Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) School Board Names Dr. Donald Evans Interim Superintendent for 2022-23 School Year (Piedmont, Ca., June 22, 2022) –

The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) will turn to a local and experienced educator to lead the organization through the 2022-23 school year. At its June 22 meeting, the PUSD Board of Education announced the appointment of Dr. Donald Evans as Interim Superintendent for the upcoming school year, replacing current Superintendent, Randall Booker, who accepted the Superintendent position with the San Mateo Union High School District last month.

Dr. Evans will serve under a one-year contract beginning July 1, 2022, while the District conducts a nationwide search for its next permanent Superintendent. Dr. Evans is a familiar face among education circles in Alameda County, having served as Superintendent for the Berkeley Unified School District for six years (2013-19) and Hayward Unified for two years (2011-13).

With over 30 years of experience in education, Dr. Evans announced his retirement in July 2019, but was intrigued by the opportunity to spend a year with PUSD.

“Throughout my time in Alameda County, I have heard of and witnessed the work and accomplishments of students and staff in Piedmont and developed a great respect for the environment and culture of learning and success that has been built here,” Dr. Evans said. “I am excited to see this work first-hand and help the District in any way I can through this transition period.”

“We are thrilled to bring Dr. Evans’ insight and experience to PUSD as its Interim Superintendent,” added PUSD Board President, Cory Smegal. “He will bring an understanding of Piedmont, a commitment to excellence and a collaborative spirit that will be instrumental to continuing the District’s success as we conduct the search for our next Superintendent. We thank Dr. Evans for making this one year commitment to our students, staff and community.”

Dr. Evans began his teaching career with the San Diego Unified School District in 1988 at Silver Gate Elementary School where he taught fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. During his 10-year tenure in San Diego, he also served as a GATE teacher, a teacher coach, and a vice principal. Dr. Evans also served as a principal at Burckhalter Elementary School in Oakland and was the first principal of the East Palo Alto Charter School in the Ravenswood City School District.

As Elementary School Area Superintendent for the Oakland Unified School District, he spearheaded the District’s successful effort to implement all-day kindergarten. He also played an instrumental role in the professional development of elementary school administrators.

Prior to his first Superintendent position with Hayward Unified, Dr. Evans served as the Associate Superintendent of Secondary Education with the Compton Unified School District for three years, where he led the effort to bring in advanced high school courses and to expand the music program.

Throughout his career, Dr. Evans has focused extensively on curriculum and professional development. More recently, he has led numerous trainings on the conversion to the Common Core State Standards, with a focus on providing professional development to support administrators in the transition. He was the recipient of the 2018 Marcus Foster Educator of the Year Award from the California Association of African-American Superintendents.

Dr. Evans earned his Doctorate in 2010 from the Graduate School of Education at the University of California-Berkeley, in association with the Leadership in Educational Equity Program. He received his Masters of Education from United States International University, and his Bachelors of Arts from the University of Delaware. Dr. Evans is originally from Lewes, Delaware, and currently resides in Oakland.

Dr. Evans will assume his position with PUSD on Friday, July 1.

The District will announce meet and greet opportunities for the community as soon as they are scheduled. Over the summer and fall, the Board will select a Superintendent search firm to coordinate the search process for its next permanent Superintendent. Stakeholder meetings will take place in the fall to gather input from students, staff, families and the community. The Superintendent position will be posted in the winter with interviews to take place in the winter/spring. PUSD’s next Superintendent will be named in the spring and will assume their new position on July 1, 2023.

Donald Evans Interim Superintendent.docx

Angela Barrett Named Assistant Principal at Piedmont Middle School (Piedmont, Ca., June 22, 2022) –

The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) filled its remaining school site administrator position with the hiring of Angela Barrett as new Assistant Principal of Piedmont Middle School. Barrett will replace Karyn Shipp, who will assume the Principal position of PMS on July 1.

“I am excited to join the students, staff and families at Piedmont Middle School,” Barrett said. “I am dedicated to supporting Piedmont as we work toward providing all students with an equitable and high quality educational experience. It is an honor to join this amazing community, and I look forward to getting to know you all.”

“Ms. Barrett was the clear choice during the application/interview process and we are thrilled to bring her experience and passion to Piedmont Middle School,” added PUSD Superintendent, Randall Booker. “Already well-established and familiar with the role, she will fit right in to what this great school is working to build and accomplish for its students and staff.”

An experienced teacher and administrator, Barrett comes to PUSD from the Nea Community Learning Center in Alameda, where she has served as assistant principal during the past school year and assisted with operations, staff, parent outreach, and professional development, in addition to working as high school discipline lead, grade 6-12 gradebook lead, and organizing the shift to mastery grading for Nea’s upper division team.

Barrett spent the previous three years as Vice Principal at Envision Academy High School in Oakland where she was the point person for facilities & on-campus school safety, technology and state testing, led regular professional development sessions, and worked with teachers for coaching, data analysis and classroom observations.

Barrett has several years of experience in the classroom as an English teacher at Amador Valley High School in Pleasanton, and as Lead Teacher at City Arts and Technology High School in Oakland. She describes herself as a passionate educator, excited to learn, grow and connect with students and the community. “I am an educational leader who understands the importance of working with others, as well as when it is time to take initiative in the best interest of students and the community we serve. I am ready to take my leadership experience in this exciting new direction that allows me to support all students to succeed.”

Barrett will assume her new role on July 1.

Angela Barrett.docx

 STATEMENT BY RALPH CATALANO TO THE PIEDMONT CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 20, 2022.

Tonight’s agenda lists this hearing as new business — but that’s not quite accurate.  This hearing (scheduled, disappointingly, at 5:30 p.m. 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 low-income 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, Piedmont Resident

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

Civic spaces and places are what makes a community.

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.

Putting the Vista tennis courts where the high school students play on the chopping block, potentially jeopardizing the viability of vitally needed police and fire station retrofitting, removing the Piedmont Center for the Arts, and putting housing on the Highland Green that serves as the 4th of July parade staging area are extraordinary steps that are in the Housing Element that the community is not aware of, and potentially hugely destructive to the community fabric. The City needs to slow down process and more thoroughly analyze these proposals and get community feedback before the element is forwarded to the State.

The City can both protect its civic spaces and accommodate it housing needs in a thoughtful manner. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. By preserving our public and recreation spaces, Piedmont would also be preserving these for the enjoyment of new residents.

The Piedmont Housing Element should 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. The City should 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 responsibly make for the Civic Center sites:

STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS TO BE MINDFUL ABOUT FOR 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/community-development/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

State law states that “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/community-development/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, unless the City does not want high schoolers and other community members to play tennis or does not want police and fire departments. 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

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 OF SITES AT THE 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.

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.

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 an agreement on this?

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.

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 THE CITY’S HOUSING OBLIGATIONS

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.

•       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 stories 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, six-plexes, 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.

Rajeev Bhatia, Piedmont Resident

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

“Embracing SB9 is a more realistic and sensible approach than envisioning multi-unit dwellings in church parking lots, City Center, 801 Magnolia Avenue next to the new pool, or the Highland Avenue median, as now included in the draft HE before you.”

Letter sent to the Piedmont City Council:

June 15, 2022

Re: June 20 Housing Element Hearing

Dear Mayor King and Council,

.

At the last Planning Commission meeting concerning the Housing Element (“HE”) draft, Kathryn Slama of Lisa Wise consulting was asking about the potential of satisfying Piedmont’s RHNA (Regional Housing Need Allocation) by the potential of SB9.  Her response was that the State only allows numbers based on past production.  Planning Director Kevin Jackson repeated this information June 7, 2022: “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 (California Department of Housing and Community Development ) 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 Avenue 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, Piedmont Resident

.

HCD Fact Sheet 2022

.

June 20, 2022 Council Agenda >  62022 Council Agenda

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

Are Piedmonters aware of what is proposed for the most profound change to housing in Piedmont’s 115 year history?

Due to lack of information and available summaries, few Piedmonters understand how the proposed Housing Element (HE) will impact their home, their taxes, and the City of Piedmont.

If the HE is sent to the State, as proposed by City staff, and approved by the City Council, Piedmont will have committed the city to specific obligations within the HE, such as rezoning, densities, and building height increases.  If the HE is sent to the State, as proposed for Monday, June 20, Piedmont will relinquish the ability to remove committed items in the HE.

Piedmont officials have stated, “It is only a plan.” Not stated however, is the fact that once the HE is adopted by Piedmont and approved by the state, by law, the HE must be implemented.  Funding appears not to be a limitation on development as significant amounts of public money joined with commercial development interests are expected. 

In the staff report attached below, outreach by the City has yielded limited success in informing Piedmonters of the breath and specifics of the proposals.  Despite a City description of “robust” public outreach, there was no hard copy distribution of the  proposed HE, a summary, or a survey sent directly to Piedmonters for their consideration.  

The State extended the deadline for HE approval for approximately one year until May 2023 to allow greater participation and comment by the public.  

Where is the information on required zoning changes and safety requirements in the HE?

The Housing Element includes:

• Without neighborhood knowledge or input, proposals meeting the requirements of split lots, four units on a lot, tall 4 story buildings replacing existing homes,  etc., will be done with no right by neighborhoods to object, for property owners and the City will have a legal right to build on or divide property according to the HE. 
• Where zoning changes are required in the HE, such as increasing density and changed uses, the Piedmont City Charter gives voters with the exclusive right to approve zoning changes.  Once the proposed HE is approved and adopted, Piedmont voters will be forced by the State based on the HE to approve zoning changes within a three year period of HE approval.

What is the intended outcome of the proposed HE revision? 

Table IV -1 Quantifiable Objectives (on page 232 of the staff report) shows the number and type of new housing units expected to be built in Piedmont over the next few years.  It is intended to clarify to (decision-makers) authorities the new housing development obligation fulfillment.  No single family zoning or lot survives the rezoning as described in the City Charter. 

Staff report: >  PCA Housing Ele 62022  Over 200 pages long 

Monday, June 20, 2022

Public HEARING AGENDA

and participation information > PCA 62022 Council Agenda

Information on the Housing Element Process and required rezoning linked below:

Staff report:   PCA Housing Ele 62022  Over 200 pages long 

Public HEARING AGENDA and participation information PCA 62022 Council Agenda

City notice below:

On Monday, June 20, 2022, the City Council will conduct a public hearing in Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, to consider the Draft Housing Element for the 6th Cycle (Draft Housing Element) and to submit the Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for its 90-day review. The City Council agenda is available on the City website at this link. State law requires cities to update their General Plan Housing Element. The next Housing Element guides City actions for 2023 to 2031; it is part of the City’s General Plan; and it applies City-wide.

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those the author.

– Imposed Housing, New School Superintendent, Police and Fire, Zoning, Taxes, Transparency, School Funding, Open Accessible Government, Safety, Utility Undergrounding, Equity, Safe Sidewalks, Recreation for All, Lower Student Enrollment, Pandemic Requirements, Budgets, Environment, Employee Selections, Teacher Retention, and more …..

Have you or someone you know thought of seeking election to the Piedmont City Council or School Board?

Now is a good time to get a campaign underway.

Filing for the November 8, 2022 Election starts on Monday, July 18, 2022 @ 8:30 AM

The races for the City Council and School Board are non-partisan.  Piedmont has historically followed a “who do you know” pattern of election with endorsements from individuals and sometimes groups for particular candidates.  With many issues to be considered during the election, certain special interest groups or individuals will coalless. 

Although John Tulloch, Piedmont’s City Clerk, has yet to publish the various deadlines and requirements for placing your name on the Piedmont November 2022 ballot, he may be contacted at 510/420-3040 for information. 

Editors’ Note: The Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) does not support or oppose particular candidates seeking elected office, but greatly encourages participatory democracy and elections.