Plan Housing Element every 7 years. Piedmont’s element needs to be updated in 2014.

Allocation of housing is based on State and regional determination of projected needs. This process is ongoing as population growth in the State and out-of-state migration results in increasing numbers of California residents. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) apportions specific new housing and jobs requirements for each city and county within its nine county Bay Area jurisdiction. 

Piedmont has struggled to meet ABAG’s requirements in the past because of the lack of available sites for new businesses and housing. As a fully built-out city with no opportunity to expand borders or annex properties, the City faces a dilemma every time the housing needs are allocated. Piedmont has argued against the allocation by demonstrating the problems associated with providing the housing units, specifically pointing to the City’s Charter, limited land area, costs, and zoning restrictions.  After a protracted process of negotiations and revised drafts, Piedmont achieved State certification of its Housing Element in 2011. (Read consultant Miller’s recitation of the months of rejections and revisions.) The Housing Element is the only part of a city’s general plan that is subject to State certification.

The Piedmont staff report states:

“As the Council is aware, one of the goals of the Housing Element is to define how the City has planned for its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) – the amount of new housing units the City must show the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) it can accommodate.

Under the existing Housing Element, the City was required to accommodate 40 new units, but the new RHNA allocation for the 2015-2022 Housing Element is 60 new units broken down by income category as follows:

Very Low Income  –  24 units
0-50%*
Low Income –  14 units
51-80%*
Moderate Income – 15 units
81-120%*
Above Moderate Income –  7 units
120%+*

*The income levels are expressed as percentages of Alameda County median income”

As a primarily single family residential city, Piedmont has long attempted to maintain its character through zoning and planning. Piedmont has addressed prior allocations through encouraging second units and infill of vacant lots.  New second units in Piedmont have frequently avoided parking requirements by agreeing to provide the units to very low income individuals for a ten year period.  A question has been raised about what happens to Piedmont meeting low income housing needs when the original ten-year period for the units has elapsed. Voter approval of zoning changes would be necessary to significantly increase Piedmont housing units.

To some, increased population is beneficial and indicates the desirability of the State’s strong economy. Advocates of infill and densification hope open space will be spared if people are housed in existing urban areas.

Opponents of infill and densification have described the imposition of housing unit allocations in urban areas as “the Manhattanization of California” changing the character of cities.

Compliance with State laws require a General Plan Housing Element that includes how a city will provide for the increases in housing units.   As of January 1, 2008, an amendment to the State Housing Element Law, mandates that cities strengthen provisions to respond to the housing needs of the homeless by identifying a zone or zones where emergency shelters are a permitted use without a conditional use permit.

For now, there is no penalty for not providing the prescribed number of units.  Piedmont currently has an approved Housing Element meeting all State requirements.  

Read the staff report.

Re:  Blair Park City-PRFO Negotiations and Brown Act

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members:

“It’s time to assure city residents that council members will stop acting on their own to advance their personal agendas, bolster their pet projects or benefit their political backers.”
 (Oakland Tribune Editorial, Friday, July 19, 2013)

             We suspect, after review of public records and past practices, another Piedmont City Council majority’s violation of the heart of the Brown Act.  “A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.” (Gov. Code Sec. 54952.2(b)(1))

 The Council majority met at least 3 times with PRFO.  Council members discussed, coordinated and then negotiated.  The only possible closed sessions were without subject matter information to the public or required Brown Act notice.  But for information pried loose by Tim Rood, the public has been locked in the dark about the PRFO $200,000+ bad debt.

         The City-PRFO agreement requires PRFO to pay City project costs and an $118,000 security deposit, and authorized termination of City participation if the deposit ceased covering City costs.  Ineptly or intentionally, City leadership spent beyond the deposit without requiring its replenishment and then inexcusably has sat on the arrearage for over a year.

 City leadership has taken pains to avoid admitting negotiations occurred, pretending the meetings were merely “constituents … discussing issues with their elected officials” (Grote’s July 5 letter to Tim Rood).

 Call it pork, or call it ham, City emails show both negotiations and most elements of a Gov. Sec. 54952.2(b)(1) violation:  discussion of negotiating strategy among Council members and the City Administrator; involvement of PRFO’s President Menke, PRFO’s General Council Havian and Ellis, PRFO’s Chair-Fund Raising Committee; City Council subject matter jurisdiction — PRFO’s bad debt.

It is highly unusual for a public agency’s majority to be negotiating, especially without its lawyer when the other party’s (PRFO’s) lawyer is always present.  This raises a strong potential for Brown Act violations.  Were the negotiations for a public relations campaign to cover an already-made Council majority decision for non-payment?

 Shrouded in darkness, the negotiating Council majority’s support of the City-PRFO partnership and marching banner –“Say Yes to the Gift! No Taypayer cost!”– has become a civic monument to deception and poor planning.  It has cost taxpayers many $100,000s and become one of most divisive events in Piedmont history.

 Before the 2012 sewer surtax election we confronted the Council with uncontroverted City records: a 3-member Council majority (Barbieri, Chiang and Weiler), in violation of Sec. 54952(b)(1), and with the City Administrator as intermediary, privately prepared and approved rebuttal ballot arguments to the surtax opposition. We suspect an illegal pattern and practice by a Council majority, now with a different majority, but with the same City Administrator intermediary.

               City leadership replaced open government with back-room dealing and, when challenged, has responded with calculated obfuscation.  Taxpayers risk even greater financial loss from more of this bad behavior.  Replace this all too-cute tap dance around the Brown Act with a demand for immediate payment of PRFO’s bad debt and, if necessary, pursuit of legal collection.

Very Truly Yours,

Thomas D. Clark

Rick Schiller

Piedmont residents

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Questions persist on Brown Act compliance.

Violation of the Brown Act by Council members’ contiguously and jointly meeting with Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) leaders depends on the subjects discussed in the meetings, links of the various meetings, participants at the meetings and the possibility of staff acting as an intermediary.

The Brown Act (CA Gov. Code § 54952.2 (b)(1))  “A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”

Questions have been raised by citizens regarding the right of Council members together with the City Administrator to meet, without public notice, with individuals to discuss “any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”

On January 31, April 11, and June 17, 2013 at various times three members of the City Council met with signers to an agreement between the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) and the City.  Because staff and Council members had indicated the intention to meet with PRFO to discuss the outstanding unpaid reimbursement balance, these meetings are  presumed to involve settling the payments owed by PRFO.  No other agenda has been offered for the three meetings with the PRFO leaders, but if no City business was discussed, no public notice was required.

At the meetings PRFO was represented by two leaders in each meeting and a third PRFO leader joined one meeting.  The City was represented by the City Administrator and the Mayor alone or with an additional Council member or by a third Council member alone. This composed a majority of the Council and the principals of PRFO meeting for the purpose of negotiating the amount of money owed to the City of Piedmont for expenditures on behalf of PRFO’s Blair Park project. 

In a statement in the July 5, 2013 , Piedmonter,  Assistant City Attorney Rafael Mandelman said,  “We take the Brown Act seriously.  I looked into (the matter) and it doesn’t seem to me there was a violation. There was never any deliberation among a (City Council) quorum or any discussion about what other council members said.  The elements don’t seem to be there.”

Piedmonter and former Planning Commissioner Melanie Robertson wrote, “..at the end of the three meetings, three of the five City Council members–Mayor Chiang, McBain and Fujioka–in addition to Grote, had met with PRFO officials Havian and Menke about the PRFO debt but without public notice, participation or comment.  The Brown Act provides that the three members of the council ‘taken as a whole invovles a majority of the body’s members.’ thus, the three meetings combined, as defined in the Brown Act, clearly constitute serial meetings and therefore are in violation of the Brown Act.”

It is not known what has been deliberated, but negotiations have been acknowledged in emails between the participants, which includes a majority (quorum) of the Council.   If the private negotiation meetings produced any conclusory information or direction, this has not been publicly announced.  Serial private meetings by a majority (quorum) of an elected body involving  negotiations, unless specifically exempted under the law, constitute a violation of the Brown Act.  It is unknown why the matter has not been placed on a public agenda for consideration and public input on the facts.   

During the review of  the development of Blair Park on Moraga Avenue in Piedmont by PRFO, an agreement to reimburse City expenses, for legal work and other consultants, was struck outside of public meetings between PRFO and the City.  The project was approved.   Following litigation brought by Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) and objections by the City of Oakland, on May 7, 2012, the Council rescinded its approval. 

After the City’s costs were itemized, PRFO evidently contested some of the charges.  Details on the matter have been questioned and requested to be publicly discussed.  Costs, if not borne by PRFO, will fall to the City’s taxpayers through the City General Fund.

In response to a citizen inquiry, the City Administrator asserted that the private meetings supported by City staff are legal under the Brown Act. Tim Rood had observed that the meetings appeared inconsistent with the Brown Act.

The following links are provided for more information on the Brown Act:

http://www.cacities.org/UploadedFiles/LeagueInternet/86/86f75625-b7df-4fc8-ab60-de577631ef1e.pdf

http://www.asnc.us/2004-archives/Special-2004/0805-CityAttnyOpinionReNCs-BrownAct.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Act

http://www.brownact.4t.com/

The new eastern span of the Bay Bridge won’t be ready to open on Labor Day –

At a closed door session on Monday, July 8 in Sacramento, the directors of agencies* in charge of the bridge construction project informed legislators of the delay.  Retrofitting the cracked bolts will put off the opening beyond mid-December. No new date for the opening has been set because the relocation of traffic from the current span to the new span requires closing the bridge for four days.

The Mercury News reports, “To take the loads originally intended for the steel rods, the bridge contractor, American Bridge/Fluor Enterprises, and Mare Island-based XKT Engineering, are fabricating and installing on each shear key a steel saddle and hanging across it super strong cables. …..The team blames the delay on the need to repair two key seismic stabilizers on the large pier east of the main span tower where 32 out of 96 anchor rods snapped after contractors tightened them down in March. Those won’t be done until Dec. 10.”

* The Toll Bridge Oversight Committee is composed of  the executive directors of Caltrans, Metropolitan Transportation Commission and California Transportation Commission.

BART is on strike.  Piedmonters going to San Francisco can turn to the casual carpools located on Oakland Avenue at Hillside Avenue and on Oakland Avenue at Olive Avenue.  The carpools operate only during weekday morning commuting hours.  Inquiries should be made on casual carpool sites in San Francisco for the return trip to Piedmont.  AC Transit is expected to be running on Monday.

STRIKE !

For information on transportation alternatives, check the following sites:

Piedmont Patch

San Francisco Gate  Update on commuting  (10:40 a.m. Tuesday, July 2, 2013)

Mercury News

KQED News Fix

Prior to the announced strike, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) management and Union representatives met again at 3:30 p.m. Sunday at the urging of the mediators provided by Governor Jerry Brown.  They met in a changed venue, the Caltrans District 4 offices at 111 Grand Avenue in downtown Oakland.

“San Francisco Bay Ferry will add boats from the East Bay and AC Transit, in the midst of its own labor troubles, will run extra buses. AC’s workers were planning to bargain until midnight. If talks failed, they said, the soonest they would strike would be Tuesday morning.”  San Francisco Chronicle

Earlier on Sunday two BART unions announced a strike to begin 12:01 a.m., Monday, July 1. However, BART trains would complete their runs past midnight. The AC Transit Amalgamated Transit Union promised 24-hour notice and had not announced a strike by late Sunday evening. AC Transit can be expected to operate on Monday with additional buses.

Green vehicles added to municipal fleets – 

Four Bay Area communities will have all-electric Mitsubishi i-MiEV hatchbacks for three years to augment their municipal fleets. San Jose received 38 i-MiEVs on Thursday, June 27  and the remaining 12 will be delivered to Campbell, Los Gatos and Mill Valley in early July.

Mitsubishi Motors North America supplied the vehicles. Mike Albert Fleet Solutions, a national fleet management and services provider, developed the favorable leasing terms. Active International, a corporate trading and marketing solutions provider, funded the leases. Bay Area Climate Collaborative (BACC), a public-private initiative of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Mayors of San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland, validated the Bay Area market for Active International, facilitated key business relationships in support of the deal and coordinated with the public agencies to help finalize agreements.

The Lithium-ion battery powered Mitsubishi i-MiEVs have a range of 62 miles per charge.

Read Green Car Congress

BART unions and management agree to continue talking all weekend, but  union leaders gave a 72-hour strike warning Thursday night.  –

Negotiations on new contracts with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) unions began 89 days ago. On Thursday, BART management and unions met until late into the night. Earlier in the day there was a sense of progress that could head off the threatened strike.

“Facing a Sunday night deadline to reach a deal before the workers’ current contract expires, BART management on Thursday brought to the bargaining table new proposals on pay, health care and pension benefits and safety upgrades. The Service Employees International Union, meanwhile, said it was willing to start paying toward pension plans — a major sticking point thus far — and lengthen the amount of time employees have to work before earning retiree medical benefits.” reported by the  Mercury News

Most Mondays through Fridays Piedmonters find the parking lots at MacArthur and Rockridge BART stations are full by 8:30 a.m.  On Monday, July 1, the lots could be largely empty at 8:30 a.m. if BART’s unions strike at 11:59 p.m. Sunday, June 30, when contracts expire. The two largest BART unions, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) voted on Tuesday to authorize a strike by 99.9% and 98.5%.  Union leaders now have the authority to order a walk out, if that is their decision.  Negotiations can continue in hopes of avoiding the strike. The unions promised to give BART a 72-hour notice if they call a work stoppage, and gave notice late Thursday night.

Sometimes the Governor stop negotiations for a cooling-off period.  BART management and SEIU leaders expressed opposition to a cooling-off period on Friday.  On June 25 BART Board President Tom Radulovich wrote to Governor Jerry Brown, asking that the 60-daycooling off period not be invoked:

“We are committed to reaching a final settlement by that date (June 30). However, if an agreement is not reached, we ask that you not grant a 60-day cooling-off period should union leaders request one.”

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission warns:

Contracts between BART and several of its unions expire at 11:59 p.m. on June 30. If BART and its workers are unable to reach agreement, there is a possibility that BART service could be stopped as early as July 1. BART normally serves more than 400,000 people per day, so a strike could have a huge impact on the regional transportation system.

In the event of a BART strike, drivers should expect very heavy traffic, much longer travel times, extended metered light periods to enter the San Rafael and Bay Bridge. Lines to these bridges extended more than a mile during the last BART strike in 1997.

If there is a BART strike, it’s impact could be magnified by AC Transit. The AC Transit Union’s contract also expires Sunday evening and last week 97.4% of those participating, voted in favor of a strike.  Oakland city employee union members also authorized their leaders to call a strike on July 1. On Thursday, Roxanne Sanchez, President of SEIU Local 1021 issued this statement:

“… this Monday, July 1, we draw a line. Be prepared for a major strike that will impact San Francisco, Oakland and much of the Bay Area. We have rallied community and union support, and we must all be present and accounted for as 1021 members and staff.”

 If the strike happens, local radio and television will provide information on conditions and decisions by the various unions.

Police Department has a busy 9-day period June 11-20 –

Piedmont police arrested five burglary suspects in mid-June, following burglaries and car thefts on and near Highland Avenue.  A home invasion occurred on Blair Avenue at 11 am on Tuesday, June 11 while the nanny and children were in the house.  Responding police officers arrested Deandre Mur, Aaron Henderson and James Beverly, Jr. on Blair Avenue near the house.

The following week Eriberto Montano and Simone Aguiler were arrested on suspicion of burglary in connection with a recent  burglary on Scenic Avenue.  The Police Department crime report map indicates two “breaking and entering” crimes in Piedmont in adjacent blocks of Blair Avenue on Tuesday, June 11 and on Scenic Avenue at 6 p.m. on the following Wednesday, June 19.  On Thursdsay, June 20 at 5 p.m. there was a “breaking and entering” on Pala Avenue.

A third “breaking and entering” occurred on Monday, June 17, at 10:30 p.m. on San Carlos Avenue.   Cars were stolen on Magnolia Avenue on Tuesday, June 11, at 7 p.m. and on  Highland Avenue on Friday, June 14, at 2:30 p.m. A “Grand Theft” occurred on Requa Avenue at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11.

Piedmonters are urged to be vigilant and report suspicious activity to the Piedmont Police Department at 420-3000 or 911.  

See Piedmont  Crime Report map

See photos of Montano and Aguiler at time of arrest

See Piedmont/Montclair police blotter