Dear City Council Members,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ralph Catalano, Piedmont Resident

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

Piedmonter and Architect Donald Chandler has offered several recommendations to the City in a series of 3 prepared statements:

1/17/2023 – Agenda Item #10 –
Consideration of an RFP for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan

I would like to recommend an addition to the Scope of Work of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan –
namely to add new Police and Fire Departments and related buildings to the list of activities which
should be included in the Project Area. Assuming that we don’t have a comprehensive Master Plan or a
complete evaluation of the structural integrity of our Essential Services Buildings – and these are two big assumptions but if you will bear with me on that – wouldn’t it be prudent to include these two Essential Services in the RFP Scope of Work in the event that the Master Planning process may identify Moraga Canyon as the best location for these activities.?

Moraga Canyon may turn out to be the most accessible site in the case of a major emergency like a wildfire or an earthquake. I don’t know the answer to that issue, but a comprehensive Master Plan would explore that option in addition to, of course, other sites including the City Center with all its pedestrian and vehicular traffic issues. It would also balance out the issues of routine vs major emergency response times and other City requirements during a major emergency.

My personal opinion is that we may very soon have too many activities in our small City Center – with
the added traffic from the new Community Pool, continued discussions about new housing units per the Housing Element and the large number of parking spaces devoted to City and School employees. If that is a finding of the Master Plan exercise, then it may be best to relocate some of the City Center
functions. Isn’t it a good idea to have a placeholder in the Specific Plan for some of those functions?

Regarding the priorities of use in the Specific Plan, there is some mention that housing is of the highest priority in order to satisfy the Housing Element submittal. That housing is for future residents, and I do not in any way discount or diminish their importance to the City – but how can we know the priorities for Moraga Canyon – the one last major parcel in Piedmont – without a Master Plan that examines all the City’s needs – and the needs of all it’s residents – current and future?
Thank you, Council Members and Staff for your consideration of this proposal.
Donald Chandler AIA

____________________________________

2/6/2023  Open Forum – Piedmont City Council Meeting

I would like to expand on some of the issues which I raised in my call to you on January 17th. As you may recall, I discussed the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan and the need for a City Master Plan and the urgency that I feel to develop a plan to improve the Essential Services Buildings which are of course an integral part of the Master Plan.

In researching past City Council minutes, I found references on April 20th and July 6 th of 2020 indicating some urgency to proceed with further studies of the ESB ‘s structural and operational capacities. The April 20 th minutes contained an extensive discussion including comments from the Police Chief and Fire Chief about the deficiencies in their departments. The Fire Chief had an comprehensive list of deficiencies or inadequacies, one of which was, and I’m quoting here “seismic features such that an earthquake would cause significant structural damage to the Fire Station.” In the same meeting, City Staff stated that, quote “ high quality public safety services are a core function of the city .“  I think we can all agree with that statement.

Studies were undertaken and then In the July 6th meeting, Staff reported that Glass Architects had
developed a cost estimate of $33-51 million for the potential combined Essential Services Building. At
the same meeting there was extensive discussion about funding both the Community Pool and the ESB’s and, for reasons you all know much better than I, the result of that meeting was to proceed only with the Pool Bond Measure on the November 2020 ballot.

We all recognize the impact of the COVID emergency on all City and other activities, but we also know
that there was some urgency up until mid-2020 to investigate and proceed further with what we can call the ESB project. Two and one-half years have passed. If we all agree with that earlier statement that “ high quality public safety services are a core function of the city”, then one must ask the question: How does the City reestablish that URGENCY exhibited in 2020 to move the ESB and Master Plan processes forward?

I submit these observations and questions for your consideration.
Thank you very much for your time and for your service to the City

Donald Chandler AIA, Piedmont Resident

____________________

2/21/2023 – Open Forum – Piedmont City Council Meeting

I appreciate the comments in the Council Meeting of February 7, that reinforced the need to
renew the process of investigation and determination of the proper solution for upgrading the
Essential Services Buildings (ESB) and their inclusion in a revised Piedmont Master Plan. The
very preliminary costs for that project, as included in various City meeting notes, ranged from
$33 million to well over $ 80 million. That range of estimates is understandable, given the
general scope of work completed at the time – almost 3 years ago.

With a project of that scope in our near future, one must ask the question – do we want to
replicate the project management model used on the Community Pool on the ESB project or
for that matter any project moving forward?

The management process on the Pool resulted in, 1) a major scope change/redesign before
construction bids were even solicited, 2) then when bid, only two bids were received and both were
over the City’s budget , 3) a rebid process 4) in the rebid, all bidders except 1 were over budget. And
even the low bid could not meet the City’s budget if not for the generosity and understanding of PRFO
and many Piedmont residents and their contributions. The Pool design process was, unfortunately, not
uncommon and generally follows this pattern: Design – Estimate – Over budget – Redesign – Re-
estimate, Over budget, etc., etc. Basically, the weakness of this process is that it is iterative and it tends
not to be collaborative.

Let’s look at an alternative process. It is one where the design team, the project management team and
the estimating team all have equal weight and input into the project from the very early stages. It is
critical that design and estimating teams must go forward simultaneously if this process is to be
successful in reducing the design time ( saving money ) and meeting an established budget. This
management model is not new. It is a model used by many major corporations and also municipalities
which have a significant building programs. The goals of this process are to reduce design time and fees and minimizing those iterative design exercises experienced on the Community Pool.

What is key is that it is a top-down process – it must be initiated and empowered by the Client/Owner if it is to be successful.

I realize this is a very abbreviated description of a complex process, but I do hope the Council will give
some consideration to revising the City’s project management system going forward.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this proposal.

(Notes for a phone call to the Open Forum – Piedmont City Council Meeting of 2/21/2023 –

Donald Chandler AIA )

Piedmont, a community of about 10,000 residents, has not one, but two organizations formed to help remove the stain of racism from the fabric of civic life. The Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign (i.e. PREC) posts: “We work with allied organizations and individuals to raise awareness about racism and to support policies for racial justice and equity.” The Piedmont Anti-Racism and Diversity Committee (i.e., PADC) describes itself as: “Grounded in principles of racial equity, Piedmont Anti-Racism and Diversity Committee (PADC) works to dismantle systems of oppression, and replace them with policies and practices to nurture a connected and inclusive community.”

It could be argued that Piedmont’s civic life has been sufficiently stained with racism in the past that an unusually vigorous contemporary effort to avoid more appears justified.  The Piedmont Chief of Police in 1924, a member of the KKK, condoned mob violence against an African American family that had purchased a home in the city. As bad, the then City Council used eminent domain to condemn the home thereby forcing the family from the community.  In the 1960’s, the City Council transferred a public swimming pool to a private club to avoid complying with Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required integration of public facilities.  In the last decade, moreover, several newsworthy incidents of racist graffiti in Piedmont parks and schools have reminded us of the stains on our civic fabric.

The response of the contemporary community at large to this history has been mostly laudable.  A recent report prepared by city staff finds little evidence of segregation in the community. The School District has developed a reputation for fighting racism in all forms and the city supports and participates in much programing intended to encourage an inclusionary culture.  Indeed, the local media describes a remarkable breadth of inclusionary programming offered in Piedmont on Martin Luther Day 2023.

This programming, however, appears lost on a City Council poised to stain our civic life with a not-so-subtle attempt to segregate a Piedmont neighborhood.  A state mandate that California cities allow development of market-rate and low-income housing has led Piedmont to begin planning a whole new neighborhood in Moraga Canyon.  The plan would allow, indeed encourage, construction of 132 new homes including 60 for low-income families.  Problems with this otherwise laudable scheme include that the Council has explicitly left open the option of assigning the 60 low-income units to Blair Park.

Blair’s designation as a “park” comes from the city’s purchase of Moraga Canyon land more than a century ago with bond funding raised to protect open space and wildlife. The park as we now know it, is essentially a former land fill surrounded mostly by high hillsides so steep that no vehicular or pedestrian access to the flatter section via the hills has ever been proposed. The steep hillsides are covered with oak and other native trees that harbor a diverse collection of wildlife protected, until now, by the land’s purchase with park bond funds.

Vehicles and pedestrians access Blair Park only from Moraga Avenue, a high-speed thoroughfare that connects the 13 and 580 Freeways via Grand Avenue. A 2010 EIR prepared for playfields proposed in Moraga Canyon, found a significant and unmitigable safety hazard for drivers entering or leaving Blair Park.  The hazard arises because no location on Moraga Avenue provides the 385-foot site distance Caltrans assumes for safe stopping of vehicles traveling at 35 MPH. More than 15% of vehicles traveling on Moraga Avenue exceeded that speed in 2010. The EIR also noted a similar hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Moraga Avenue and that the likelihood of injuries and deaths would grow with increased attempts to access Blair Park.

Piedmonters appear unaware of the scheme to assign 60 low-income families to a former landfill, cutoff from the remainder of the community by impassable terrain and a high-speed arterial deemed an unmitigable safety hazard to motorists and pedestrians leaving and entering Blair Park.  Of those who know of the scheme, few seem aware that the Council also rejected the recommendations of professional staff, paid consultants, and a Council-appointed citizens committee to allow at least some low-income families to live in central Piedmont near schools and services.  And fewer still know that those experts also recommended that any housing assigned to the Canyon be located on the safe side of Moraga Avenue – an option made even more compelling by moving the now obsolete corporation yard, which the city will have to rebuild under any scheme, to Blair.

If the Council chooses to house low-income families in Blair Park, little time will likely pass before those families attribute their stigmatizing and dangerous isolation to segregationist intent. And decent Piedmonters will likely agree.  Such opinions will inevitably corrode civility in Piedmont.  That corrosion will be made much worse if a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorist suffers injury or death accessing or leaving Blair Park – an event anticipated by the EIR alluded to above.

So, what have PADC and PREC said about the Blair Park option? Nothing. Why have they been silent on a scheme as offensively segregationist as any in our history? But they are not alone in their silence. What do our church leaders, League of Women Voters, and School Board members as well as schoolteachers, all of whom rightly speak out against racism on Martin Luther King Day, have to say about this vessel of ruinous dye about to spill on the fabric of our civic life? Where, in short, are they when we need them?

Ralph Catalano, Piedmont Resident

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

Agenda item for January 17, 2023 –   >council-agenda 1.17.23

Staff report:

“Consideration of a Change to the Regular Meeting Time of the City Council to 6:00 p.m.”

RECOMMENDATION

By motion, approve changing the start time of regular City Council meetings from 7:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and authorize the City Clerk to amend all documents which refer to this time.

BACKGROUND

State law and the City Charter require the City Council to hold regular meetings at a set time, place, and date to ensure the public’s ability to participate in city government decisions. Currently, by resolution, the City Council’s regular meetings are scheduled for the 1st and 3rd Mondays of the month at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

Shortly after the beginning of the pandemic, the Council temporarily adjusted the start of its meetings to 6:00 p.m. to better accommodate the changed work environments of the community, Councilmembers and staff. This change has continued for the duration of the pandemic and received compliments from the community. Staff is recommending that it be made permanent.

Should Council approve this change, staff will update the appropriate documents and publicize the new time.

By: John O. Tulloch, Assistant City Administrator / City Clerk”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The time change is a good idea IF City Council maintains the current teleconference access to all public meetings so the public can participate in meetings and comment remotely.  If not, this time change would reduce community participation in public meetings.  The 6:00 time is not optimal for in-person attendance, and it appears the pandemic is not going away.

The traditional 7:30 meeting time was intended to accommodate the family dinner hour and help with homework, late SF commuters and councilmember work schedules.  A 6:00 start time will conflict with much of that but if the public has teleconference access to all city meetings, it can juggle those commitments and still participate in meetings.

Council direction on continuing to teleconference public meetings appears later on Monday’s agenda which is unfortunate.  It would be a more fruitful discussion to have both issues addressed in the same agenda item.  Staff understandably wants the 6:00 start time but that will interfere with prime family time.  A 7:00 start time might be more attractive to younger community members who want to participate in meetings and potentially serve on Council.

Being on the Consent Calendar, this item won’t be open for public discussion unless a councilmember or member of the public requests that it be taken off the Calendar.  That can be done by attending the start of the meeting at 6:00 and requesting this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar.

Attend the Council meeting via Zoom:  https://cdn5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf?v=5Zo1Ykv8r&v=5Zo1Ykv8r

Whatever time the Council selects, hopefully it will stay in the 21st century and maintain public participation in all city meetings through teleconference.

Garrett Keating, Former Member of the Piedmont City Council

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

Hello City Council:

I’ve reviewed the staff report and draft RFP for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) and submit the following comments and questions. Hopefully you can delve into them.

The MCSP is good planning, but clearly the RFP is being developed to expedite a City application for Measure A funds by 2024.  Perhaps for that reason, the RFP is short on explaining how the plan addresses important city policies.  Table 2 list these policies but the RFP states that these policies “may” be considered and only stipulates that the consultant team will demonstrate “professional experience and knowledge of the personnel general principles and background law applicable to specific plans, land development and affordable housing development requirements”.   There are important sustainability policies outlined in the General Plan and Climate Action Plan and the City should stipulate this a credential it seeks on the consultant team.  Does the team have a sustainability expert like our City does?  Traffic safety is another core credential that should be requested.

The staff report and RFP suggests that additional environmental review beyond the programmatic EIR will be conducted based on the impacts of the specific projects in the MCSP.  That makes sense but is predicated on a robust programmatic EIR which has yet to be released.  Without the programmatic EIR being public at this time, the generalities of that assessment may be used to gloss over specific impacts of the projects at a later date.  One way to alleviate this concern is to assure that the programmatic EIR will have a response to comments process as a project specific EIR does.  Staff should confirm this publicly.  Subsection m. in scope of services should clarify this point as well.

One important EIR consideration is whether an assessment of GHG emissions will be undertaken in the MCSP.   This assessment may occur in the “built out” programmatic EIR so this may not be a factor but without that document, who can say?   To resolve this question, staff should clarify whether these GHG emission calculations are being conducted as a part of the programmatic EIR.  According to state guidance, GHG emissions are to be part of a CEQA analysis: CEQA GHG.  However, based on certain criteria, affordable housing projects under 100 units are exempt from CEQA and staff should clarify this as well CEQA Housing. Indeed, staff should clarify whether CEQA is applicable to all the projects being considered in the MCSP, particularly the low-income housing projects.

The staff report and RFP do not clarify whether the relocation of the Corporation Yard will be studied as part of the MCSP.  The only possible reference to this is that “replacement” of the Corporation Yard be considered.  The City should clarify this in the RFP so as to provide consultants the widest latitude to develop creative proposals for the canyon.  Indeed, this latitude may provide for the subdivisions of parcels and development standards that are attractive to builders of housing at all income levels. As staff envisioned with civic center sites, the City could leverage better housing for the project if the Corporation Yard is moved to less desirable building site in the canyon.

Following are more specific comments/questions to the RFP:

The project timeline on page 5 of the staff report is particularly short on detail.  The City seems not to have identified the type of public process it intend to conduct. 

Under “Specific Plan for Success” there is no mention of field lighting as part of the recreational facilities to be developed.  Is it the intent of the City and this Council not to proceed with the installation of lights at Coaches Field?  There is some precedent for this.

The landscape plan makes no mention that it is to comply with the City’s municipal Bay Friendly Landscape Ordinance which has specific criteria for vegetation and water use.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member

Moraga Canyon Plan Consultant 1.17.23

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

Much of the land in Moraga Canyon is unsuitable for development.

Publicly-owned land is designated for low-income housing in the Piedmont Housing Element (HE) because it provides the City with the greatest potential to develop such housing – the City owns the land and can work directly with developers to see that affordable housing gets built on it.  The publicly-owned sites in Piedmont are in Moraga Canyon, swaths of land around Coaches Field and the Corp Yard and all of Blair Park.  Sixty low-income units and 73 above-moderate income units are proposed for >Moraga Canyon.   A > depiction of this area shows that housing types are proposed to be dispersed throughout this canyon area.

Anyone familiar with Moraga Canyon will know instantly how unsuitable much of this land is for development.  The sites east and west of Coaches Field, initially designated for low-income housing, are steep sloped and would require a massing of building to generate the proposed density and parking.  The area to the west is particularly prohibitive for building; the required storm water permit is infeasible and would likely not be granted given the proximity of the site to the adjoining wetlands on cemetery property. As for the other Coaches sites, both are very steep, probably prohibitively so for the construction of low-income housing and would probably eliminate what little public parking is now available at Coaches.  Unfortunately, the feasibility of these sites for housing has never been publicly addressed at the Planning Commission or City Council since the draft was released in April, 2022.

The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) will conduct this feasibility analysis, especially for the low-income sites, and find the draft HE deficient.  This is the direction HCD gave to Atherton regarding the publicly-owned sites in its HE:

“Publicly Owned Sites: The element identifies multiple publicly-owned sites including the Public Facilities and Schools District, the Menlo School, and Cal Water Bear Gulch Reservoir sites. The element must include additional discussion on each of the publicly owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).”

Piedmont will most certainly receive this same direction in the HCD response letter to its first draft.  The highlighted text suggests fundamental considerations of the canyon sites that should have been presented months ago. Instead, between now and May 2023, as part of the Moraga Canyon Specific Site Plan study, the City will likely conclude that one if not both of the low-income sites at Coaches are not compatible for housing and conclude that Blair Park be used for the 60 low-income units and some fraction of the above-moderate units.

The City should include relocation of the Corporation Yard to Blair Park in the Moraga Canyon Specific Site Plan so as to improve the quality of low-income housing in the canyon.  The Corporation Yard offers the only flat housing site on the north side of Moraga Avenue and, on a square foot basis, provides better sites amenities than Blair Park.  Judging by similar densities staff assigned to the Coaches sites, 60 housing units could be located at the Corporation Yard.

But beyond the housing goal, relocation of the Corporation Yard could dovetail with General Plan goals of building walkable neighborhoods, preserving open space and others as well.    There are broad planning questions that should have been raised well before the site plan analysis but the General Plan has been virtually absent during the HE process.  The HE proposes three uses for the canyon – housing, city operations and recreation.  How best should these be dispersed to achieve General Plan goals?  Housing and recreation on the Coaches side with city operations in Blair Park?    HCD does not care about these goals but our Planning Department and City Council should and, depending how they conduct the Specific Site Plan analysis, could achieve a “win-win” for Piedmont with the HE.

Garrett Keating, Former Member of the Piedmont City Council

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