Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit the Draft 6th Cycle City of Piedmont Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for Review — Piedmont City Council, June 20, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

the Draft 6th Cycle Piedmont Housing Element because it provides a toolbox of solutions that the City will use to work with private property owners, the development community and the State of California, to improve housing affordability for School District staff, Piedmont residents and the broader community.

Sincerely,
Randall Booker
Agenda Report Attachment F Agenda Report Page 205
This page was intentionally left blank.

Agenda Report Page 206
Item # 3 – Consideration of Direction to Staff to Provide the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for its 90- Day Review
Correspondence received before Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:00pm Dear Mayor King and Council,
At the last PC meeting concerning the Housing Element (“HE”) draft Kathryn Slama of Lisa Wise consulting was asking about the potential of satisfying Piedmont’s RHNA by the potential of SB9. Her response was that the State only allows numbers based on past production. Mr.

Jackson repeated this information June 7: "Where SB9 is concerned, the State will only allow a jurisdiction to project future housing development at the current rate of production." This production answer is contrary to published HCD SB9 guidelines.

Attached is the HCD SB9 March 2022 Fact Sheet and kindly view the bottom of page 6 "HOUSING ELEMENT LAW: To utilize projections (italics added) based on SB9 toward a jurisdiction's regional housing need allocation (RHNA). . ." HCD then lists four elements needed in a Housing Element to have projections count towards a RHNA reductions: site specific inventory, undeveloped site analysis, identify government restrain and show policies that establish zoning standards early in the process. All are well within the ability of the consultants to include in the draft Housing Element. Explicitly HCD has stated a process for potential housing under SB9 to be used to partially satisfy Piedmont’s RHNA. Other Cities such as affluent Atherton are including this element.

For Piedmont a fundamental positive aspect of embracing SB9 is that new small sized homes still require Piedmont’s thoughtful and neighbor involved design review. Embracing SB9 is a more realistic and sensible approach than envisioning multi-unit dwellings in church parking lots, City Center, 801 Magnolia next to the new pool or the Highland Avenue median as now included in the draft HE before you.

Finally, the HCD time frame includes minimally two examination and revision phases and further phases are permitted. There is no downside by including SB9 projections as HCD can simply ask for further analysis if needed.

Respectfully,
Rick Schiller
Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 207

California Department of Housing and Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet
On the Implementation of Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021)
Housing Policy Development Division
March 2022
Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 208
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 1 This Fact Sheet is for informational purposes only and is not intended to implement or interpret SB 9. HCD does not have authority to enforce SB 9, although violations of SB 9 may concurrently violate other housing laws where HCD does have enforcement authority, including but not limited to the laws addressed in this document. As local jurisdictions implement SB 9, including adopting local ordinances, it is important to keep these and other housing laws in mind. The Attorney General may also take independent action to enforce SB 9. For a full list of statutes over which HCD has enforcement authority, visit HCD’s Accountability and Enforcement webpage.

Executive Summary of SB 9
Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires ministerial approval of a housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone, the subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels, or both. SB 9 facilitates the creation of up to four housing units in the lot area typically used for one single-family home. SB 9 contains eligibility criteria addressing environmental site constraints (e.g., wetlands, wildfire risk, etc.), anti-displacement measures for renters and low-income households, and the protection of historic structures and districts. Key provisions of the law require a local agency to modify or eliminate objective development standards on a project-by-project basis if they would prevent an otherwise eligible lot from being split or prevent the construction of up to two units at least 800 square feet in size. For the purposes of this document, the terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing development” mean primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or junior ADU or otherwise defined.

Single-Family Residential Zones Only
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7 subd. (a)(3)(A)) The parcel that will contain the proposed housing development or that will be subject to the lot split must be located in a single-family residential zone. Parcels located in multifamily residential, commercial, agricultural, mixed-use zones, etc., are not subject to SB 9 mandates even if they allow single-family residential uses as a permitted use. While some zones are readily identifiable as single-family residential zones (e.g., R-1 “SingleFamily Residential”), others may not be so obvious. Some local agencies have multiple single-family zones with subtle distinctions between them relating to minimum lot sizes or allowable uses. In communities where there may be more than one single-family residential zone, the local agency should carefully review the zone district descriptions in the zoning code and the land use designation descriptions in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This review will enable the local agency to identify zones whose primary purpose is single-family residential uses and which are therefore subject to SB 9.

Considerations such as minimum lot sizes, natural features such as hillsides, or the permissibility of keeping horses should not factor into the determination.

Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 209
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 2 Residential Uses Only
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a))
SB 9 concerns only proposed housing developments containing no more than two residential units (i.e., one or two). The law does not otherwise change the allowable land uses in the local agency’s single-family residential zone(s). For example, if the local agency’s single-family zone(s) does not currently allow commercial uses such as hotels or restaurants, SB 9 would not allow such uses.

Ministerial Review
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7, subds. (a), (b)(1)) An application made under SB 9 must be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing. Ministerial review means a process for development approval involving no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom of carrying out the project. The public official merely ensures that the proposed development meets all the applicable objective standards for the proposed action but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial review is nearly always a “staff-level review.” This means that a staff person at the local agency reviews the application, often using a checklist, and compares the application materials (e.g., site plan, project description, etc.) with the objective development standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards.

Objective Standards
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b); 66411.7, subd. (c)) The local agency may apply objective development standards (e.g., front setbacks and heights), objective subdivision standards (e.g., minimum lot depths), and objective design standards (e.g., roof pitch, eave projections, façade materials, etc.) as long as they would not physically preclude either of the following:

Up to Two Primary Units. The local agency must allow up to two primary units (i.e., one or two) on the subject parcel or, in the case of a lot split, up to two primary units on each of the resulting parcels.

Units at least 800 square feet in size. The local agency must allow each primary unit to be at least 800 square feet in size.

The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. Any objective standard that would physically preclude either or both of the two objectives noted above must be modified or Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 210
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 3 waived by the local agency in order to facilitate the development of the project, with the following two exceptions:

Setbacks for Existing Structures. The local agency may not require a setback for an existing structure or for a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure (i.e., a building reconstructed on the same footprint).

Four-Foot Side and Rear Setbacks. SB 9 establishes an across-the-board maximum four-foot side and rear setbacks. The local agency may choose to apply a lesser setback (e.g., 0-4 feet), but it cannot apply a setback greater than four feet. The local agency cannot apply existing side and rear setbacks applicable in the single-family residential zone(s). Additionally, the four-foot side and rear setback standards are not subject to modification. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(B); 66411.7, subdivision (c)(3).)
One-Unit Development
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A)) SB 9 requires the ministerial approval of either one or two residential units. Government Code section 65852.21 indicates that the development of just one single-family home was indeed contemplated and expected. For example, the terms “no more than two residential units” and “up to two units” appear in the first line of the housing development-related portion of SB 9 (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (a)) and in the line obligating local agencies to modify development standards to facilitate a housing development. (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A).)
Findings of Denial
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (d); 66411.7, subd. (d)) SB 9 establishes a high threshold for the denial of a proposed housing development or lot split. Specifically, a local agency’s building official must make a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).)
Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 211
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 4 Environmental Site Constraints
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(2) and (a)(6); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(E)) A proposed housing development or lot split is not eligible under SB 9 if the parcel contains any of the site conditions listed in Government Code section 65913.4, subdivision (a)(6)(B-K). Examples of conditions that may disqualify a project from using SB 9 include the presence of farmland, wetlands, fire hazard areas, earthquake hazard areas, flood risk areas, conservation areas, wildlife habitat areas, or conservation easements. SB 9 incorporates by reference these environmental site constraint categories that were established with the passing of the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (SB 35, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017). Local agencies may consult HCD’s Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines for additional detail on how to interpret these environmental site constraints.

Additionally, a project is not eligible under SB 9 if it is located in a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (n)) Because the approval of a qualifying project under SB 9 is deemed a ministerial action, CEQA does not apply to the decision to grant an application for a housing development or a lot split, or both. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1) [CEQA does not apply to ministerial actions]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15268.) For this reason, a local agency must not require an applicant to perform environmental impact analysis under CEQA for applications made under SB 9. Additionally, if a local agency chooses to adopt a local ordinance to implement SB 9 (instead of implementing the law directly from statute), the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is not considered a project under CEQA. In other words, the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA.

Anti-Displacement Measures
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(3); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(D)) A site is not eligible for a proposed housing development or lot split if the project would require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (1) housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; (2) housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or (3) housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.

Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 212
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 5 Lot Split Requirements
(Reference: Gov. Code, § 66411.7)
SB 9 does not require a local agency to approve a parcel map that would result in the creation of more than two lots and more than two units on a lot resulting from a lot split under Government Code section 66411.7. A local agency may choose to allow more than two units, but it is not required to under the law. A parcel may only be subdivided once under Government Code section 66411.7. This provision prevents an applicant from pursuing multiple lot splits over time for the purpose of creating more than two lots. SB 9 also does not require a local agency to approve a lot split if an adjacent lot has been subject to a lot split in the past by the same property owner or a person working in concert with that same property owner.

Accessory Dwelling Units
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (f)) SB 9 and ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2 and 65858.22) are complementary. The requirements of each can be implemented in ways that result in developments with both “SB 9 Units” and ADUs. However, specific provisions of SB 9 typically overlap with State ADU Law only to a limited extent on a relatively small number of topics. Treating the provisions of these two laws as identical or substantially similar may lead a local agency to implement the laws in an overly restrictive or otherwise inaccurate way. “Units” Defined. The three types of housing units that are described in SB 9 and related ADU Law are presented below to clarify which development scenarios are (and are not) made possible by SB 9. The definitions provided are intended to be read within the context of this document and for the narrow purpose of implementing SB 9.

Primary Unit. A primary unit (also called a residential dwelling unit or residential unit) is typically a single-family residence or a residential unit within a multi-family residential development. A primary unit is distinct from an ADU or a Junior ADU.

Examples of primary units include a single-family residence (i.e., one primary unit), a duplex (i.e., two primary units), a four-plex (i.e., four primary units), etc.

Accessory Dwelling Unit. An ADU is an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel on which the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.

Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A Junior ADU is a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A Junior ADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.

Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 213
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 6 The terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing development” mean primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an ADU or Junior ADU or otherwise defined. This distinction is critical to successfully implementing SB 9 because state law applies different requirements (and provides certain benefits) to ADUs and Junior ADUs that do not apply to primary units.

Number of ADUs Allowed. ADUs can be combined with primary units in a variety of ways to achieve the maximum unit counts provided for under SB 9. SB 9 allows for up to four units to be built in the same lot area typically used for a single-family home. The calculation varies slightly depending on whether a lot split is involved, but the outcomes regarding total maximum unit counts are identical.

Lot Split. When a lot split occurs, the local agency must allow up to two units on each lot resulting from the lot split. In this situation, all three unit types (i.e., primary unit, ADU, and Junior ADU) count toward this two-unit limit. For example, the limit could be reached on each lot by creating two primary units, or a primary unit and an ADU, or a primary unit and a Junior ADU. By building two units on each lot, the overall maximum of four units required under SB 9 is achieved. (Gov. Code, § 66411.7, subd. (j).) Note that the local agency may choose to allow more than two units per lot if desired.

No Lot Split. When a lot split has not occurred, the lot is eligible to receive ADUs and/or Junior ADUs as it ordinarily would under ADU law. Unlike when a project is proposed following a lot split, the local agency must allow, in addition to one or two primary units under SB 9, ADUs and/or JADUs under ADU Law. It is beyond the scope of this document to identify every combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs possible under SB 9 and ADU Law. However, in no case does SB 9 require a local agency to allow more than four units on a single lot, in any combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs.

See HCD’s ADU and JADU webpage for more information and resources.

Relationship to Other State Housing Laws
SB 9 is one housing law among many that have been adopted to encourage the production of homes across California. The following represent some, but not necessarily all, of the housing laws that intersect with SB 9 and that may be impacted as SB 9 is implemented locally.

Housing Element Law. To utilize projections based on SB 9 toward a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation, the housing element must: 1) include a site-specific inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied, 2) include a nonvacant sites analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not constitute an impediment for additional residential use, 3) identify any governmental constraints to the use of SB 9 in the creation of units (including land use controls, fees, Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 214
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 7 and other exactions, as well as locally adopted ordinances that impact the cost and supply of residential development), and 4) include programs and policies that establish zoning and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate development. The element should support this analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through SB 9. Learn more on HCD’s Housing Elements webpage.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019. An affected city or county is limited in its ability to amend its general plan, specific plans, or zoning code in a way that would improperly reduce the intensity of residential uses. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) This limitation applies to residential uses in all zones, including single-family residential zones. “Reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) A local agency should proceed with caution when adopting a local ordinance that would impose unique development standards on units proposed under SB 9 (but that would not apply to other developments). Any proposed modification to an existing development standard applicable in the single-family residential zone must demonstrate that it would not result in a reduction in the intensity of the use. HCD recommends that local agencies rely on the existing objective development, subdivision, and design standards of its singlefamily residential zone(s) to the extent possible. Learn more about Designated Jurisdictions Prohibited from Certain Zoning-Related Actions on HCD’s website.

Housing Accountability Act. Protections contained in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the Permit Streaming Act (PSA) apply to housing developments pursued under SB 9. (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5; 65905.5; 65913.10; 65940 et seq.) The definition of “housing development project” includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. (Gov. Code, § 65905.5, subd. (b)(3).) For additional information about the HAA and PSA, see HCD’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory.

Rental Inclusionary Housing. Government Code section 65850, subdivision (g), authorizes local agencies to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that includes residential rental units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. In certain circumstances, HCD may request the submittal of an economic feasibility study to ensure the ordinance does not unduly constrain housing production. For additional information, see HCD’s Rental Inclusionary Housing Memorandum.

Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 215
Hi
Please see the attached opposition to the housing element and add this to each council members packet Thanks
Joe
Joe Hurwich
510-654-9669 (c ):510-406-1263
Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 216
Agenda Report Attachment G Agenda Report Page 217
This page was intentionally left blank.

Agenda Report Page 218
Jurisdiction Fiscal Year Race National Origin Disability Familial Status Marital Status Religion Sex Source of Income Age Other TOTAL Albany 2016-2017 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Albany 2017-2018 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Albany 2018-2019 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Albany 2019-2020 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Albany 2020-2021 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
City of Alameda 2016-2017 6 3 26 10 1 0 5 N/A N/A 11 62 City of Alameda 2017-2018 19 0 15 8 3 1 4 N/A N/A 8 58
City of Alameda 2018-2019 26 1 19 3 0 0 1 N/A N/A 4 54
City of Alameda 2019-2020 19 0 9 1 1 0 16 N/A N/A 2 48
City of Alameda 2020-2021 10 6 17 8 1 0 5 9 3 N/A 59
Dublin 2016-2017 13 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 19
Dublin 2017-2018 12 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 17
Dublin 2018-2019 9 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 19
Dublin 2019-2020 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16
Dublin 2020-2021 2 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
San Leandro 2016-2017 3 5 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 23
San Leandro 2017-2018 8 4 13 2 0 0 0 4 0 N/A 31
San Leandro 2018-2019 5 1 14 0 0 0 2 3 0 N/A 25
San Leandro 2019-2020 9 3 14 5 0 1 0 7 1 N/A 40
San Leandro 2020-2021 2 1 7 6 0 0 0 9 0 N/A 25
Hayward 2016-2017 2 3 11 6 0 0 0 0 2 N/A 24
Hayward 2017-2018 9 2 17 3 0 0 1 2 0 N/A 34
Hayward 2018-2019 6 2 10 4 0 0 1 1 0 N/A 24
Hayward 2019-2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0
Hayward 2020-2021 7 1 19 2 0 6 1 5 1 N/A 42
Piedmont 2016-2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Piedmont 2017-2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Piedmont 2018-2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Piedmont 2019-2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Piedmont 2020-2021 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Newark 2016-2017 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
Newark 2017-2018 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Newark 2018-2019 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Newark 2019-2020 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Newark 2020-2021 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 14
Emeryville 2016-2017 5 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7
Emeryville 2017-2018 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
Emeryville 2018-2019 1 1 5 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 11
Emeryville 2019-2020 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
Emeryville 2020-2021 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 14
Unincorporated
Alameda County 2016-2017 13 2 21 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 42
Unincorporated
Alameda County 2017-2018 24 1 22 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 55
Unincorporated
Alameda County 2018-2019 21 0 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 42
Unincorporated
Alameda County 2019-2020 12 0 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 45
Unincorporated
Alameda County 2020-2021 12 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 32
Oakland 2016-2017 63 7 57 17 3 0 8 N/A N/A 101 256
Oakland 2017-2018 32 2 51 19 1 3 14 N/A N/A 43 165
Oakland 2018-2019 35 3 45 7 4 0 5 N/A N/A 65 164
Oakland 2019-2020 7 3 19 6 1 20 2 4 N/A 8 70
Oakland 2020-2021 8 23 56 5 0 0 7 3 5 58 165
Fair Housing Complaints, 2016-2021
Source: ECHO Fair Housing
Note: A flood in 2020 of ECHO's records room may have destroyed records of early 2020 complaints, so FY-2019-20 may be incomplete.

Agenda Report Attachment H Agenda Report Page 219
Jurisdiction Fiscal Year
Counseling Insufficient
Evidence
Successful
Conciliation Cases Dropped Education to
Landlord
Referrals to
Atty/DFEH/HUD Pending Total
Albany 2016-2017 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
Albany 2017-2018 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
Albany 2018-2019 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Albany 2019-2020 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Albany 2020-2021 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 5
City of Alameda 2016-2017 42 5 4 8 2 1 0 62
City of Alameda 2017-2018 25 25 3 2 2 1 0 58
City of Alameda 2018-2019 5 30 2 6 10 0 1 54
City of Alameda 2019-2020 9 25 1 0 13 0 0 48
City of Alameda 2020-2021 28 13 4 1 13 0 0 59
Dublin 2016-2017 6 13 0 0 0 2 2 19
Dublin 2017-2018 6 11 2 1 0 0 1 18
Dublin 2018-2019 11 8 0 0 3 0 7 17
Dublin 2019-2020 5 5 0 0 5 0 1 16
Dublin 2020-2021 1 14 1 0 3 0 0 19
San Leandro 2016-2017 5 8 7 1 0 2 0 23
San Leandro 2017-2018 18 7 1 2 1 2 0 31
San Leandro 2018-2019 8 8 2 5 2 0 0 25
San Leandro 2019-2020 14 18 4 0 4 0 0 40
San Leandro 2020-2021 9 5 6 0 5 0 0 25
Hayward 2016-2017 8 5 7 2 1 1 0 24
Hayward 2017-2018 12 10 5 4 2 1 0 34
Hayward 2018-2019 14 6 3 1 0 0 0 24
Hayward 2019-2020 13 13 3 1 11 0 0 41
Hayward 2020-2021 13 15 4 1 9 0 0 42
Piedmont 2016-2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Piedmont 2017-2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Piedmont 2018-2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Piedmont 2019-2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Piedmont 2020-2021 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Newark 2016-2017 0 13 0 0 0 0 1 14
Newark 2017-2018 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Newark 2018-2019 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 5
Newark 2019-2020 3 3 0 1 3 0 1 11
Newark 2020-2021 0 9 0 0 2 0 0 11
Emeryville 2016-2017 5 1 0 1 0 2 3 8
Emeryville 2017-2018 9 7 0 1 0 1 4 13
Emeryville 2018-2019 11 0 1 0 1 0 2 11
Emeryville 2019-2020 4 5 1 0 3 0 0 13
Emeryville 2020-2021 6 5 1 1 0 0 1 14
Unincorporated Alameda County 2016-2017 26 15 3 1 0 3 6 42 Unincorporated Alameda County 2017-2018 32 25 3 1 6 0 10 55 Unincorporated Alameda County 2018-2019 16 17 4 1 15 1 3 42 Unincorporated Alameda County 2019-2020 11 24 0 0 8 1 0 45 Unincorporated Alameda County 2020-2021 5 22 0 1 3 1 0 32 Oakland 2016-2017 194 44 3 2 8 5 0 256
Oakland 2017-2018 121 20 9 2 11 2 0 165
Oakland 2018-2019 107 5 2 0 4 5 0 123
Oakland 2019-2020 29 23 6 2 9 1 0 70
Oakland 2020-2021 96 62 1 1 5 0 0 165
Source: ECHO Fair Housing
Note: A flood in 2020 of ECHO's records room may have destroyed records of early 2020 complaints, so FY-2019-20 may be incomplete.

Note: In some instances, there will be more units of service for fair housing than actual clients. This is because some clients allege discrimination based on more than one protected class.

Resolution of Fair Housing Cases, 2016-2021
Agenda Report Attachment H Agenda Report Page 220

TOPICS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST
The City has received over 550 written public comments about the Draft Housing Element since it was published on April 8, 2022. Comments were received via email and through participation in the Piedmont Housing Puzzle. These comments have been analyzed for common themes and areas of interest. Areas of the Draft Housing Element that have garnered the community attention and questions are explained below, including responses from City staff and consultants.

1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Process
Every city in California receives a RHNA number, which is a target number of homes to plan for at various income levels. RHNA starts with the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) provided by HCD, which is the total number of housing units the San Francisco Bay Area region needs over the eight-year period, by income group.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is tasked with developing the methodology to allocate a portion of housing needs to each city, town, and county in the region. After considering public comments, the ABAG Executive Board approved the RHNA methodology in January 2021. The State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviewed the RHNA methodology to ensure it furthers State-required objectives, and ABAG adopted a final methodology and allocations for every local government in the Bay Area in May 2021. As presented to the City Council on June 21, 2021, the City actively participated at every stage of the RHNA methodology development process and submitted seven letters to ABAG to explain how the proposed methodology did not sufficiently take Piedmont’s unique circumstances under consideration. The RHNA assignments for the City of Piedmont are outlined in Table SR-1, as follows:

Table SR-1
2023-2031 RHNA Allocation
City of Piedmont
Income Level

VERY LOW INCOME
(<50% of Area Median Income) 163

LOW INCOME
(50-80% of Area Median Income)
94 MODERATE INCOME
(80-120% of Area Median Income)
92 ABOVE MODERATE INCOME
(>120% of Area Median Income)
238
TOTAL ALLOCATION 587
Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 221

2. Sites Inventory
Every Housing Element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the locality’s regional housing need by income level. As part of this analysis, the City must calculate the projected residential development capacity of the land or sites identified in the Housing Element that can be realistically achieved. (Government Code section 65583.2(c).) The privately owned sites continue to be controlled by the property owners, who will decide how they are developed. The Draft Housing Element does not include programs for eminent domain.

Private property will continue to be controlled by their property owners.

Thus, in accordance with State law, the proposed Draft Housing Element includes a recommended housing sites inventory for review and consideration. Figure B-2, the Draft Housing Element’s site inventory map, is included on page B-15 and excerpted below. Table B-9, beginning on page B17 of the Draft Housing Element, lists sites organized by income levels.

Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 222

3. City Owned Sites
Due to changes to State law that increase the scrutiny on sites identified for housing affordable to households with low incomes, as well as Piedmont’s higher RHNA during this Housing Element cycle compared to previous cycles, the sites inventory in the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element includes opportunity sites in all zones, including City-owned properties, to meet the eligibility and feasibility criteria required by HCD. After careful review of all City-owned properties, the following were included in the Draft Housing Element, published on April 8, 2022:
• Piedmont Public Works Corporation Yard
• City Hall and Veterans Memorial Building/Police Station • Corey Reich Tennis Center
• Highland Avenue Grassy Strip (between Sierra Avenue and Sheridan Avenue) • 801 Magnolia Avenue
These City-owned sites are suggested for the sites inventory for their size (0.5 acre or more), proximity to arterial roadways and access to transit, fire and emergency services, schools, and a commercial district with multiple services. The existing uses on these sites could be incorporated into a future redevelopment plan. In addition, the existing city-owned buildings, such as administrative offices, multi-use spaces, community rooms, and Police Department and Fire Department facilities, require modernization to meet current seismic and fire safety requirements, improved energy efficiency, and expansion to meet the City’s needs. The inclusion of the Cory Reich Tennis Center as a potential site recognizes that it is possible to develop a structure with tennis courts atop. City-owned sites smaller than 0.5 acres, like 801 Magnolia Avenue or the Grassy Strip along Highland Avenue, were included because they are adjacent to other City lands and could be enlarged with lot line adjustments.

Should a developer express interest in a City-owned site at some point in the future, the City would be positioned to consider its needs and requirements and then negotiate the terms of a possible development. The City would work with a development partner to develop units affordable to lowand very low-income households and meet the number of units specified in the Housing Element.

As recommended in the draft City Council resolution, the Draft Housing Element would outline a request for proposals (RFP) process to identify potential development partners for City-owned sites.

The Draft Housing Element published April 8, 2022, is innovative. Likewise, the housing developers with interest in building housing on City-owned land will need to be innovative to adapt to the physical and built surroundings, and to accommodate the City’s need to replace or improve existing City facilities. A key takeaway is that if the City of Piedmont owns the property to be redeveloped into housing, the City controls who builds and operates the housing and how it is designed.

3. Specific Plan/Moraga Canyon
Specific plans are regulated by Government Code Sections 65450 et. seq. A specific plan must include a text and a land diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail:

Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 223
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the land area covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities, proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures, such as development fees, necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).

A specific plan includes a study of the issues enumerated above, and once adopted by a city, all future regulation of the specific plan area must be in conformance with it. In addition, a specific plan includes a statement describing the relationship of the specific plan to a city’s General Plan.

Within the sites inventory (starting on page 41 and page B-13), the Draft Housing Element proposes to prepare a specific plan for the area of the Public Works Corporation Yard at 898 Red Rock Road and the adjacent lot to accommodate new housing development, incorporate existing amenities, and modernize current city functions. The specific plan approach, outlined in housing program 1.L, would give the City the opportunity to study the future transportation and circulation system in the area; study the public infrastructure needs, such as any roadways, bridges, utilities, and evacuation routes; and design solutions to potential environmental impacts, such as wildfire mitigations, evacuation routes, and safe emergency response.

The Draft Housing Element recommended by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2022, identifies a mixture of affordability levels for the Corporation Yard site, consisting of 100 new housing units affordable to households with low and very-low incomes, located along the frontage on Moraga Avenue, and 32 market-rate units on the hillside above the Public Works offices and storage facilities.

In response to extensive public comment and further staff analysis, the attached draft resolution prepared for the review of the City Council includes two suggested revisions relative to Moraga Canyon:

1. Expansion of the specific plan area to include Moraga Avenue public right-of-way and land within Blair Park, which is located on the south side of Moraga Avenue; and

2. Decrease the minimum unit count in the specific plan from 132 units to a minimum 92 units and up to 160 units.

The revision recommended by staff in this report would include additional land in the specific plan study area, including Moraga Avenue public right-of-way from Highland Avenue to the northern Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 224
city limit line and including land designated as Blair Park.

In addition, the number of new housing units in the specific plan would be adjusted to a new range with a minimum of 92 units, instead of the minimum of 132 housing units originally called for in housing program 1.L in the Draft Housing Element. Of the minimum 92 units, 60 would be affordable to households with low and very low incomes and 32 would be affordable to incomes in the above moderate category. A key takeaway is that all of the City-owned land in Moraga Canyon would be studied together in order to improve access, build new housing, address potential hazards, and improve City facilities, while conserving open space and recreational amenities.

Decreasing the minimum unit count in the specific plan area by 40 units could increase the likelihood of a successful specific plan in Moraga Canyon. The reduction of 40 units in Moraga Canyon would require the addition of 40 low and very income units elsewhere. The potential site to receive the 40 units would be located at 1337 Grand Avenue. This recommended adjustment is discussed below in part 7, Distribution of New Housing Units.

Staff recommends expanding the land area considered in the specific plan to include Blair Park so that it results in a more comprehensive and integrated approach to land use planning and emergency preparedness planning in Moraga Canyon.

4. Measure A-1 Timeline and Prioritization of City Owned Sites Of the $580 million in the Measure A1 Affordable Housing Bond (2016), $225 million was made available to cities within Alameda County based on their population and Regional Housing Needs Allocations to plan for and build affordable housing within each jurisdiction as “Base City Allocations.” Piedmont’s base allocation is $2.1 million. On June 7, 2022, the Alameda County Board of Supervisor’s approved an extension of the deadline for the City of Piedmont to identify a development partner and site for affordable housing for the Measure A-1 funding from December 2022 to December 2024.

One of the recommendations in the Planning Commission’s May 12th resolution was to revise housing programs 1.F, Increase Allowances for Housing in Zone B, and 1.L, the Specific Plan (see meeting minutes and resolution, Attachment D to this staff report). The Commissioners questioned whether or not the proposed specific plan prioritized the Corporation Yard site over other Cityowned sites included in the Sites Inventory for affordable housing development.

Staff clarified that there is no intended hierarchy of sites in the Draft Housing Element. Several City-owned sites in the Housing Element Sites Inventory have the access, lot sizes and shapes, and public utilities necessary for redevelopment if desired by the City Council. The specific plan approach in program 1.L for the Public Works Corporation Yard area is proposed because the site is larger than 10 acres, and this site has not been readied for development, such as through plans for subdivision plan, roadways, sidewalks, utilities, and other considerations.

In response to staff’s explanation, the Planning Commission recommended:
• That programs 1.F and 1.L be revised to clarify that lack of priority, Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 225
• That all sites included in the Sites Inventory for affordable housing development be considered concurrently for application of Measure A-1 funding.

The specific plan approach for the Corporation Yard area (with recommended expansion to include Blair Park and Moraga Avenue public right-of-way) is expected to take a minimum of 18 months to complete studies and public engagement before this site would be suitable for redevelopment.

Because the deadline for Measure A-1 projects in Piedmont has been extended to December 2024, it may be possible to identify a development partner and apply for Measure A-1 funding for housing development in the specific plan area, as well as other City-owned sites not in the specific plan area. To help meet the Commission’s recommended approach and enable all of the Cityowned sites to be considered for Measure A-1 funding, City staff recommends the following revision to the text of the Draft Housing Element.

The specific plan process would be streamlined if the Draft Housing Element were to be revised to include broad intended goals in the text of program 1.L, Specific Plan. Any future development partner chosen by the City Council to prepare a specific plan and development proposal for the Corporation Yard and adjacent areas, would be required to meet the goals outlined in the Draft Housing Element. Staff recommends that the goals of the specific plan include (new text underlined):
“The goals of the specific plan are as follows. The first goal is to enable construction of housing in the range of 92 to 160 units, on portions of the site totaling approximately 3.5 acres of land, yielding a minimum of 60 to 100 units of housing affordable to households earning less than 80% of the area median income (AMI) and 32 units affordable to households more than 80% of the AMI.

In addition, specific plan goals include improved safety. New habitable structures shall be built to meet fire code requirements for Wildland Urban Interface Areas.

The specific plan must include replacement and/or modernization of existing Public Works Department facilities, offices, storage areas, vehicle storage areas, etc. so that service capacity is maintained or increased, and so that the facilities meet current building and fire code requirements.

The specific plan must include recreation facilities, including but not limited to a skatepark and an athletic field which incorporates a regulation size soccer field as well as a baseball/softball diamond.

The specific plan must provide all public utilities to new housing and all City facilities to be constructed within the specific plan area in a manner consistent with public safety standards and Piedmont Climate Action Plan goals and programs.

Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 226
The specific plan must include improvements to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, as determined necessary by the City Engineer to provide safe pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle movements, ensure safe evacuation routes, and ensure optimal emergency response.

The goals of the specific plan include a comprehensive landscape plan for areas planned for development. The landscape plan shall prioritize to the extent practicable: fire safety; and the preservation of significant open space, scenic views, and native and heritage trees.”
As proposed in the draft resolution prepared for the review of the City Council, the implementation of programs 1.F, Increase Allowances for Housing in Zone B, and 1.L, the specific plan, would be revised to have the following timelines that would coordinate with timeframes for Measure A-1 funding:

Page 38 ends

• Zoning amendment completed within 3 years of Housing Element adoption. • Begin developing goals for City-owned properties in 2023 as a first step towards development of affordable housing on City-owned sites.

Pages 41 to 42, Program 1.L, the Specific Plan, Timeframe:
• Apply for available grant funding and issue RFP for specific plan by end of 2023 2025. • Begin subdivision of site and Surplus Land declaration early 2024. • Prepare specific plan to be completed with the goal of completion by early the end of 20252026.
• Adopt specific plan, General Plan amendments (See Program 1.P), and associated development standards by mid- the end of 20252026.
• Issue development RFP in mid 2025.
• Enter Pursue goal of entering into exclusive negotiating agreement with development partners by early the end of 2026.

5. Potential Constraints and City Charter
Some public comments suggest that the Draft Housing Element must be approved by Piedmont voters in a general election. As outlined in the May 12, 2022 Planning Commission staff report, the proposed zoning amendments in the Draft Housing Element do not reclassify land nor change or expand zoning boundaries. In the judgement of City staff, the Draft Housing Element programs are not subject to City Charter limitations on the City Council’s authority.

The Draft Housing Element investigated potential obstacles to the development of housing accessible to households of all income levels. Potential obstacles to development include governmental constraints (fees, development standards, and other regulations) and nongovernmental constraints (market conditions, limited land supply, environmental setting, and other limits). For example, the non-governmental constraints analysis found that demand for homes and apartments in Piedmont is very high, resulting in high land costs. The Draft Housing Element includes programs to monitor and address potential governmental constraints due to the City Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 227
Charter and zoning ordinance limits on allowable residential densities, as described below. The staff report prepared for the May 12, 2022, Planning Commission meeting includes a discussion of the proposed programs to eliminate governmental constraints on housing development.

6. Proposed Zoning Amendments
The Draft Housing Element does not change the zoning classification of any properties in Piedmont. Nor does it propose any zones be enlarged or reduced. In order to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA target with Piedmont’s limited available land, the Draft Housing Element’s Goal 1, New Housing Construction, proposes future zoning ordinance amendments to increase the allowed residential density in existing zoning districts. Amendments increase allowed residential density for housing affiliated with religious institutions in Zone A in accordance with California Assembly Bill 1851 (program 1.D, page 37) and increase allowed residential density in Zone B (program

1.F), Zone C (program 1.G), and Zone D (1.H), as follows:

Table S-R 2
Zoning District Current Residential
Density
DU/ acre*
Proposed Residential
Density
DU/ acre*
Zone A 5 21
Zone B 5 60
Zone C 21 60
Zone D 20 80
*DU/acre means the dwelling units per acre ratio.

These proposed densities, outlined in the table above, permit the City’s limited land resources to yield the required number of housing units mandated by the RHNA at all required levels of affordability. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the City Charter. Proposed zoning ordinance amendments would be developed after adoption of the Housing Element and considered by the City Council at a future public hearing. Some proposed amendments would be considered within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element, and some, like increasing permitted density in Zone D, would be implemented within 3 years.

7. Distribution of New Housing Units
The Draft Housing Element’s first goal, new housing construction, includes programs to build new housing units at all affordability levels throughout the City of Piedmont. Zoning amendments to increase the maximum number of housing units are recommended in Zones A, B, C, and D. Nonprofit affordable housing developers, the most likely developers of housing affordable to low and very-low-income households in Piedmont, have expressed to City staff that land costs severely limit affordable housing developments and that developments of 30 to 60 units are needed to achieve economies of scale. Some larger developments of up to 60 dwelling units on suitable publicly owned land are necessary to provide low and very low income housing in Piedmont.

The Draft Housing Element includes programs to encourage two affordable housing developments on City-owned land in the northern part of Piedmont, four affordable housing developments on City-owned land in Piedmont’s central civic center, and one religious affiliated affordable housing Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 228
development with Zion Lutheran Church, in the eastern part of Piedmont. In addition, 35% of the 140 new accessory dwelling units (ADUs) planned for in the Draft Housing Element (49 ADUs) in Zones A and E are expected to be affordable to low- and very low-income households through a program of new incentives. Outside of ADUs, the Draft Housing Element does not identify new affordable housing on specific sites in the western part of Piedmont.

The Draft Housing Element takes a conservative approach to future development for all of the privately owned property in Piedmont. All privately owned property included in the sites inventory is identified as potential new moderate income or market-rate housing, due to the high cost of land.

Staff recommends a revision to the proposed sites inventory regarding the property at 1337 Grand Avenue in the western part of Piedmont. This property is already included as a primary site in the sites inventory for redevelopment with mixed commercial and market-rate housing during the Housing Element planning period.

State requirements for sites eligible for low and very low income housing in the Housing Element Sites Inventory allow cities to indicate potential sites for affordable housing on privately owned sites. This is a common planning practice, and Piedmont’s 5th Cycle Housing Element identified privately owned sites for low and very low-income housing at 29 Wildwood Avenue and 1201 Grand Avenue, due to the “default density” rule for low-income housing, established by AB 2348 (2005). AB 2348 established zoning densities at which multi-family development is considered affordable to households earning low and very low incomes. The default density for small cities is 20 dwellings per acre. The default density for larger cities is 30 dwellings per acre.

The site at 1337 Grand Avenue is eligible for designation as new housing potentially affordable to residents with low incomes, according to AB 2348 and other HCD criteria. Draft Housing Element programs would increase the allowed residential density at this site to 80 dwelling units per acre, the property is just over 0.5 acres in size, and the property owner has expressed a willingness to consider redevelopment during the Housing Element planning period. For these reasons, this site meets HCD’s criteria, including the “default density” for affordable housing. Inclusion of affordable housing units on Grand Avenue would further distribute new housing units opportunities throughout the City.

Staff proposes changing the sites inventory table, Table B-9 (page B-20) from “above market rate” to “low and very low” for the possible 40 units on this site. The sites inventory table and map would be updated to make up the remaining above moderate sites required by the RHNA from sites identified in the table as affordable to moderate income households.

8. Feasibility Analysis and Realistic Capacity
The State criteria for sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory range from 0.5 to 10 acres. Sites of this size in Piedmont are rare, and many are City-owned. In addition, non-vacant sites require further explanation to substantiate how these sites could be redeveloped within the planning period (2023 to 2031). The Draft Housing Element includes analysis of redevelopment in the neighboring jurisdiction, the City of Oakland, to show that the densities anticipated for the new housing plan could be achieved in the East Bay real estate market. The requirement for feasibility analysis is to determine if the owners of property included in the sites inventory would Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 229
be willing to consider a development proposal. City staff members have contacted property owners to confirm their willingness to consider redevelopment within the Housing Element planning period.

In addition, this staff report includes a recommendation to revise the text of the Draft Housing Element to include additional clarification about the methodology used to calculate realistic capacity. “Realistic capacity” is an HCD consideration which reduces or caps the projected growth under the proposed housing programs. Staff recommends revising the Draft Housing Element to include the following additional text in Section B.2.3 (page B-5), written in consideration of recent guidance from ABAG planners:

The City's Site Inventory conservatively assumes a "realistic capacity" of 80 percent of the maximum allowed density (i.e., a 20 percent reduction) for multifamily and mixed-use zones in order to account for potential development constraints, such as building code and zoning standards that limit the maximum building size and shape in order to have sufficient corridors, roof slopes, mechanical spaces, minimum separations between buildings, and other considerations.

The methodology for estimating the realistic capacity for the Housing Element Site Inventory is based on: best practices; a market understanding of the developer preference to optimize development potential as much as possible on a given site, given land costs; capacity estimates utilized in prior housing element cycles; the experience of other jurisdictions in analyzing realistic capacity; and comparable developments that have occurred in and near Piedmont. For example, Il Piemonte, a 26-unit, market rate mixed-use project, located just outside of Piedmont on Piedmont Avenue, is developed at 87 units per acre, which utilizes 100 percent of the allowed capacity of the CN-1 zoning district in Oakland, without anyaffordable housing density bonus.

While there is also significant regional evidence pointing to projects achieving densities greater than 100 percent by utilization of State density bonus incentives, HCD does not allow cities to project unit potential produced through the density bonus in the Housing Element. Therefore, the City maintains a conservative approach to estimating realistic density and realistic capacity.

Staff recommends an amendment to the Draft Housing Element to further justify the methodology to determine appropriate realistic capacity. The draft resolution prepared for City Council consideration directs staff to amend Section B.2.3 of the Draft Housing Element, titled, “Density and Capacity Assumptions” to include additional examples of projects in Alameda County and near Piedmont that are built at 80 percent or more of their allowed capacity.

Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 230

9. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
In accordance with HCD guidance, the proposed Draft Housing Element averages the rate of issuance of building permits for new ADUs in Piedmont from 2019 to 2021 (17.5 issued building permits) and projects out an estimated increase of 140 new ADUs during the Housing Element planning period (17.5 x 8 years = 140 ADUs).

Staff estimates that there are more than 300 ADUs in Piedmont. Recent changes to State law have resulted in City approval of over 70 new ADUs in the last 8 years. Some of these ADUs have deed restrictions limiting who can occupy the ADU and how much rent can be collected. Most of the recent ADUs do not have rent or occupancy restrictions.

The Draft Housing Element includes programs to continue to encourage the production of ADUs, including new programs to incentivize affordable ADUs and new programs to market ADUs more broadly. The May 12, 2022, Planning Commission staff report includes a discussion about ADU programs in the Draft Housing Element and how they will help the City meet the 6th Cycle RHNA.

The City’s objectives for new ADU production are described below. No further revisions are suggested to the ADU portions of the Draft Housing Element.

10. Senate Bill 9 (2021)
Some public comments received by staff encourage the City to rely on the development of housing units through a new State law to meet the RHNA. This law, called Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), took effect January 1, 2022. SB 9 allows the development of up to four housing units on land zoned as singlefamily residential. In Piedmont, land in Zone A and Zone E is zoned single-family residential. This is the largest zoning area in Piedmont (68% of all land is in Zone A or Zone E). The Draft Housing Element includes a new housing program 1.J (page 44) to implement SB 9 to generate additional housing unit growth while preserving the architecture, landscape features, fire safety, and roadway access enjoyed today.

The Draft Housing Element does not rely on SB 9 in the sites inventory for the following reasons.

There is no requirement in SB 9 that units must be affordable to low or even moderate income households. It is likely that units developed through SB 9 will be affordable only to above moderate income households. The HCD guidance on SB 9 requires cities to show the basis for projecting housing unit growth resulting from SB 9 associated with a past rate of production. City of Piedmont has a very slow rate of development of new homes that are not ADUs. Development of new homes averages 2 per year.

Instead, staff recommends that the housing program for SB 9 include a quantifiable objective of 40 new housing units in the moderate and above-moderate-income categories during the planning period. Staff is confident that there is sufficient interest in the community to build additional housing units and benefit from the streamlined process provided in SB 9. Programs like the program for SB 9 will help the City show progress in meeting the RHNA in the annual progress reports reviewed by City Council and submitted to HCD. Quantifiable objectives are discussed below.

Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 231

11. Quantifiable Objectives
Members of the public have noted that the quantifiable objectives section of the Draft Housing Element (page 75) does not total the 587 housing units required by the RHNA. There is no legal requirement that a city’s quantifiable objective match the RHNA. It is an opportunity to set benchmarks for the City to evaluate the effectiveness of new housing programs. Quantifiable objectives are separate and distinct from the consideration of the sites inventory. Quantifiable objectives are not used to satisfy the RHNA. Only the sites inventory can be relied upon to satisfy the RHNA.

This staff report recommends that the City Council direct staff to amend Section IV of the Draft Housing Element, Quantifiable Objectives, to enumerate the planned number of housing units associated with new housing programs for new construction. The intention is to provide the City Council with benchmarks to evaluate the success of housing programs in the future. The following table outlines the expected number of housing units associated with housing programs.

Revised Table IV-1: Quantified Objectives
Program
#
Program Name Quantified Objective Notes
Extremely
Low
Income
Very
Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total

1.B Market-rate ADUs 45 45 90

1.D Religious Affiliated
Housing
15 15 30

1.E Inclusionary ADUs 10 10

1.F Zoning Amendments
Zone B
25 25 15 15 80

1.G Zoning Amendments
Zone C
15 15

1.H Zoning Amendments
Zone D
5 20 20 20 20 85

1.J Implementation SB 9 20 20 40

1.L Specific Plan 20 20 20 16 16 92

1.M Mobile and
Manufactured Homes
5 5

2.A CDBG Rehabilitation 4 4 8

3.B Legalize Unpermitted
ADUs
17 17

3.D ADU Missed
Opportunities
10 10

3.E Affordable Housing
Fund
2 3 5 10

3.F Incentives Affordable 5 30 35
Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 232
ADUs

4.M Objective Design
Standards
10 15 15 10 50

5.H Single-Room
Occupancy
5 5 10

5.K Supportive Housing 3 3 5
Total 75 121 94 182 121 593
As noted in section 10 and in the table above, the City’s team of staff and housing consultants estimate that program 1.J directing the City to implement SB 9 regulations could create 40 new housing units in the moderate and above moderate-income categories. The housing programs for ADUs will support the 140 ADUs anticipated based on prior rate of production, plus 22 additional housing units resulting from new programs and incentives. This is a conservative projection, and the City of Piedmont could see more than 162 ADUs over the 8-year planning period.

12. Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement
The City of Piedmont is committed to eliminating racist policies, laws, and behaviors in City government and in the community. The Draft Housing Element shall be revised prior to submission to California HCD to include additional sources and data regarding the record of fair housing complaints. Housing discrimination in Piedmont includes the tragic history of the Sidney Dearing family in Piedmont in the 1920’s, as well as institutional racist state and federal practices that were applied to real estate in Piedmont.

On page F-2 of Appendix F, the Draft Housing Element shall be revised to include data on HCD and ECHO Fair Housing's fair housing enforcement, compiled by the consulting firm Urban Planning Partners (UPP), Inc., updated on April 22, 2022. This data indicated a total of one call for service regarding possible housing discrimination which was resolved with landlord education.

The UPP data is included with this staff report as Attachment H.

Agenda Report Attachment I Agenda Report Page 233
Item # 3 – Consideration of Direction to Staff to Provide the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for its 90- Day Review
Correspondence received before Monday, June 20, 2022 at 11:30 a.m.

Dear Mayor and Council:

The following letter was sent to the Planning Commission for its May 12 meeting. It remains timely and relevant, but there is a concluding paragraph updating more recent actions.

May 5, 2022
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am Michael Henn, a longtime resident of Piedmont and a mostly retired city planner who has been through the Housing Element (HE) process several times as staff with different jurisdictions. I was also on the Piedmont Planning Commission which worked on the current HE.

I have also served on the Alameda County Grand Jury three times. I think most planners and managers recognize that each city goes through this HE exercise primarily because we are required to do so by the state. Nevertheless, a good faith effort is needed to avoid legal action and being targeted by militant housing advocates like Yimby Law and Public Advocates. I would think that there is more likelihood of Piedmont being criticized by HCD and housing advocates for including infeasible sites in the inventory than for accepting the legislature's intent and welcoming more ADUs and SB9 duplexes and potentially a few lot splits for developed lots. As proposed in the Draft HE, little benefit would result from ADUs and none from SB9 potential duplexes and lot splits. This failure to benefit from pro-housing legislation creates more pressure to place sites into the inventory which are increasingly improbable. For example, Corpus Christi School's playground is a highly suspect site for high density apartments. Where are the kids going to play? Cannibalizing a city’s already inadequate parks and open space was not intended by the legislature. The Quimby Act sets minimum park acreage standards per 1000 residents.

Piedmont’s park acreage is already deficient under the law. Losing developed parkland acreage to the HE would worsen the deficiency. Including such sites is also not going to be politically acceptable. Thus, proposing high density multifamily housing for sites like Coaches Playfields and Blair Park invites valid criticism. What is the city going to do for a corporation yard if the one and only one we have is actually included in the HE list, and lost? I would suspect that jurisdictions which are more protective of the qualities of their communities will handle their RHNAs differently. They will assign larger numbers toward both ADUs and SB9 housing. Given the extensive litigation statewide against RHNA assignments (34 cities in SoCal), and the State Auditor’s criticism of the HCD’s RHNA methodology, I would expect that HCD will be conservative in rejecting such attempts, if at all. Logically, HCD should be receptive to allowing a substantial unit yield from both sources. The State passed the “byright” ADU law without requiring any parking, and the by-right duplex/lot-split law with the expectation that these strong new laws would have a significant impact in producing needed infill housing. To now disparage their significance makes no sense and actually endangers the city to unnecessary litigation because of the lack of a realistic expectation that many of the selected sites could ever achieve the necessary units.

For inexplicable reasons, the city staff and their HE consultants have not made use of the fact that HCD has issued an opinion document on how to treat potential SB9 units in a HE. The SB 9 Fact Sheet on the Implementation of Senate Bill 9, dated March 2022, provides for a means to allow valid new housing units from SB9 into a HE. As stated in the HCD document: “To utilize projections based on SB 9 toward a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation, the housing element must: 1) include a site-specific inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied, 2) include a non-vacant sites analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not constitute an impediment for additional residential use, 3) identify any governmental constraints to the use of SB 9 in the creation of units (including land use controls, fees, and other exactions, as well as locally adopted ordinances that impact the cost and supply of residential development), and 4) include programs and policies that establish zoning and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate development. The element should support this analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through SB 9. Learn more on HCD’s Housing Elements webpage.” I would expect that staff and the outside consultants should be able to provide a defensible SB9 analysis which could provide, for example, a couple hundred units over 8 years. Also, the HE is being too conservative for potential ADU production. The “by-right” ADU law passed in 2019 and it takes a certain time for such a change to filter through a community and be broadly implemented. To take only the average of past ADU production, when regulations were more restrictive, makes little sense.

Although not directly related to Piedmont’s Draft HE, it should be pointed out, in general, that HCD’s RHNA assignments are severely problematic. Throughout much of the last decade California was adding 200,000 or more people per year to its population although slowing toward the end of the decade. The draft RHNA numbers, which assumed continued and even higher growth rates were circulated to planners by 2019. These older numbers remained almost unchanged in the final adopted statewide metro-by-metro RHNAs. However, there was actually a significant halting of state population growth followed by a significant and unprecedented population decline after January 2020. Nevertheless, the HCD administration refused to update their obsolete assumptions. Numerous articles, such as the following, have publicized this decline, but that reality has done nothing to cause an update by the state or local RHNAs.

Exodus: Bay Area, California population dropped in 2021 as people left (mercurynews.com) https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2022/04/10/walters-californias-shrinking-population-has-bigconsequences/ Besides not being demographically sound, the state’s collective metro RHNAs add up to some

2.2 million units for the state by 2031. At the typical 2.9+/- people per dwelling unit, the state is assuming that there is a need for housing for 6+ million more people by 2031, or 750,000 per year. That number is higher than any year in California history. Planners I’ve talked to at MTC/ABAG defend their overshoot by saying the bigger numbers are needed to reduce overcrowding and reduce the number of people who are cost-burdened by the high cost of housing. While a laudable goal, it is rather speculative as to how much excess housing is needed to bring down the cost of housing to where it becomes affordable. And why would builders build such an amount if the present profit margins were to go away? Another aside that is not directly aimed at the current Draft HE, in my view a proper RHNA process should be a bottom-up not top-down process. State and regional planners allocated RHNA housing units to over 500 jurisdictions without knowing what is existing on the ground.

Instead, the process should start with an accurate and detailed inventory of each jurisdictions vacant and underutilized sites, and the actual density of developed residential areas (Most of Piedmont has relatively small lots compared to the suburbs so Piedmont is already about four times denser than, say Orinda or Lafayette). Only once this factual background information is known, units can logically be assigned. Piedmont is largely built out, but that fact was not known or appreciated in Sacramento.

To conclude, I believe Piedmont should slow down the review process and ask for an extension.

Then we should eliminate the sites that most would consider infeasible, particularly if the owners knew their sites were on the list. The HE does not provide evidence that the owners have been contacted and are in agreement. Responses should be obtained from at least Corpus Christi Church, Kehilla Synagogue, Zion Lutheran Church and Ace Hardware that these sites are available for affordable housing, or not. If the answer is No, then these sites need to be struck from the list. Then, the HCD SB9 review process should occur to identify larger private lots feasible for SB9 lot splits, and assume that a proportion of the single family homes could very well be converted to duplexes or Tenants-In-Common two family residences (TICs). Much of the apparent single family housing in San Francisco is actually, two-family TICs. I hope that these comments are appropriately addressed. I fear that the staff and consultants have already set out on the path they wish to take. Doing so could unnecessarily produce HCD rejection and even litigation, and do little for actually producing the housing that the Housing Element process is meant to achieve.

Addendum: Since this letter was sent to the Planning Commission in May, East Bay for All has sent the city a detailed analysis of various flaws and problems with the current draft HE. The housing organizations working together as East Bay For All includes known legal groups who specialize in litigation against cities that do not provide a good faith effort in their Housing Elements. Consequently, it can be assumed that the current draft HE will be given heightened scrutiny by HCD in its review. Therefore, the failure to provide the SB9 analysis and the inclusion of so many improbable sites in the city’s inventory will decrease the chances of approval.

Sincerely,
Michael Henn, AICP
Dear Council Members:

Long, hard, excellent work by staff and the Planning Commission, along with expert contributions from the community, have resulted in a revised Housing Element that you can and should support. This document represents a high-quality effort to identify appropriate goals for more affordable housing in Piedmont and deserves wholehearted endorsement and a Yes vote. The changes to our zoning code to foster appropriate growth are long overdue. It is a culture change for some in the community, but Piedmont's beauty and serenity will remain, to be shared with those who could not otherwise afford to share those benefits.

I strongly urge you to vote to approve the revisions to our Housing Element.

Linda Roodhouse Loper
To the City Council of Piedmont,

I am pleased that the City of Piedmont has embraced a plan to create more housing. I participated in one of the Piedmont Housing Element Focus Group interviews in July 2021 and was excited to discuss possible ways to expand affordable, equitable housing opportunities in Piedmont.

If Piedmont is to create 587 new housing units, I believe the city needs to create housing throughout the community, in all zones, rather than in just one or two areas, primarily in lower Piedmont or on the borders of the city. Moreover, the city should consider allowing duplexes, triplexes, and small multifamily buildings in single-family zones. Around the corner from our house (on Olive Ave. across from the Rose Garden) is a duplex that fits in well with the neighborhood. If a duplex can happily exist in the lower Piedmont neighborhood where lots sizes are small and homes are close together, allowing more multifamily buildings on the larger lots in middle and upper Piedmont should be doable and would allow for more options for more housing.

I appreciate the difficulties of finding space in an already built-up community for more housing.

But if Piedmont spreads the new housing throughout the community in various forms of living arrangements, not only ADUs, but also duplexes, triplexes, and two homes on a large lot, I believe the goal can be achieved.

Alison Kuehner
Hello City Council:

I won’t have time this weekend (Father’s Day festivities) to review the staff report but wanted to offer up these observations and suggestions about the Housing Element (HE) for your consideration Monday. I attended the HE workshops, participated in the online surveys and have read the HE.

1. SB 9: staff has stated at several meetings that the Department of Housing and Development (HCD) is not accepting unit projections based on this SB 9. HCD guidance says otherwise and several cities are submitting such projections. Please clarify why staff has not done so and direct them to conduct this analysis for inclusion in the final HE. Not considering the potential for SB 9 to produce units in the next cycle is bad planning.

2. Multi-family zone: the HE makes no projections for units from this zone over the next 8 years. This is short-sighted in that this area is a logical zone for new units and the HE increases zone density for that reason. Staff simply needs to cite other such developments in the Temescal, Pleasant Valley Rd etc. to show that this development is highly likely. These developments are not in Piedmont but are very local and I would think HCD would understand that similar developments are likely to occur in Piedmont. Also clarify whether the small housing policy prohibits the destruction of the small houses on Linda to the Oakland Avenue bridge. Conversion of these lots to multi-family buildings could vastly increase the number of units.

3. ADUs: the incentives workshop mentioned increasing ADU height from 16 to 18-20 feet.

The workshop also presented the idea of garage conversions by presented to specific building height. The HE now has specific height for garage conversions (24 ft) but does not mention what the new height for ADU will be. Please clarify this point; I asked staff but received no response. I think the ADU projections (20/year) is an underestimate; ADU development rate these past three years was likely influenced by COVID restrictions.

4. Extremely low/very low-income units: the HE provide no details on where these units will occur in Piedmont, which according to HCD should be over 120 units. I asked about this at the last workshop and the consultant could not answer. Instead he referred to the Alameda County family of four income ($100,000) as a target for Piedmont’s low income housing. The HE policy to prioritize housing for PUSD and City of Piedmont employees dovetails with this target – these employees will meet this income level but very low and extremely low Alameda County residents won’t. Where will the housing be for families of these income levels?

5. Better outreach: the process leading up to the HE utilized several different communication/engagement methods. Now that the draft of out, those methods should be used again. Particularly, staff should conduct an online survey of the HE and particularly focus on policies not included in the workshop or prior surveys: ADU tax on large remodels, purchase of supportive housing by the City of Piedmont, revocation of charter elements for example.

6. General Plan: staff conceded it has not completed an analysis of how the HE integrates with the General Plan. Inquire about this and what elements of the Plan staff thinks will be impacted.

Garrett Keating
Dear Council Members,
As a long-time tennis player in Piedmont and current President of the Piedmont Ladies Tennis Club, I strongly object to any consideration of the conversion of the Corey Reich Tennis Center site into affordable housing. The revamped Corey Reich Tennis Center was completed by the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization in late 2019 at a cost of over $450,000 with private contributions from more than 200 individuals. No City money was spent on this project.

It is one of Piedmont’s treasures.

Sacrificing these four recently enhanced courts, which are heavily used year round by the high school tennis teams as well as by local and nearby players, would be a huge loss. Where could an alternate tennis facility of the same size and caliber be built in Piedmont? Who would pay for it? How fast could it be built to accommodate the many adults and children who use these courts daily? And how will all the new residents of Piedmont even get access to the increasingly crowded tennis courts that are currently available?
I urge you to immediately remove any reference to these tennis courts in the City’s plan for a potentially high density housing development in the Civic Center area. It would be a crime.

Beth Hurwich
Tonight's agenda lists this hearing as new business -- but that's not quite accurate. This hearing (scheduled, disappointingly, at 5:30 on our federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the US) is a continuation of a meeting of roughly a century ago. At that meeting the Council gave into the worst instincts of constituents and directed staff to use city resources to drive an African American family from Piedmont and thereby making clear that minorities were not welcomed in the community.

The long arc of history has since bent toward justice, and State law requires you to identify sites for about 215 units of low-income housing. But history has also repeated itself because constituents have urged you to isolate all or nearly all the units in Blair Park, physically separated from Piedmont proper.

Sixty years of research into the costs and benefits of low-income housing tells us three things.

First, low-income housing remains, unfortunately, stigmatized -- it's typically not welcomed in established neighborhoods. That's why the State has had to require communities like Piedmont to accommodate such housing and that’s why some of your constituents urge you to concentrate the units in Blair Park, physically apart from Piedmont proper. Second, the benefits of low-income housing are greatest when the housing is least stigmatized by the host population. Third, stigma is reduced when low-income housing is dispersed throughout the community.

The hard truth is that research tells us that concentrating low-income housing in Blair Park will, by virtue of sheer physical and social isolation, create the most stigmatized circumstance imaginable in Piedmont. Make no mistake – putting all, or nearly all, mandated low-income units in Blair Park would be the most stigmatizing choice you can make.

If you approve language in the draft Housing Element that leaves open the option of cynically isolating Piedmont’s low-income housing in Blair Park, tonight's meeting will be, like that a century ago, continued until justice calls upon some future city council to explain why lowincome families live segregated, by city policy, from other Piedmonters. Be assured that the then City Council will think of you the same way you think of the Council that, a century ago, used the resources of the city to make clear that African American families were not welcomed in Piedmont.

Ralph Catalano
: I have lived in Piedmont for 14 years and know the town fairly well. There are a number of houses that simply sit empty (held for investment purposes, multi-year/slow builds/remodels and other reasons). I know of at least 3 on or adjacent to the block of Grand/Cambridge/Howard. I know of another on Manor. I know there are several more in the city. Without a use tax or other means to encourage actual occupation, these housing elements are wasting space and forcing the city to consider tearing down the center of town to put up an apartment complex. I encourage you to do a count of the unoccupied units to see how much they could help to meeting the goals.

Scott J Weber
Dear City Council Members:

I strongly object to the consideration of selling Piedmont's Corey Reich tennis courts to a developer for use in providing new Piedmont housing units.

These courts are heavily used all year - both by recreational players and high school teams. They were just updated several years ago (funded by private donations), and replicating them somewhere else in Piedmont would undoubtedly be prohibitively expensive (not to mention the parking issues that would need to be addressed).

Please make sure that the Corey Reich tennis courts are not listed as a potential housing site in the Housing proposal that the City Council is planning to submit for State review.

Yours sincerely,
Anne Adams
Date: June 15, 2022
To: City Council
From: Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign Housing Committee Cc: Planning Commission, Housing Advisory Committee, Piedmont Planning Staff and City Manager
Re: Addendum to Feedback on the Draft Housing Element
Dear City Council Members:

We are writing to follow up on our letter of May 5, 2022, providing feedback on Piedmont’s Draft Housing Element (attached for your reference). We want to reiterate our thanks to the City staff and Lisa Wise Consulting for their excellent work on this important document.

As we stated in our May 5, 2022, letter, PREC believes the City must take an “all of the above” approach to housing. We must build more housing, for everyone, everywhere. Besides being a way for the City to fulfill its legal and moral obligation to help address the regional housing crisis, planning for more housing — and especially more affordable housing — can help Piedmont become a more diverse, equitable, culturally rich, and inclusive community.

Since the release of the draft Housing Element in May, we were pleased to see that several of the changes we suggested have been incorporated by staff and the Planning Commission. At the June 7 Town Hall and June 13 Planning Commission meeting, City planners announced that staff will add Blair Park to the Moraga Canyon specific plan study area. We strongly support this idea. The affordable housing professionals in our group generally view Blair Park as the most feasible site for affordable housing development in the next eight years. We were also pleased to see the City add a new Program 1.Q to explore going beyond the state's density bonus program for affordable housing. We believe allowing higher density for buildings that include low-income-restricted units can be an important tool to incentivize affordable housing production, especially in Zone D.

While we believe the draft Housing Element is generally in good shape, we believe a few further changes would make it even stronger. We urge the City Council to adopt the following key changes:
1 1. Add a policy to undertake a master plan for the City Center that considers how best to incorporate affordable housing in the area. As the City considers how to retrofit aging facilities such as the Veterans Hall/Police building, it should carry out a planning study to understand how sites like 801 Magnolia, the Veterans Hall, City Hall, and the tennis courts can be creatively rebuilt or recombined to provide for these functions to continue to be met while carving out space for affordable housing. The master plan could also incorporate a redesign of Highland Avenue and Highland Way to improve safety and make better use of the unnecessarily wide swath of asphalt in the center of town. This master plan should also include consideration of some or all of the adjacent commercial sites. With its wide streets, larger buildings, substantial transit service, and proximity to schools, city employment opportunities, and recreation resources, the Civic Center offers an ideal location for denser and more affordable housing.

2. Strengthen policies to enable the creation of “missing middle” housing (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and small multifamily buildings on large lots) in Zones A and E. Single-family zones comprise over 90% of Piedmont’s residential land, yet the draft Housing Element leaves these zones virtually untouched, apart from policies to encourage ADU production, allow housing on religious institution lots, and implement Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). SB 9 implementation, however, is delayed until 2026-27. We encourage the City to implement SB 9 much sooner than that. The law has been in effect since the beginning of this year, and there is already guidance on how to implement it, as well as many different models from across the state. 1 Moreover, we encourage the
City to explore ways to go beyond what SB 9 authorizes. For instance, under SB 9, the owner of a 6,000 sf house on a half an acre lot could get a lot split, develop two units in the new lot, and subdivide the existing home into two units - for a total of four units.

However, depending on the circumstances, it may be preferable to subdivide the existing home into four units. The City should commit to tailoring SB 9 to the specific nature and potential of Piedmont’s housing stock, and to crafting other policies to enable the creation of small multifamily dwellings on large lots, as many other cities in California are doing.
2 Strategies that have been adopted or are being considered in other cities include adopting maximum and/or minimum unit sizes (to encourage a variety of housing types and units that are “affordable by design”), imposing affordability requirements, and creating exceptions to allow for extra units, beyond those authorized under the base zoning (for example, up to six units in corner or large lots). 3 3 See Almendin and Garcia, Id., table comparing SB 9 implementation across ten different California cities. The City of San Francisco is considering adoption of an ordinance that would allow four units per lot, and up to six units on corner lots, pursuant to an exception from otherwise applicable density limits. 2 This does not need to entail rezoning to eliminate single-family zones; the City should keep single-family zoning to ensure SB 9 applies, and in addition, adopt other policies that would go beyond that law. 1 See California Department of Housing and Community Development, SB 9 Fact Sheet. On the Implementation of Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021), available at https://hcd.ca.gov/docs/planning-and-community-development/sb9factsheet.pdf; see also Muhammad Alameldin and David Garcia, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, State Law, Local Implementation:

How Cities are Implementing SB 9. available at
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/state-law-local-interpretation-senate-bill-9/ 2 3. Following HCD recommendations, we believe the City should target a buffer of 20% over its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, especially for its low-income allocation. The original draft Housing Element included a 12% buffer overall, but only 3 surplus low-income units, or 1% of the 257 RHNA low income goal. Since the plan relies upon Oakland for housing market trends, it is worth noting that while Oakland has easily exceeded its above moderate or market unit housing goal in the current cycle, it is falling well short of its low income and moderate income goals. 4 Oakland’s 21% planned low
income buffer is much higher than Piedmont’s 1% for low income units in the next housing cycle.

4. Strengthen and broaden Program 3E Affordable Housing Fund. We support the creation of an Affordable Housing Fund, and we agree with the Planning Commission that the language of Program 3E should be expanded to allow such a Fund to support a broader range of uses. However, the revised language only slightly meets that objective.

The language describing the Fund remains focused on owner-occupied properties and the creation of ADUs or “other small housing units.” We believe that Program 3E should be amended to be less specific, and instead state the broad intention of being used to support the creation of housing units that will be both affordable to, and made available to, low-income households for a minimum of 15 years. Alternatively, if the language specific to ADUs is being provided to comply with California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Section 65583(c)(7), which requires that cities “[d]evelop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent,” we encourage the City to add language to allow the Fund to be used for additional critical purposes. Specifically, it should be clear that the Fund could be used to provide gap financing for deed-restricted multifamily affordable rental housing on terms similar to other local “soft loan” funding for affordable housing (3% interest, 55 years, no required annual payments). As we have noted previously, local gap financing is a powerful tool to support the creation of affordable rental housing, as it can be leveraged to secure substantial state and federal subsidies.

Since the staff report for the City Council’s June 20, 2022, meeting has not yet been released, we understand that some of these points may be addressed in that document. However, we wanted to send written feedback to the Council in advance, so that you have ample time to consider these points as you review the matter.
4 Oakland’s draft HE for the sixth cycle shows above moderate production at 175% of its fifth cycle goal but very-low-income production only at 42%.
https://oakland.konveio.com/draft-2023-2031-general-plan-housing-element-appendices-a-through-f. 3 We appreciate your consideration of these points, and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Members of the PREC Housing Committee
Irene Cheng
Elise Marie Collins
Carol Galante
Ellen Greenberg
Sarah Karlinsky
Deborah Leland
Jill Lindenbaum
Hugh Louch
Andy Madeira
Andrea Ruiz-Esquide
Alice Talcott
Randy Wu
4 - 1 -
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
I am pleased to submit these comments and suggestions for your consideration as you review the City’s Draft Housing Element. While a lot of work has been done, some significant changes are needed to comply with State laws and to remove major risks to civic facilities and financial burdens on the City this could impose.

Piedmont’s Draft Housing Element Needs Fixing
Significant changes to the sites inventory in the Draft Housing Element are needed to ensure compliance with State laws and community objectives. In particular, the element fails to include a single realistic site that would be available for construction of lower-income housing over the next several years. Additionally, the City’s proposal to locate majority of its housing, including all affordable housing, on currently non-surplus public sites (as defined under State law) actively used for civic and recreational uses (e.g., police station, Veterans Hall, tennis courts) is highly unusual, and perhaps unique among hundreds of California cities. This would encumber the City with obligations post-adoption it may struggle to meet, resulting in highly messy implementation, significant financial burdens, and potential loss of civic facilities and parks, even if this strategy passes muster with the State.

I will first start with some easy opportunities that should be captured, followed by a discussion of the some of the items raised above.

1. Count Allowable Sites Currently Not Included in the Inventory The Housing Element currently fails to reflect housing and sites allowed to be counted under State laws, which should be included in the sites inventory, and would put some dent in remaining housing needs:
• Housing for which certificate of occupancy will be issued July 1, 2022 to Jan. 31, 2023. These are not included in the current draft of the Housing Element, as it seems from the June 6th community workshop, that the City’s consultant was unaware of this provision. This stems from the difference in the Housing Element Planning Period (which starts January 2023) and the regional data Projection Period (which starts July 1, 2022). The State HCD reference to this has been provided to staff and hopefully this will be corrected in the next draft of the Housing Element. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/6th-webhe-duedate.pdf. At the current pace of development, this would likely be 12 to 15 units, but City staff should have precise building permitting data. • SB-9 Units. It’s a bit puzzling why these have been left out of consideration for housing sites. City staff mentioned that housing built under SB-9 would be reflected in the City’s Housing Element annual progress reports as achievements following adoption, but including this now would help the City meet a portion of its housing needs. Several Southern California jurisdictions have used SB-9 without running into Comments on April 2022 Draft Housing Element
- 2 -
issues with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and Bay Area cities such as Mill Valley, Larkspur, and Ross are using these as well.

SB-9 has both a lot split and a non lot-split component. However, rules (e.g., direct street access from a new lot to street) need to be spelled out by cities, and Piedmont has not done so yet.

2. Provide Meaningful Lower Income Housing Opportunities The draft Housing Element fails to make available any realistic sites for affordable housing, as required under State law. All lower income sites are located on City-owned land, none of which is surplus. I am not aware of any other city in California that is doing this, especially for the entirety of its lower-income housing program. The Civic Center sites are unrealistic (see below) and the Housing Element would require preparation of a Specific Plan for the Moraga Canyon sites, adoption of which is a discretionary City Council action, and thus with no certainty that this will happen, and even if it does, it would certainly push out site availability by several years. Thus, the City’s commitment to lower-income housing is questionable.

3. Remove Civic Center Sites as these are Unrealistic for Housing and Have Potential to Generate Massive Problems for City Post Housing Element Adoption
The Housing Element has sites in the Civic Center area that are actively used for civic and recreational uses (e.g., police station, Veterans Hall, tennis courts), and Highland Green.

There are no details in the Housing Element of housing will result on these sites. There are some real practical problems – e.g., the costs to rehab and seismically retrofit Veterans Hall and the Police Building alone was estimated by the City at $15 million to $20 million two years ago, and the City decided not to place these together with the pool reconstruction on the bond ballot measure at the same time. So currently there is no funding for these. If housing is built together with these facilities, these facilities will need to be replaced, not just rehabbed, at significantly higher costs, which may be several multiples of the rehab cost. The City does not have money to rehab these facilities, let alone build new ones. Housing on top of these structures would also be much more expensive to build and be unlikely for even market-rate housing, let alone for affordable housing.

Additionally, there are legal uncertainties. The City Charter does not permit reclassification of existing zones, and going from allowing one single-family unit per site in the Civic Center area to higher density housing at 60 or 80 units per acre is reclassification of Public zone to Public/Residential for all practical purposes, regardless of whether the zone title is changed.

The City also cannot commit any monies to affordable housing under the California constitution, without a vote of the people (as example, Oakland has a ballot measure in place for November asking the voters to authorize this).

It should be noted that following the demise of redevelopment which provided monies for affordable housing to cities, State law was changed to allow cities to use a minimum “default density” as a proxy for affordable housing. In the Bay Area/Piedmont, this is 30 units per acre. So while housing elements may have sites at higher shown as having potential for Comments on April 2022 Draft Housing Element
- 3 -
income-restricted housing, in practice, it is rare for these sites get developed with affordable housing, as these require subsidies and assembling of financing packages, that are often difficult to cobble together. The higher densities do facilitate development of market rate workforce or senior housing, so this serves a useful purpose.

Because the City is the owner of the sites where the lower-income sites are shown, it would be incumbent upon the City to demonstrate how lower income (that is, income-restricted) would result in more detail in the Housing Element. The City needs to lay out this roadmap in the element to satisfy the State. Later, say when the City is ready to move along with rehabbing Veterans Hall, it would need to wait for a housing partner. The City may need to issue RFPs to attract developers, convince the State that no developers were found if that is the case, and have to find other sites to zone under new State laws passed in 2018, which means starting over.

This approach is so fraught with potential problems, that I don’t readily know of any city in California that is doing this as part of their Housing Element inventories, not even cities with a lot more dedicated staff and resources or huge commitments to housing. While this may seem like an easy way out to find sites and get the Housing Element certified, the real problems will emerge and consume the City for the several years after the Housing Element is adopted and certified, and present problems that the City may find hard to extricate itself from.

The City should remove these sites from further consideration in the Housing Element.

4. Remove Highland Green From Consideration
The City should also remove Highland Green from consideration. This site has a total of five paltry units capacity as per the Housing Element (which is a lot less than the SB-9 units the City believes it doesn’t need to count), is used for July 4th parade staging, and is barely 25 feet deep, and unsuited for housing. Piedmont also is shorts on parks and recreation space, and the EIR on the Housing Element will likely show a significant and unavoidable park impact with the addition of new housing, requiring the City to undertake all feasible measures to mitigate these impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

5. Remove Requirement of Specific Plan for Moraga Canyon Development A requirement of a Specific Plan as a prelude to any development in this area will delay development. This is also unnecessary, as utilities are available at the site and the City can apportion areas here easily for housing development to enable development to proceed.

The City is already required under State law to prepare objective housing design standards, which could be tailored for the area.

Comments on April 2022 Draft Housing Element
- 4 -

6. Designate One of the Two Grand Avenue Sites for Lower-Income Housing The Housing Element designates Ace Hardware and Sylvan office building for moderate and higher income housing. These sites are within the acreage (0.5 acres to 10.0 acres) that HCD recommends for lower income housing, and should be designated for these instead of Civic Center sites. Development at these sites will likely take place by razing the existing buildings, and housing can be easily incorporated as part of redevelopment.

7. Consider Higher Densities along Grand Avenue and Highland Avenue to Make Up Shortfall Resulting from Removal of Civic Center Sites The proposed densities of 80 units per acre along Grand and Highland avenues are low, and can be increased to 120 or 140 units per acre, within five stories. For context, much of new development along Broadway in Oakland in Broadway Valdez area are at about three times this density. The new six-story residential building with a 35,000 s.f. Target store and other commercial uses Broadway/26th is at 240 units per acre, in a seven-story configuration (six stories residential above commercial). Half this much density, especially along Grand Avenue, is not unreasonable. This a great area, walkable, with access to stores, school, and amenities.

Attached are calculations showing how the City would have adequate sites by substituting Civic Center sites with modestly higher densities along Grand and Highland avenues.

8. Additional Items for Consideration
Promoting Missing Middle Housing. The Housing Element does not consider strategies to foster a greater variety of housing types (for examples triplexes, fourplexes) in some or all single-family areas. This may run afoul of City Charter, but is a strategy worth considering, and is much less of change from the City Charter than what is being considered for the Public zone in the draft element. The City can maintain the existing development regulations (pertaining to setbacks, heights, floor area ratios) to ensure that these blend in into existing neighborhoods.

Consideration of Walkability and Access to Amenities. The draft Housing Element has a lot of housing units (132) squeezed into a relatively small area for the Corp Yard site. This area does not have the same access to stores, services, and transit as the Grand Avenue area, yet the highest densities (80 units per acre max.) are the same in the two areas. This number should be reduced, and more housing accommodated along Grand and Highland avenues.

The City may also find that less development here is needed once SB-9 sites are counted.

Sincerely,
Rajeev Bhatia

Dear Councilmembers,
I want our Housing Element to be set up for success, rather than failure, and include actual sites where the City can fulfill its housing needs, rather than sink time and energy into sites where housing is unlikely. While including housing as part of the Civic Center is a noble sentiment, it is impractical in the timeframe of this Housing Element planning period, as I will discuss below.

Please be aware of the following State laws and other requirements, which among others require the City Council to make certain findings at adoption time that the City would not be able to make for the Civic Center sites:

State Law Requirements to be mindful of for Including Civic Center sites Demonstrate realistic development capacity at designated sites. Where there are existing uses, “..Existing Uses — The housing element must demonstrate non-vacant and/or underutilized sites in the inventory that can be realistically developed with residential uses or more-intensive residential uses at densities appropriate ….and evaluate the extent these uses would constitute an impediment to new residential development.” See https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml. The City needs to show the community the analysis used to arrive at feasible housing capacity at existing civic uses and tennis courts. E.g., there is no housing feasible where the tennis courts are. The examples cited so far are of tennis courts on top of parking structures such as at UC Berkeley, which is very different than tennis courts on top of housing, that too affordable housing. The Housing Element is not a policy direction to explore ideas … it is focused on delivering sites for development, the feasibility of which has already been established.

Required City Council Findings at Adoption Time That Existing Uses Will be Discontinued. If a housing element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of its RHNA for lower income households, the nonvacant site’s existing use is presumed to impede additional residential development, unless the housing element describes findings based on substantial evidence that the use will likely be discontinued during the planning period. In addition to a description in the element, findings should also be included as part of the resolution adopting the housing element. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml. Thus at the time of Housing Element adoption, the City Council will have to make findings that the tennis and basketball courts at Vista and public safety uses at the Civic Center will be discontinued during the planning period (2023-2031). I do not believe it is possible to make this finding given that there are no plans to relocate these uses to other places. If the City Council does not believe this finding can be made, it is better to drop these sites now rather than finding that we are short on sites at adoption time.

Required Rezoning for Shortfall. The City would need to commit in its Housing Element to a process and timeline to make sites it owns available for residential uses. The draft Housing Element currently lacks this, and HCD would most likely want to see this detail included.

Under the Housing Accountability Act, should housing not be feasible at a site and there is a shortfall mid-cycle, the City will have to proactively undertake a rezoning program to find sites elsewhere to make up for this shortfall. This means doing a Housing Element Update and EIR all over again mid-cycle in three or four years, and tying the City’s hand in being able to proceed with rehabbing the public safety buildings until alternative housing sites are in place. Thus, In designating the Civic Center sites I believe we are just kicking the can down two or three years, rather than solving any housing problems. We should be focused on finding and delivering those alternative housing sites to meet our housing needs and obligations now, rather than five years later.

City Charter
City Charter Amendment. Reclassification of zones under the Piedmont Charter requires a vote of the people. If the City Council wants to reclassify the Public zone (which allows a de minimus one house at every parcel in the city) to permit high density residential and thus make this zone Public/Residential, this should be submitted to the voters and placed on the upcoming November ballot. Lack of legal certainty will not inspire confidence on part of any developers the City may wish to attract.
———
Physical Feasibility at Civic Center
Not finding any drawings or information in the Housing Element on methodology to determine housing capacity at Civic Center sites, I sat down over the weekend and tried to understand this for myself. Attached are two drawings, with sites in the Housing Element labeled A through D, with Housing Element information noted.

A. Vista Tennis and Basketball Courts. Assumption in HE: Housing at 60 units per acre, 34 realistic housing units. The courts presently fill up the entire site. It is physically not possible to vertically integrate housing and whole bunch of tennis courts and bleachers on top of a residential building without extraordinary expense, and I am not aware of any examples in the Bay Area where this has been done. Tennis courts can go on top of parking structures as they have been at Cal for over three decades and industrial and office buildings, but not residential, as the building floorplate is entirely different. Is the proposal to remove tennis courts? The facilities were just renovated a year ago for something like $2 million. This idea does not seem even physically, let alone financially, feasible.

B. Center for the Arts. Where is the space for the five units? Will this be razed and replaced? Again, wasn’t this rehabbed a few years ago, and didn’t the City recently sign a 10-year lease on this? Is this even available during the Housing Element period? C. City Hall/Police/Veterans Building. The site area for this in the Housing Element includes City Hall, and the area is counted at 60 units per acre to calculate resultant housing. Neither tearing down City Hall, nor putting housing on top of it is a credible suggestion. The eastern half of the site is about 0.5 acres, and that is where the police and veterans building are located. It would be quite a structure that includes a new police station, rec. building, and 40 housing units (which, because of the small acreage, would actually be at 120 units per acre max) all at the same small site. It would require razing the existing facilities and starting from scratch, and be surely several multiples more expensive than the cost to rehab these, plus the higher cost for housing building and having the civic facilities support the resultant structural weight and complexity of housing above. Theoretically it could work if the housing can be on its own pad as staff mentioned for other examples they shared at the Planning Commission meeting, but looking at our site I don’t see any area where housing can just be squeezed in without messing with the existing buildings. Rehabbing the existing Veterans Hall and Public Safety buildings will also be a lot more environmentally sustainable and emit fewer greenhouse gases than razing these buildings and building something new, when the same housing can built more sustainably and be delivered to the community at lower cost by adding say one more story to the Mulberry/BofA site across the street, where housing is already planned, and provide an additional density incentive for the property owner to develop that site.

D. Highland Green. The width of this parcel during most of the stretch is 30 feet. With required front setback of 20 feet in Zone A, and rear setback of 5 feet, the remaining buildable width of housing would only be 5 feet. So, these sites are also physically not feasible. The loss of five units assumed here would not be that significant.

All of these sites are impractical given the dense fully built out conditions of civic facilities and the fact that we don’t any have vacant land there, and a distraction from the real work the City needs to do to deliver feasible sites.
————
Practical Approach to Meeting RHNA
I believe the most practical approach for the City to meet its RHNA is as follows, in order of importance:
• Count every housing unit (including ADUs) expected to be completed between July 1, 2022 and January 1, 2023. These units, under State law, can be counted toward both the 5th Cycle (in which we are) and 6th Cycle (starting in 2023), because of data projection period overlap. There should be about 15 units that result, including e.g. the Mayor’s ADU.
• Count SB 9 Units. The City does not have a trend of these because the City has not allowed these in the past. With properly development rules and methodology, the City should attempt to have these counted now to bring the remaining need down, rather than just as Housing Element success story later. There are many cities that have successfully counted these units, consistent with HCD guidelines.
• Consider densities that are much higher than currently contemplated at Grand and Highland avenues, while developing standards so that these are well designed, with ground level retail and cafes, and housing above. Densities of 180 units per acre with ground floor retail and four stories of residential above (60 feet building height), with structured parking may be appropriate for Grand Avenue, and 120 per acre for Highland Avenue. If necessary, the City should add a real architect with experience in doing projects like these in the Bay Area to the out-of-town planning team. • Add missing middle housing (fourplexes, sixplexes, etc.) and smaller-scale multifamily development in some or many existing neighborhoods. Some of the City’s rules relating to allowable densities, lot sizes etc. may need to be modified. There may, again, be some City Charter issues involved, but these would be of lower magnitude than high density residential issues in Public zones.
• Continue counting all the remaining single family and religious sites with the good work staff has done, although it remains to be seen if HCD will buy off on allowing so many of these to be counted.
• Anything else needed should be added after the above has been done, and this remaining need would be modest.

Thank you for volunteering your time and energy to serve the community! Rajeev Bhatia

Hello Sara,
As you know, I have provided two comment emails to the City Council over the past few days on the Housing Element. Over the weekend, two City Council members reached out to me independently on their own initiative to better understand my perspectives, and were both very sincere. They both told me, separately, that they have been told by staff and consultants that the housing on tennis court idea will be tested out, and if the City is not able to negotiate it out with a developer, that’s it — the City will just back out, and nothing else will happen or will jeopardize City control of the courts.

I hope that they were not told the above, as I do not believe this is legally-correct information, in light of extensive changes to State laws made over the past three years to hold cities’ feet to fire and follow through on housing commitments. It’s an entirely different world, and the State has shut down games that cities were playing in showing housing sites they did not intend following through with. The State will likely allow the tennis courts to be counted for the housing sites inventory, but following Housing Element adoption, simply shut out the City from encumbering the housing with anything that will make it less feasible. I am not an attorney, and this topic is out of my area of competence. However, I believe that our Council needs to have correct information before being asked to make what I believe are monumental decisions that will set the course for the future of public and civic space in Piedmont, and I am hoping the City Attorney can weigh in at the Council meeting today and correct any false information the Council may have been provided or premise that may have been created.

I believe that under the California Surplus Land Act, the City cannot just start negotiating with a developer to sell or give away rights (the Act uses the words sale or lease) to public land without first going to through a process. This process includes first declaring the land surplus. The words in the State statute are unused or underutilized, so the tennis courts and Veterans Hall, police/fire station will fall under the underutilized category. Once it gets on the surplus list, other public agencies get a shot at the site before a housing developer will.

But before the site even makes it to the surplus list, it needs to be offered for park and rec use to other public agencies. The State places the highest priority—higher than housing—of use of public land for park and recreation purpose. I find it ironic that while the State thinks the highest priority use for public lands is recreation, the City is proceeding in the opposite direction. California Government Code Section 54220 (b) states "The Legislature reaffirms its belief that there is an identifiable deficiency in the amount of land available for recreational purposes and that surplus land, prior to disposition, should be made available for park and recreation purposes or for openspace purposes.” and Section 54227 “ .. first priority shall be given to an entity that agrees to use the site for park or recreational purposes if the land being offered is already being used and will continue to be used for park or recreational purposes”.

Thus, if Piedmont thinks that a better use for the tennis courts is housing—and this is a finding the Council is required to make at adoption time under the Housing Accountability Act as part of inclusion of this site as part of the sites inventory—in the eyes of the State, a higher priority would be given to say, OUSD/Oakland Tech High School that is located very close to Piedmont and lacks adequate tennis courts and wants to maintain that use of the site. OUSD would be silly to not avail of an opportunity to lease the courts for $1 per year. My son goes to PHS and plays tennis every day at the tennis courts — would he be able to play there if that happens? Why would the City just give away this land? If it’s not OUSD, PG&E or EBMUD or another agency may have an interest, and that interest will trump any housing developer.

Let’s assume that somehow no other agency wants this site, and the City starts negotiating with a developer. Under amendments to the Surplus Land Act that became operational last year, now the State Department of Housing and Community Development will be involved, and the City wold be required to negotiate in good faith on its promise to develop housing at the site, with the State actively looking over our shoulder. Beginning January 1, 2021, local agencies are required to send, and HCD is required to review, negotiation summaries for each surplus land transaction in the state. HCD is also required to notify local agencies of violations and may notify the Attorney General and assess fines, as necessary.

Further, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) passed a few years ago, Government Code section 65589.5, establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects. Developers are allowed up to four “concessions” to make housing feasible, these concessions include excluding any other use that may make housing infeasible. Furthermore, in a pair of published rulings within the last six months (see https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/06/california-courts-ofappeal-strengthen-density-bonus-law) courts have held that developers rather than cities get to decide what those concessions are, and cities are not able to challenge those or offer alternatives that may also make housing feasible. These concessions have in practice included changes in development standards, height changes, exemption from parking, and exclusion from requiring to provide retail at ground level. Exclusion of tennis courts, especially rooftop ones, would definitely improve financial feasibility and would be consistent with State law. So, this could mean that we could end up not having any courts.

Governor Newsom and the State Attorney General in November 2021 assembled a “Housing Strike Force” of State lawyers, “.. tasked with enforcing California housing laws that cities across the state have been evading or ignoring”. This is their full-time job. The Strike Force has been proactively looking around everywhere and has threatened to sue cities to enforce housing laws and elements (the Town of Woodside is an example from a few months ago, where the Attorney General threatened to sue and forced it to back off).

Many cities and planners in California are still operating under the old premise of the last housing element cycle, where playing shell games of showing sites where housing was not really intended was rampant, and cities got away with it. The world has changed in the last three years, and the State has, rightly I believe, shut down this game. I tell every one of my nearly dozen active City clients for whom I am preparing long-range plans—and there are several in the Bay Area as well—to not count any housing on any site that they do not want to see this developed, that they should be prepared to lose every other use mixed with housing at those sites, and be prepared to offer numerous concessions, especially for affordable housing. This is the most honest and transparent approach. Don’t play shell games, or you could end up with the short end of the stick. None of our clients are showing any site they don’t really believe will be built with housing in their housing elements. This is very serious stuff. No city that I know is showing sites to just test the waters. No city that I know has tennis courts, City Hall, or police station as housing sites in their housing elements.

The City Attorney does not provide opinions to the public. However, I believe it is their job to make sure that the Council is not acting with false information. I urge you to have the City Attorney brief the Council tonight on risks entailed with showing housing on public lands, or a later time if more information needs to be gathered, or in a closed session for legal risk assessment if that is more appropriate.

I urge everyone to shoot straight and not play shell games with housing sites, that neither advance the State’s and the Piedmont community objectives of supporting actual housing development, and may come back to bite us. It is totally feasible for Piedmont to accommodate all of its housing needs on non-public land, so starting with civic sites first is the totally wrong approach. This what one would do if they hated Piedmont and the kids who play at these courts, and do not want to have safe police and fire stations. If staff or consultants believe that housing will not actually develop at the tennis court site, say that in public. And then, for the sake of honesty and truthfulness to the City citizens and the State of California, remove that and other civic sites from the inventory. Develop housing where it is easy to develop at lower costs so that teachers and other members of community can afford to live in the city, rather than saddle housing with costs that in the end would only result in luxury housing — these will NOT be places where tennis courts are on the top or the police station below.

Sincerely,
Rajeev Bhatia

Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
City of Piedmont
Piedmont Housing Puzzle Report – May 5, 2022 Goals On March 24, 2022, the City of Piedmont launched the Piedmont Housing Puzzle, a web‐based interactive tool hosted on BalancingAct software. Active from March 24, 2022, to May 1, 2022, the tool was intended to present land resources and constraints analysis prepared for the Draft 6th Cycle Piedmont Housing Element to members of the public in an engaging format. The license to use Balancing Act, as well as software technical support, were awarded to the City of Piedmont as the result of a competitive grant.

At the Housing Element Community Workshop on March 24, 2022, City staff and consultants introduced the Housing Puzzle tool to the community. As presented to the public, the goals of the Piedmont Housing Puzzle were:
 Create a setting that puts residents in the shoes of decision‐makers to show how they would solve tough public policy challenges
 Frame trade‐offs so that background data, community values, and community preferences can be included in decision‐making
 Allow public engagement that is not limited by staffing resources, so that thousands of people can provide informed input using smartphone, computer, or tablet.

One of the Housing Element Community Workshop presenters on March 24, 2022, was Chris Adams, President of Balancing Act. During the presentation, he highlighted the kinds of data the Piedmont Puzzle was not intended to provide, as follows:
 The Piedmont Housing Puzzle was not intended to be the sole or final means by which sites for the Housing Element sites inventory will be evaluated
 The Piedmont Housing Puzzle, by itself, is not a scientifically valid research tool  The Piedmont Housing Puzzle was not intended to capture other factors that go into site selection, such as environmental constraints or affordability and equity requirements.

Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
City of Piedmont
Publicity and Promotion of the Piedmont Housing Puzzle The Piedmont Housing Puzzle was published to the homepage of the Housing Element website at Piedmontishome.org and to the homepage of the City of Piedmont city website. The Piedmontishome.org website was, in turn, publicized with 30 banners on streetlights along Grand, Highland, and Moraga Avenues starting the week leading up to the launch on March 24, 2022, and continuing beyond the close of the web‐based tool on May 1, 2022. Physical posters were located at community bulletin boards, including City Hall, the Piedmont Police Station, Mulberry’s Market, Wells Fargo bank, the Piedmont Service Station on Highland Avenue, the Shell gas station on Grand Avenue, a location near Kehilla Community Synagogue, and Piedmont Community Church. The City publicized the Piedmont Housing Puzzle in notices and posters for the March 24, 2022 Housing Element Community Workshop, as well as the Planning & Building eNewsletter mailing to over 4,000 email addresses. Emails were sent to all City staff and sent to PUSD to share with School district employees. Local news outlets, including the Piedmont Post, The Exedra online newspaper, and the Piedmont Civic Association website published stories about the Piedmont Housing Puzzle and the Housing Element Community Workshop on March 24, 2022. Approach Piedmont’s next Housing Element must identify the sufficient land to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 587 new housing units by 2031. The Piedmont Housing Puzzle tool included a map of Piedmont with 14 sites, chosen using the following methodology: sites suggested by the community in March‐April 2021 through the web‐based interactive Pinnable Map tool, hosted on Social Pinpoint software; public comments gathered at stakeholder interviews, public meetings, and community events, hosted in person and virtually over the last 12 months; and sites and constraints analysis, completed by City staff and Housing Element consultants. Users of the Puzzle could allocate the 587 units to any of the identified sites, up to reasonable maximums capped in the software to urge users to develop a “balanced” housing plan with sites for new housing throughout the community. These 14 sites were identified on the Housing Puzzle map:

1. Zones A & E, Single‐Family Residential Zone 8. Zone D ‐ Gas Station, Mulberry’s, Bank of America, Wells Fargo 2. Piedmont Community Church 9. Grassy Strip and Median on Highland Avenue at Sheridan Avenue 3. Zone C – Linda Avenue at Oakland Avenue 10. Public Works Corporation Yard 4. Zone D – Grand Avenue 11. Blair Park 5. Corpus Christ Church and School 12. Civic Center: City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Center, etc. 6. Linda Dog Park 13. Plymouth Community Church 7. Kehilla Community Synagogue 14. Zion Lutheran Church & Renaissance School Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
City of Piedmont
Piedmont Housing Puzzle Users As shown below, the Piedmont Housing Puzzle had 2,099 total pageviews and 1,050 new sessions, and users spent an average of 10 minutes on the site. This equated to 246 hours of on‐line public engagement. The Balancing Act software reported 1,050 new sessions and 1,477 total sessions (new and returning visitors, combined). Of the 1,050 new sessions, approximately 16% (173 users) submitted a housing plan and comments showing where these Housing Puzzle users would choose to allocate the 587 housing units required by the RHNA.

Housing Puzzle users identified the general location of their residences as part of the tool. The resulting map of user locations showed that Piedmonters in all parts of the City were aware of, and participated in, the Housing Puzzle tool. Comments were received as part of the housing plans filed through the Housing Puzzle. These comments have been incorporated into the public comments compiled for the Planning Commission and City Council consideration, as well as listed in the appendix to this report. Users who did not file housing plans were not able to leave comments through the Housing Puzzle. Alternative forms of communication were provided in publicity materials. Many people used the comment form at Piedmontishome.org or via email to [email protected].

Demographics analysis provided by Balancing Act software reported that 56.5% of users were female, 39.4% were male, and 4% were other genders. Also, users represented every age bracket with the age bracket of 50 ‐ 69 representing the largest group (48% of users), 30 to 49 (42%), and 70 or older representing the second smallest bracket (9% of users).

Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
City of Piedmont
Results The Piedmont Housing Puzzle tool generated 173 housing plan submittals and 116 public comments. Although the majority of sessions (84%) did not result in a balanced housing plan filed through the Piedmont Housing Puzzle, the software could track where all user activity was occurring as people considered the pros and cons of the various locations. As shown below in the table titled “Table 1, Piedmont Housing Puzzle Opens By Site,” the most activity or “opens” occurred in the following categories: Zones A & E; Zone D on Grand Avenue; and Blair Park. All the sites listed on the Housing Puzzle map received some level of interest from members of the Piedmont community. Table 1, Piedmont Housing Puzzle Opens By Site Conclusion In conclusion, the Piedmont Housing Puzzle helped introduce the Draft Housing Element sites inventory and successfully piqued the interest of a significant percentage of Piedmont community members. It provided a venue for community members to both learn about sites considerations and share their perspectives on potential housing sites. The web‐based tool resulted in 116 additional public comments, which are listed in the appendix and included in the public comments compiled for the consideration of the Planning Commission and City Council. This qualitative data is important to fully understand the community’s concerns and preferences for growth.

Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
City of Piedmont
Appendix Part I, Approximate User Residence Location
Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
City of Piedmont
Comment Item Change Date
1 Lots of great options and the #2 place to place units (Zone D is best location). C ‐ Properties in Zone C, Multi‐family Zone 96.15 5/2/2022 18:16 2 This is absolutely the #1 place to put units. I'd add retail at the ground floor. Great access to public transportation and easy walk to commercial.

D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 210.53 5/2/2022 18:16 3 Great area to add units. Ideally the Blair Park (L) gets turned into a park with soccer fields (desperately needed). K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard 166.67 5/2/2022 18:164 I think it's important to develop this area into a park with soccer fields. Piedmont desperately needs more soccer fields! Given that I needed a few more units, I added some to this location...hoping that still allows for space for soccer.

L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue

24.24 5/2/2022 18:16
5 Deprioritize for housing ‐ maintain quiet nature of city center B ‐ Piedmont Community Church Property, 400 Highland Avenue 0 5/2/2022 16:09
6 Close access to school, transportation, retail shops and restaurants C ‐ Properties in Zone C, Multi‐family Zone 96.15 5/2/2022 16:09 7 Access to transportation and retail shops, grocery and restaurants D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 210.53 5/2/2022 16:09
8 Close access to Park Ave transportation and retail shops and restaurants F ‐ Corpus Christi School Property 31.25 5/2/2022 16:099 Close access to school, public transport and shops G ‐ Linda Dog Park, 333 Linda Avenue 23.81 5/2/2022 16:09 10 Deprioritize for housing ‐ surrounded by single family homes I ‐ Grassy Strip and Median along Highland Avenue at Sheridan Avenue 0 5/2/2022 16:09
11 Offering new commercial options would be interesting but not housing. Prioritize needs of surrounding single family homes (quiet, parking)
J ‐ Zone D ‐ Gas Station, Mulberry's, Bank of America, Wells Fargo 0 5/2/2022 16:09
12 Housing could make sense here (along Moraga thoroughfare) as along as Coaches Field is not disturbed. Piedmont already has too few rec fields / spaces
K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard
166.67 5/2/2022 16:09
13 Would love to turn this into soccer fields which we are desperately in need of L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue 0 5/2/2022 16:09 14 Like the idea of supporting emergency and rec uses but not additional housing M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc. 0 5/2/2022 16:09 15 Close access to Park Ave and Montclair for public transport and shops Z ‐ Zion Lutheran Property 40 5/2/2022 16:0916 Super congested already‐‐‐bad city planning B ‐ Piedmont Community Church Property, 400 Highland Avenue 0 5/1/2022 20:52
17 Close to public transit and retail best for dense living. D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 210.53 4/30/2022 3:24
18 it would be great if in development the density could be varied so there were different housing types ‐ townhomes, apartments, etc.

C ‐ Properties in Zone C, Multi‐family Zone

86.54 4/29/2022 22:53
19 Mixed ‐use zoning to allow business uses to remain with housing above. Since housing almost always is more profitable to develop, require mixed‐use with business/not‐for‐profit tenancy, not just vacant space. Consider affordability as well. Does Piedmont work to house its teachers and first responders, etc.? D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 210.53 4/29/2022 22:53
20 has Piedmont considered housing for teachers and first responders who work in Piedmont? any consideration of affordability? locations like this one could be a good opportunity for lovely townhouses I ‐ Grassy Strip and Median along Highland Avenue at Sheridan Avenue 4.94 4/29/2022 22:53 21 keep businesses ‐ mixed‐use zoning J ‐ Zone D ‐ Gas Station, Mulberry's, Bank of America, Wells Fargo

20.41 4/29/2022 22:53
22 this could be a great place for Piedmont to add some new multi‐family housing with greater density than is typical in the city ‐ and to consider affordability
K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard
166.67 4/29/2022 22:53
23 could be a very interesting venture ‐ lots of unique opportunities with the Church and school and the location on Park with access to bus, etc.

Z ‐ Zion Lutheran Property
40 4/29/2022 22:53
24 Like the newer condeos below the dog park, this could be high end bt smaller unit syle condos and townhouses. Good transportation and walkablility score. Good for the senior set and city employee preference houseing, teachers, fire dept, rec center, city admin, etc G ‐ Linda Dog Park, 333 Linda Avenue

31.75 4/29/2022 18:01
Part II, Piedmont Housing Puzzle Comments
25 The corporation yard seems a good area to put the multi unit type development. There is a main road already in place, public transportation route, and in walking distance for someone who is fit to school and to area's of interest. IT will also not negatively affect the main part of the community with added traffic becasue of normal commute.

K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard
166.67 4/29/2022 18:01
26 How will public transportation be delivered to this area? What would be the main routes drivers would take to this community?Why is this area not already open to the Piedmont comunity and public as a park? L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue
181.82 4/29/2022 18:01
27 Adding some housing here would change the nature of the Piedmont City Center. Perhaps the city buildings in place could be reidentified for community need.

M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc.

25.86 4/29/2022 18:01
28 My comments are in the specific areas. RHNA Allocation 0 4/29/2022 18:0129 Actually, why is the maximum 183, each house could turn their garage into an ADU according to CA state law AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 182 4/29/2022 17:52
30 Redeveloping a park into housing is quite a drastic step compared to allowing more ADUs in the AE zone or redeveloping a larger area of the corporation yard into usable space
G ‐ Linda Dog Park, 333 Linda Avenue
0 4/29/2022 17:52
31 Do we need giant banks downtown? An ATM seems sufficient J ‐ Zone D ‐ Gas Station, Mulberry's, Bank of America, Wells Fargo

96.94 4/29/2022 17:52
32 Honestly, do we need the public works facilities to be inside city limits? What about acquiring or leasing land in Oakland and developing the corporation yard into high‐density housing? Has the advantage of easy access to CA‐13 and frankly the nearby neighbors may prefer a well designed housing complex to an ugly corporation yard (I could be wrong) K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard
166.67 4/29/2022 17:52
33 This park is really underutilized and could be a good spot for townhomes, with easy access to CA‐13 L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue 48.48 4/29/2022 17:52 34 Please convert this useless Bank of America into some kind of restaurant or cafe please! J ‐ Zone D ‐ Gas Station, Mulberry's, Bank of America, Wells Fargo 0 4/28/2022 20:36
35 We need to focus on the Estates Zone. These are large lots, and mansions could be remodeled as condos and new multi‐unit housing built on excess land. An outreach effort needs to be made to homeowners in this zone. It is not inconceivable that many will see the justice and benefit of their property being sold to a developer who can convert it into multifamily housing. This is especially possible in cases where the homeowners' heirs live elsewhere and understand the inequities brought about by intergenerational wealth transfer and the unprecendented levels of wealth concentration we are experience in this country.

AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 182 4/28/2022 18:05
36 This should be recreation space, if you're talking about the space between the Oakland Ave bridge and Linda Beach field C ‐ Properties in Zone C, Multi‐family Zone 0 4/28/2022 18:05
37 What happened to the idea of the owner of the Shell station to convert that to multi‐unit housing? D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 78.95 4/28/2022 18:05
38 Not sure if there's any room here, but Kehilla would be disposed to the social justice angle H ‐ Kehilla Synagogue Property, 1300 Grand Ave 6.91 4/28/2022 18:0539 No. This needs to be maintained and improved as open space ‐‐ for both the human and animal populations of the area.

Piedmont has less open park space than surrounding areas, and I believe we're below the national standard.

L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue
0 4/28/2022 18:05
40 If the tennis courts in the center of town are being proposed, why not the City of Oakland owned Davie Tennis Stadium (within Piedmont city limits)? Eminent domain that place and let Oaklanders ironically complain about Piedmont building affordable housing instead of letting them keep a tennis stadium. Oakland has plenty of other property to build a tennis stadium.

M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc.

34.48 4/28/2022 17:44
41 This is very confusing. I'm just adding these here to account for housing created by ADUs and letting people split parcels to build additional homes. There could be more.

AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 182 4/28/2022 1:05
42 This just seems dumb to include this. We're not tearing down our community church in the center of town for housing. Why do you even have non‐starters on here?
B ‐ Piedmont Community Church Property, 400 Highland Avenue 0 4/28/2022 1:05
43 Again! Why are we even suggesting getting rid of a thriving church and school? This is dumb. F ‐ Corpus Christi School Property 0 4/28/2022 1:05 44 No! It's offensive to even be suggesting this. H ‐ Kehilla Synagogue Property, 1300 Grand Ave 0 4/28/2022 1:05 Part II, Piedmont Housing Puzzle Comments
45 Ditto. Stop with the anti‐religious suggestions. It's really offensive. N ‐ Plymouth Church Properties on Olive Avenue 0.45 4/28/2022 1:05 46 If a church decides it can no longer function, it will sell its property and then we can have these discussions. Until then, it's offensive to suggest getting rid of them.

Z ‐ Zion Lutheran Property
0 4/28/2022 1:05
47 This has always seemed like the most realistic place to build new housing, especially multi‐unit housing L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue 193.94 4/28/2022 0:4248 Important that the HE include more than the needed number of housing units as it is unlikely that all of the locations will develop and not providing excess capacity for development will mean the City has not successfully authorized the amount of development needed to meet our RHNA numbers. Please don't treat this like a check the box exercise ‐ Piedmont must do its part.

AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 182 4/26/2022 22:31
49 Lots splits in Zone E should should be encouraged. ADUs that are rented may be counted but not those used for other purposes.

AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 63 4/26/2022 16:52
50 Displacement of current tenants should be avoided C ‐ Properties in Zone C, Multi‐family Zone 19.23 4/26/2022 16:52 51 Public land should be used only for affordable housing. Market rate units or above moderate should be built on privately owned land.

K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard
121.21 4/26/2022 16:52
52 Given the history at Blair Park some open space for an enclosed dog run and heritage trees should be preserved. L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue 60.61 4/26/2022 16:5253 It is important to allow increased density in Piedmont's historically single family neighborhoods. This could be through ADUs, duplexes, triplexes etc.

AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 147 4/26/2022 14:17
54 These are well located sites with transportation where we should zone for increased housing density. But because they have existing economically viable uses, they are unlikely to be actually redeveloped quickly. We should not count on these to meet a signifiant portion of our RHNA obligation.

D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 105.26 4/26/2022 14:17
55 This is a great site and our best opportunity to build a feasible affordable housing development soon. this is one of the few sites in Piedmont that can build a community that is large enough to be financially feasible and meet our ELI/VLI goals K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard

75.76 4/26/2022 14:17
56 this site is one of two sites large enough to build an affordable project capable of meeting our ELI/VLI goals‐ it must be considered. The site could be developed in a way to retain and improve park land. Without these larger sites it is simply impossible to actually meet the goal of building our ELI/VLI RHNA requirement L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue

72.73 4/26/2022 14:17
57 These are great sites, close to schools and services. These are likely to take a long time to redevelop, however‐‐ but let's start planning!
M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc.

68.97 4/26/2022 14:17
58 I did not even realize the church had a parking lot. This seems like a great option for housing with parking underground. B ‐ Piedmont Community Church Property, 400 Highland Avenue

29.85 4/26/2022 4:02
59 I support housing along Grand Avenue and adjacent lots, including this intersection. C ‐ Properties in Zone C, Multi‐family Zone 96.15 4/26/2022 4:0260 Grand Avenue is one of the most logical places for multiunit housing. The Ace Hardware parking lots are a total pain ‐ I have even been in a car accident in the hardware parking lot. This space could be easily redesigned to include the current hardware and garden stores, parking and housing above that. It is accessible to transit and in a very walkable location too.

D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 210.53 4/26/2022 4:02
61 This is probably the least attractive dog parks in Piedmont. This site could be nicely reconfigured to provide housing and some park area for dog walkers at the same time. The one unknown is how this would affect traffic by Beach School.

G ‐ Linda Dog Park, 333 Linda Avenue
103.17 4/26/2022 4:02
62 Perhaps the parking lot could be repurposed to include housing with parking underground. H ‐ Kehilla Synagogue Property, 1300 Grand Ave 6.91 4/26/2022 4:02 63 This section of the street could be reconfigured to incorporate housing. I ‐ Grassy Strip and Median along Highland Avenue at Sheridan Avenue 30.86 4/26/2022 4:02
64 This is an area prime for an update. The BofA is currently unused. Gas stations will soon be obsolete as we transition to electric vehicles to address climate change before it's too late. This area combined with the police station and veterans building could be redesigned together to include the banks and Mulberry's in a visually appealing way that also features substantial affordable housing.

J ‐ Zone D ‐ Gas Station, Mulberry's, Bank of America, Wells Fargo

96.94 4/26/2022 4:02
65 The city's owned site are the easiest and biggest opportunity for adding housing because the land would not cost money. The city should seriously consider the corporation yard as well as the skatepark.

K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard
166.67 4/26/2022 4:02
Part II, Piedmont Housing Puzzle Comments
66 Blair Park, the city's largest owned property, is the most logical place for affordable housing. This is highly underutilized open space. I regularly drive by and see one person or nobody using this space. Affordable housing could be designed for this space in a way that includes open space that gets far more use than what is there now and even has more appealing greenery. It can be done in a way that would not hurt neighbors who live above the park and it could be done in a way that minimizes traffic impacts on Moraga, for instnace by widening part of the road by this property.

L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue
193.94 4/26/2022 4:02
67 It makes total sense to consider the tennis courts especially for housing. The housing could be designed in a way that retains the tennis courts, perhaps on the roof. It also makes sense to look at the veterans hall and city hall as part of the plan. Finally, while we are considering tennis courts, why not look at the ones by Hampton Field and off HIghland behind the dog park too.

M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc. 112.07 4/26/2022 4:02
68 we should be promoting ADUs while being realistic about affordability and production numbers. Owners of large lots should be able to subdivide their properties to create additional legal lots, and duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes should be allowed on the larger and the smaller lots.

AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 42 4/26/2022 3:33
69 If the Church wants to add housing I'm supportive. I am adding units here because of the way the "puzzle" is structured, which requires 587 units. I object to this ‐ people should be able to contribute whatever input they have, even if it is partial.

B ‐ Piedmont Community Church Property, 400 Highland Avenue

29.85 4/26/2022 3:33
70 Yes I support multifamily on Linda. C ‐ Properties in Zone C, Multi‐family Zone 96.15 4/26/2022 3:33 71 Redevelopment of the Sylvan learning center building seems very feasible in light of what appear to be relatively low value tenants and a relatively low value building. I support a 5‐6 story apartment building on that block and I'd support a variance enabling 100% residential, in light of how little demand there is for retail space. Ace hardware, I suspect, isn't changing.

D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 118.42 4/26/2022 3:33
72 I don't think this is a feasible housing site. G ‐ Linda Dog Park, 333 Linda Avenue 0 4/26/2022 3:3373 why maximum of 8? This is a great housing site. H ‐ Kehilla Synagogue Property, 1300 Grand Ave 6.5 4/26/2022 3:3374 I support multifamily housing on Blair park with up to 5/6 stories ‐ whatever is needed to create a project feasible and with some level of affordability. I think Blair Park has much better potential than the sites across Moraga.

L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue
181.82 4/26/2022 3:33
75 Yes!! Veterans building and tennis courts especially should be considered as sites. Veteran's building is probably near the end of its useful life, and community hall/police/fire could be below residential in a 4/5/6 story building. Tennis courts could be on the roof of a multifamily building.

M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc.

60.34 4/26/2022 3:33
76 Slope of site appears to make it unsuitable for housing, but I'd be happy to see housing there if feasible. N ‐ Plymouth Church Properties on Olive Avenue 7.17 4/26/2022 3:33 77 only more than 3 units with low income. Up to 8 units if design of building is consistent in style with neighborhood like 1001 Warfield avenue.

AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 7 4/26/2022 2:52
78 6 stories max B ‐ Piedmont Community Church Property, 400 Highland Avenue

13.43 4/26/2022 2:52
79 up to 10 stories high D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 184.21 4/26/2022 2:52
80 make same zone as D H ‐ Kehilla Synagogue Property, 1300 Grand Ave 6.91 4/26/2022 2:52 81 up to 6 stories M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc. 25.86 4/26/2022 2:52 82 It would be great to see a variety of housing types that would allow a broader range of people with different needs welcomed to Piedmont.

AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 70 4/24/2022 15:19
83 Please consider this site even including the skatepark, which wasn't well designed and is not accessible to kids that would use it anyways. Seems like a great place for housing!
K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard
151.52 4/24/2022 15:19
84 I'd love to see housing here…seems like an under utilized resource and has great proximity to nearby amenities. L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue 193.94 4/24/2022 15:1985 We should allow duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings in Zones A and E, especially on larger lots. We need to think beyond single‐family homes and ADUs.

AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 182 4/23/2022 15:47
86 I'd love to see apartments over retail and buildings up to 6‐7 stories on Grand Ave. D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 78.95 4/23/2022 15:47
Part II, Piedmont Housing Puzzle Comments
87 Strongly support exploring the Corp Yard for affordable housing. We should add the skate park site too for consideration. K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard 166.67 4/23/2022 15:47
88 Blair Park is a great opportunity site. We should definitely explore. Could put housing and some park / recreational space there, such as a playground.

L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue
193.94 4/23/2022 15:47
89 We should do a master plan for the Civic Center that integrates some of these facilities and puts affordable housing over community and city facilities. Strongly support putting affordable housing in the Civic Center so it is well integrated and close to transportation.

M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc. 112.07 4/23/2022 15:47
90 It makes sense to have housing where there are services and community resources. M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc. 0 4/22/2022 21:20 91 This area would help benefit lower income families due to ease of access to local businesses and transportation. C ‐ Properties in Zone C, Multi‐family Zone

96.15 4/22/2022 21:09
92 Blair park should be maximized. It is only used by a few residents. Perfect area for development. L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue 193.94 4/22/2022 18:42 93 This is a wonderful central location and I would advocate upzoning this area to incentivize housing in this area, especially low and moderate income housing
B ‐ Piedmont Community Church Property, 400 Highland Avenue

29.85 4/21/2022 18:11
94 97 units in this small area with small lots seems unlikely, given the high cost of construction and the fact that properties in this zone are already developed
C ‐ Properties in Zone C, Multi‐family Zone

38.46 4/21/2022 18:11
95 I think significant upzoning will be needed to make redevelopment of private businesses in this area financially feasible, but it would be great to have higher density housing in this area D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 78.95 4/21/2022 18:11 96 This seems unlikely to me given the existing use of the church and school property F ‐ Corpus Christi School Property 0 4/21/2022 18:11 97 probably too small to be feasible H ‐ Kehilla Synagogue Property, 1300 Grand Ave 0 4/21/2022 18:1198 Central locations seem like the best place for new housing, given proximity to schools, city jobs, and transit I ‐ Grassy Strip and Median along Highland Avenue at Sheridan Avenue 24.28 4/21/2022 18:11
99 Central locations seem like the best place for new housing, given proximity to schools, city jobs, and transit. 60 du/acre seems like a reasonable maximum
J ‐ Zone D ‐ Gas Station, Mulberry's, Bank of America, Wells Fargo

61.22 4/21/2022 18:11
100 This site is less connected to city services (schools, jobs, transit) but could still accommodate some housing, with efforts to improve traffic safety and integrate the neighborhood
K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard

60.61 4/21/2022 18:11
101 This site is less connected to city services (schools, jobs, transit) but could still accommodate some housing, with efforts to improve traffic safety and integrate the neighborhood
L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue

60.61 4/21/2022 18:11
102 The city center is the best place for new housing given proximity to schools, jobs, transit and recreation resources M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc. 112.07 4/21/2022 18:11
103 I'm not in favor of converting any city land/parks into housing. G ‐ Linda Dog Park, 333 Linda Avenue 0 4/18/2022 3:42104 I'm not in favor of converting any city land/parks into housing. I ‐ Grassy Strip and Median along Highland Avenue at Sheridan Avenue 0 4/18/2022 3:42
105 I'm not in favor of converting any city land/parks into housing. K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard 0 4/18/2022 3:42106 I'm not in favor of converting any city land/parks into housing. L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue 0 4/18/2022 3:42107 I'm not in favor of converting any city land/parks into housing. M ‐ City Hall, Veterans Hall, Corey Reich Tennis Courts, etc. 0 4/18/2022 3:42108 This is too many units, but because it's on the city's borderline it would be less disruptive. F ‐ Corpus Christi School Property 31.25 4/14/2022 22:05 109 This is a very condensed area, and therefore I believe there should be 0 units placed here. I ‐ Grassy Strip and Median along Highland Avenue at Sheridan Avenue 0 4/14/2022 22:05
110 This seems to be the least obtrusive place for new housing of all the locations offered. K ‐ Redevelop City Corporation Yard 166.67 4/14/2022 22:05111 This seems like too many units for one location, but too many of the other locations shouldn't have any new units. L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue 193.94 4/14/2022 22:05
112 These zones should be upzoned to allow 2‐6 units per property by right. AE ‐ Private single‐family properties throughout Zones A and E 182 4/12/2022 1:50
113 I don't believe it's likely that the maximum buildout would actually be possible as many landowners may not be interested. D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 118.42 4/12/2022 1:50
Part II, Piedmont Housing Puzzle Comments
114 I live near here and this area desperately needs revitalization and increased density! Ground floor retail with space for hardware store, coffee shops, karate place, sandwich shop etc etc would be ideal. Hard to picture how many stories these buildings would have to be to accommodate this housing though, so I'm not sure what is reasonable number of units here.

D ‐ Zone D ‐ Ace Hardware, Sylvan Learning Center, Homes and Small Businesses 105.26 4/7/2022 3:46
115 I don't have a dog but it seems this space is heavily utilized ‐ would need to preserve some dog‐park area. G ‐ Linda Dog Park, 333 Linda Avenue 0 4/7/2022 3:46 116 This area so needs to be reimagined! Less space for cars, and more for people. See Mill Valley for inspiration of a charming downtown with a plaza (both downtown Mill Valley, and the recent redevelopment of the Mill Valley Lumbar Yard). It would be ideal to have ground level retail and apartments above. Mulberry's, an ATM, and a few other shops/cafes around a small plaza with tables/outside eating area, with housing above. Remove the banks and lawyer/real estate offices. Make Highland Way a small pedestrian‐only walkway, or remove all together? It's hard as a lay person to know how different number of housing units would feel here, but I think apartments above more (non‐chain) businesses would be a wonderful transformation.

J ‐ Zone D ‐ Gas Station, Mulberry's, Bank of America, Wells Fargo

25.51 4/7/2022 3:46
117 Empty lot behind 216 Howard. C ‐ Properties in Zone C, Multi‐family Zone 38.46 4/6/2022 6:19118 Why is this the only park listed? There are many other parks in Piedmont. Why are we listing parks at all? L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue 0 3/25/2022 1:30 119 Testing F ‐ Corpus Christi School Property 4.69 3/25/2022 1:22 120 This is a park. It is not zoned for residential. Do not take away our parks! L ‐ Blair Park, 930 Moraga Avenue 0 3/25/2022 1:22 Part II, Piedmont Housing Puzzle Comments
Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
City of Piedmont
Part II, Website Traffic Referrers
Item # 3 – Consideration of Direction to Staff to Provide the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for its 90- Day Review
Correspondence received before Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:00 p.m.

HiPiedmont resident here putting in my two cents on the housing draft. The Vista tennis courts are the worst choice for housing! They are central, they are heavily used by the schools as well as the general public. If we’re converting tennis courts, it makes far more sense to convert the Park and Hampton courts.

Also, I was disgusted when the PGE lot was converted into 1.85 million dollar townhomes. Piedmont doesn’t need high income housing, it needs low income housing! I’m afraid that partnering with developers is just going to be another boon doggle, with no increase of low income housing.

Thanks,
Sharon Robinson
Dear Members of City Council,
When perusing the Housing Element Draft, I was very concerned and upset to see that a number of sites in City Center were identified for high-density housing, for example the tennis courts, Veterans Hall, and 801 Magnolia. I know that it's not 100% that these sites would actually be built on, but there is 0% chance right now, and I for one am not willing to take the risk. I am very concerned that by making high-density housing a possibility at these locations, we are only one rich motivated developer or individual away from a terrible situation which would result in much division, possible lawsuits, and worst-case, a huge detriment to our community and to our safety if high-density housing were actually developed there.

Here are just a few of the downsides if a space like the tennis courts ever became high-density housing:

1. Loss of high school tennis team team courts

2. Loss of courts used by kids clinics all summer and during the school year and by 3 different sets of ladies tennis groups, not to mention countless other recreational players

3. Increase in response time for police and fire as they would have to navigate construction and then later navigate increased traffic from the residents of the high density housing

4. Less safety for kids walking to school and parents driving kids to school b/c residents of that housing would be leaving for work around the same time as kids come to school

5. Loss of precious community space shared and enjoyed by all residents of Piedmont and particularly by our kids
I beg you to remove City Center from the list of sites and consider other sites within Piedmont to meet the Housing Element, for example Grand Ave, Moraga Ave, or simply incentivizing that

23.48% of Piedmont homes build an ADU, resulting in the required 587 additional units.

As someone who plans to live in Piedmont for the rest of my life and leave my home to my children, I am incredibly vested in the future of the City Center and the safety and happiness of all residents. Please leave City Center as is. We can't take any chances with the precious heart of our town.

Thank you,
Alissa Welch
Dear Council Members,
I was surprised to read on PAGE 30 of the Piedmont Post dated June 15th that there was a public hearing scheduled for 5:30 on June 20th on a final plan that was posted June 8th with no direct contact with ALL the residents of Piedmont. We deserve to know what proposals are being put together directly - we all get our mail everyday - and we deserve to have a vote on what we want our City to look and feel like. Many of us have picked Piedmont to live because of the non-crowding, the safety of our homes and the ability to be able to have our children walk to school without fear that something will happen to them.

I was very disappointed to see how you are planning to use every inch of space in Piedmont, where it's allowing a home site that is zone single family to be changed to allowing a 4 unit complex to be built or a new build having to include an ADU, let alone re-zoning various areas that are City owned to be possibly turned over to developers to put up what they want and demolishing the current beautiful buildings in our small and charming downtown to put up multiple story buildings which will only increase the traffic and safety of our children who go to the schools that are in the heart of downtown..

What will all of these ideas do to our property values. It is my belief that the residents of Piedmont live here for a reason and you are endangering our property values and way of life WITHOUT DIRECTLY contacting ALL the citizens of Piedmont and having them VOTE on these changes you are putting together. I support the need for affordable housing, but these needs hopefully can be accomplished without sacrificing beneficial recreation space, historic facilities, and much needed educational and city resources.

This issue of multiple changes to how we live is NOT something that the City should TEXT, BLOG or email about. This is an issue you must be sure you include everyone to have their say.

Very truly yours,
A Second Generation Piedmont Owner (Deborah Newton)
Dear City Council,
I was gratified this morning to read several articles in the PCA about tonight's Housing Element meeting. The common thread is that there remain many questions about the proposal. These include to name a few 1) Lack of use of SB9 units in the projection 2) Choice of unrealistic sites for development 3) Reclassification of zones under the Piedmont Charter without a vote of the people, 4)The requirement that some new construction require the addition of an ADU and 5) the location of a transitional home for six homeless people.

Fortunately residents finally appear to be paying attention to the changes contained in the Housing Element. Some changes are clear, some not so clear, but many will radically change Piedmont forever. I urge the Council to extend the comment period and take advantage of the community engagement that is occurring now. Much of the prior discussion has been dominated by the same people, from the same organization, saying the same things. They do not speak for me, or I suspect for many Piedmont voters. It is time to hear what the community thinks.

Good luck tonight.

Best,
John L. Lenahan
If you zone it, they will come…
Developers I mean. And possibly not in a good way.

The primary debate in the community does not seem to be about providing state mandated housing, but rather whether piedmont should create a CITY CENTER, or maintain its TOWN CENTER, which truly is the jewel of town.

Please find other locations in piedmont for housing and protect Piedmont’s town center and schools by maintaining the current zoning for that area and not add any congestion or ruin it’s charm.

Thank you
Jodie Marko
Dear Piedmont City Council and Staff,
I have significant concerns over the Housing Element plan under consideration by the Council this evening. PLEASE SLOW DOWN AND DO NOT APPROVE ANYTHING TONIGHT.

Many Piedmont residents are just learning details of the plan being proposed. We need more time to learn, consider alternatives, and contribute to a plan that can be supported as broadly as possible.

Specifically, I do not want to see new development jeopardize the safety of our children or the availability of common space in the center of town treasured by students and residents.

For historical precedent, please consider the process around the new high school. There was a small group of passionate people who wanted a new theater. Theater is good, right?!? Well, you know what you can't do with a brand new theater? Tear it down to build a STEM building.

Thankfully, enough of us spoke out and voted down the new theater project, demanding a PLAN first, a plan inclusive of the entire community, whether they were paying attention from the start or not.

After the first theater plan was rejected, there was a much more inclusive, methodical process to offer the community easily consumable information on a steady basis. There were powerpoint decks and surveys and meetings to take feedback every step of the way as we considered all possible iterations and eventually honed in on a specific plan. The buildings that stand today are the result of a super inclusive process and there's a new theater about to open.

We need to do the same around the housing element. I'm sure a lot of great work was done, just like in the early days of the new theater and high school. Now, it is time to educate the residents, offer alternatives to stimulate discussion (not just one plan), and move forward with a plan that best meets the needs and desires of our entire community.

Unlike with the high school, we have an entire city within which to move pieces around to accomplish the goals. Let's not rush into a plan that destroys space that people have cherished for generations.

Thank you,
John Welch
Dear Piedmont City Council and Staff,
I have significant concerns over the Housing Element plan under consideration by the Council this evening. PLEASE SLOW DOWN AND DO NOT APPROVE ANYTHING TONIGHT.

Many Piedmont residents are just learning details of the plan being proposed. We need more time to learn, consider alternatives, and contribute to a plan that is as inclusive as possible.

My greatest concerns are that new developments do not jeopardize the safety of our children or the availability of common space in the center of town treasured by students and residents.

Thankfully, enough of us spoke out and voted down the new theater project, demanding a PLAN first, a plan inclusive of the entire community, whether they were paying attention from the start or not.

After the first theater plan was rejected, there was a much more inclusive, methodical process to offer the community easily consumable information on a steady basis. As a critic of the first plan, I was invited to join a new Facilities Steering Committee to oversee the work. There were powerpoint decks and surveys and meetings offered to the public to take feedback every step of the way as we considered all possible iterations and eventually honed in on a specific plan. The buildings that stand today are the result of a very inclusive process and there's a new theater about to open.

We need to do the same around the housing element. I'm sure a lot of great work was done, just like in the early days of the new theater and high school. Now, it is time to educate residents, offer alternatives to stimulate discussion (not just one plan), and move forward with a plan that best meets the needs and desires of our entire community.

Thank you,
John Welch
Hello Piedmont City Council MembersI am writing to ask that you not vote to Submit Draft Housing Element to State tonight.

As an average Piedmont citizen (not part of any action group or coalition) I have considered myself reasonably aware of the development of the Housing Element. I understood ABAG’s RHNA assessment for Piedmont, I participated in the online housing feedback questionnaires, I checked in on Piedmontishome.org with some regularity. I am in support of increased housing, addressing an array income level needs, equity and inclusivity. I think of myself as a “YIMBY”.

However, I am concerned because I have never heard as much discussion about the Housing Element as I have at the two kid birthday parties I attended this weekend, in fact I never heard anyone bring it up before. What I heard: "I had no idea that the siting had been decided for the draft plan, I had no idea they are planning the bulk of the housing downtown, I had no idea they are changing the downtown zoning to accommodate 6 story structures, I thought they were planning to use Blair Park, I thought that the Housing Element does not amend the zoning map”. And the follow up questions- how will this impact our community? Where are the environmental impact reports, who is the transit specialist tasked with this, have they done traffic studies, what is normally required for zoning amendments?, etc.

Since the city council has been immersed in working on this, it may seem to you that the amount of community involvement and feedback has been adequate to this point. I am writing to you to impress upon you that the scope of this issue has not even begun to penetrate the consciousness of the community. In the interest of full transparency, there should be more time and more hearings devoted to this issue, specifically to hearing from the community about the impact of the distribution of the siting for the housing in the draft plan. It may throw off the calendar for the state process, but it is more than worth taking more of the time before May 31, 2023 to carefully consider this plan and its specific impacts before submitting it.

As California communities adjust to keep up with statewide housing demands, I have seen different cities deal with the same scenario Piedmont is dealing with right now, and it can play out in many different ways. In cities where the community gets the impression that the Council votes too quickly to pass a plan without adequate debate and input on the housing siting, what should be a process turns into a hugely divisive issue. Lawsuits abound, which are terrible wastes of resources. I am hoping that the Piedmont council does not follow this trend, that it takes an open, transparent, and community minded approach to this process. If right now in the process is the first you are hearing any opposition to the draft Housing Element plan, the timing should not preclude you from listening. Slow down and hear everyone out, be open to alternatives. Make your position in support of the plan factual and easy to digest, as most people do not have the time to read and understand the full draft Housing Element. I personally feel that more discussion, exploration of alternative sites and impact studies are needed before the building sites are locked into a plan submission.

Debate and disagreement will occur on issues as impactful as this one. Piedmont has not had major changes to its planning, zoning or structures in most citizens' memories. People need time to understand and absorb what you are proposing. Do not make the mistake of thinking you can avoid dissent by pushing this through tonight. Embrace the voices of your community and give this topic the time it needs so that the majority of Piedmont’s citizens feel that even if they do not get their desired outcome, at least they had the time to understand what will be happening to their community before it is voted on.

Help create a community of YIMBYs by slowing the process to truly involve them.

In short, please delay vote to submit Draft Housing Element to the State.

Thank you for reading this.

Liz Selna
Kevin, thanks for your prompt reply. I see you are working on a Saturday.

I admit I am confused by your response re the use of SB9 projections in the HE. I assume you are relying on professional advice, but your response seems contrary to the plain words of the HCD Fact Sheet, which says that a jurisdiction can "utilize projections based on SB9 toward a jurisdiction's regional housing needs assessment" then it lays out the 4 steps to follow.

In your 2nd paragraph you say SB9 "has been interpreted" to mean something rather different from the words quoted above. By whom was it so interpreted? Can you provide a copy of this interpretation?
Then you go on to say that the city would have to rely on "applications in process or imminent".

That's inconsistent with a projection meant to cover an 8 year planning period.

You then say: "HCD is requiring evidence of actual performance and production of units." This again is contrary to the Fact Sheet, and to the inherent meaning of the word, "projections".

Projections are forward looking, not retroactive.

Your observation that SB9 would produce only "a handful of units at best" needs evidence.

Houses turn over rapidly. Some buyers may want to maximize their return. Selling one house for say $2 million or half of a TIC for almost as much each is a reasonable possibility. Just a speculative example, but if a half of 1% of the SFRs in Piedmont became a two-unit building per year, for 8 years, it would produce over 150 new units.

You're correct that new SB9 units are unlikely to be affordable, but the more credible larger sites can be designated for affordability.

You say that no city has received certification relying on SB9 projections. Since the law only became effective in January, and the HCD implementation guide only came out in March, it would almost be impossible for any jurisdiction to have received HE certification containing SB9 projections.

Please provide copies of any communications from HCD confirming your statement that a HE with SB9 projections is unlikely to receive certification. Maybe that could be true if a jurisdiction relied exclusively on SB9, but not if such projections, consistent with HCD's own Fact Sheet, were a part of the mix.

As I said in my comment letter, I believe a jurisdiction is more likely to receive HCD approval by implementing SB9, than by including sites in the inventory which are extremely improbable.

I see housing advocacy groups are already closely following Piedmont's process. Providing the highest degree of credibility would seem prudent.

Thanks for your time.

Mike Henn
Councilmembers,
One of you asked me about my statement that the housing program can be accommodated on non-public sites. I said yes, it can be, it requires accepting some tradeoffs, principally perhaps two more stories on three sites — the two on Grand and one on Highland. This could be accomplished on Grand with ground floor retail plus four residential floors, maybe five, depending on unit mix, and on Highland at ground floor retail plus 4 floors residential. This would be working within the framework of sites identified by staff, but excluding all public land, and building in some assumptions about SB-9 units (40 units) and small lot triplexes, fourplexes (40 units). There would be a healthy 72 units buffer, so if these two numbers landed somewhat less, there is still some room. The attached show what that program would look like, and has exactly the same number of units as in the current Housing Element draft.

I believe the overall change is modest, and is mainly only on three total sites already identified by staff for higher density development. This would avoid development on not just Civic Center sites, but on Corp Yard and Blair Park in their entirety as well. All sites would be available for development the moment the Housing Element is adopted, rather than being locked for another several years while specific plans or master plans are prepared or fictional sites on which housing will never result. This would also place the vast majority of residents in walkable Civic Center and Grand Avenue areas, with great access to stores, transit, parks, and other amenities.

With good attention to design and development standards, these developments would positively enhance our urban fabric and result in vibrant streets with more cafes and dining places. No messing with tennis courts or police/fire building rehab. We can spend all that time and energy instead getting the design right. I have previously mentioned the slightly taller buildings on three sites to staff, but was told that this was not “politically acceptable”, but perhaps something has been lost in translation.

BTW: I read through the entirety of the community outreach summary on pages 14 through 18 of the Draft Housing Element, including community workshops. I see NO mention of Civic Center sites anywhere in the feedback summary on those five pages, although Grand and Highland are mentioned several times. So as a community member it is a shock to me see these as front and center in the Housing Element. If the Council proceeds with the recommendations as presented, you would be proceeding with no community direction to move forward on those sites, without benefit of physical, economic, or legal analysis, and for whatever that is worth, without my recommendation — while I have no elected position in the community, I have done general plans for more California cities than anyone else, so at least that is one professional urban planner perspective!
Please see attached Excel and PDF files.

Sincereley,
Rajeev Bhatia
Alternative Housing Sites Program
(no public lands used)
Units
Housing Occupied July 1, 2022 to Jan, 31, 2023 incl.

ADUs 15
Assumed. Staff has actual permitting
data to calculate precisely
SB-9 Units 40 Assumed. Analysis would need to be conducted ADUs (as per Housing Element; Table ES-1) 140
Single Family and Places of Worship (as per Table B9 in Housing Element) 140 Sub-Total 335
Mixed-Use Sites (Grand and Highland) Acres
Proposed
Density Units Max
Units
Realistic
1201-1221 Grand Avenue (note that 1201 was
counted in the previous cycle but has mysteriously
dropped from the current element. State law allows
this be counted if the new allowable density is at
least 20% greater. Existing density is 20 units per
acre, and since increase is greater than 20%, can be
counted)

0.75 180 135 108 160 units per acre can be achive at
Ace/Sylvan with ground floor retail + 4
floors, as the sites are really well
shaped to result in efficient housing.

Maybe ground + 5 stories to hit 180
units per acre
1337 Grand Avenue 0.63 180 113 91
Highland Sites 0.76 140 106 85
These can be achieved with ground
floor retail + 4 stories
Sub-Total 284
TOTAL 619
40 Total w/small multiplexes 659
Total sites in current draft 658
RHNA 587
Buffer 72
Potential additional small
triplexes, quadruplexes, etc.
through creative zoning

Piedmont City CouncilJune 20, 2022

Piedmont City Council
June 20, 2022