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.

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.

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.

Any property in Piedmont can become the site of a new Multifamily density increasing project.

Since all Piedmont zones allow single-family residential buildings, the attorney’s opinion opens all Piedmont properties to multi-family high density housing without voter approval of the increase in residential density. 

The City produced an HE that increases density and development pressure in neighborhoods where it need not be.

The City of Piedmont will submit its draft 6^th Cycle Housing Element without any SB9 projections. SB9 allows 30-day approval of the subdivision of residential lots for the development of new housing/ADUs, a very likely development given Piedmont’s large lot sizes.   The city’s consultant claimed that Housing and Community Development (HCD) was setting a very high bar for accepting SB9 projections and advised against including such estimates in the city’s Housing Element.

Two cities I know of that have submitted SB9 projections are Atherton and Woodside (San Mateo County).  These cities share characteristics of Piedmont, namely large estate lots that could contribute to housing growth over the next 8 years under SB9.  Atherton projects 96 SB 9 units over the next 8 years based on the following methodology:

“Seventy parcels listed on the table from row 8 (60 Parkwood) to row 78 (172 Tuscaloosa) are residential parcels included as underutilized since they are of sufficient size to be further subdivided according to the existing zoning and lot size limits. Six of these parcels are vacant and have the capacity to yield 7 new dwellings for above moderate-income households if subdivided and developed in accordance with existing zoning regulations or to yield 14 new dwellings for above moderate-income households if subdivided and developed in accordance with SB 9 regulations. Sixty-four of these parcels are developed with one single-family house. Those parcels have the capacity to yield 93 net new dwellings for above moderate-income households if subdivided and developed in accordance with existing zoning regulations. Under the allowable provisions of SB9, these 64 parcels could be split into two legal parcels, with each parcel further allowed development capacity of 2 dwelling units. It follows that under SB 9, if each parcel were to meet the required criteria for an urban lot split, the overall development capacity could result in a total 123 dwelling units.”

 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements/docs/atherton-6th-draft080222.pdf

This methodology is quite simple.  First, a GIS analysis of the city’s parcels was done to identify parcels that can be subdivided under existing zoning rules.  Then Atherton surveyed these parcel owners to determine their interest to develop their properties and combined with unsolicited SB9 applications since January 2022, assumed 12 SB 9 lots a year, 96 total over the 8-year cycle.

In a letter to the City of Atherton, this is how HCD responded to that methodology:

“SB 9 Sites: The element identifies SB9 as a strategy to accommodate part of the Town’s RHNA. To support these assumptions, the analysis must include experience, trends and market conditions that allow lot splits and missing middle uses. The analysis must list the potential SB9 sites and demonstrate the likelihood of redevelopment, including whether existing uses constitute as an impediment for additional residential use. The analysis should describe how the Town determined eligible properties, whether the assumed lots will have turnover, if the properties are easy to subdivide, and the condition of the existing structures. The analysis should also describe interest from property owners as well as experience. The analysis should provide support for the units being developed within the planning period. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify to establish zoning and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate development as well as monitor development every two years with and identify additional sites within six months if assumptions are not being met. The element should support this analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through SB9.”

https://atherton.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=406

Woodside projects 18 SB 9 units and received a similar response from HCD (https://www.almanacnews.com/news/reports/1666208419.pdf ).  Los Gatos projects 92 and has yet to receive a response from HCD.

The Atherton City Council met last week to address HCD comments and anticipates it will lower its SB9 projections, but that is open to negotiation.  Nonetheless, Atherton is in the position to account for some SB9 growth because its Planning Department took initiative and conducted ADU and SB9 surveys of its residents to compile a baseline of intent to show HCD.  In Woodside’s case, councilmembers developed the SB9 projections after staff did not.  HCD may push back but these cities can demonstrate real potential because they reached out to their communities about SB9.

Assuming these projections are accepted, they demonstrate how Piedmont lost out on an important planning tool in developing its HE.  Atherton projects adding 96 SB9 units to its 2560 total parcels – 3.75%.  Woodside, 18 to its 1919 – 1%.  Imagine if Piedmont had projected just 1% SB9 units for its 4000 parcels – 40 over the next 8 years.  Including that estimate in the HE would have eliminated the need to place 30 moderate units in the canyon.  At 3% (120 units) it would have reduced the need to increase density at the Ace Hardware properties on Grand Avenue.

Piedmont certainly has the land for SB9 growth – there are 200 lots of 20,000 square feet or more in the estate zone. 50 of those lots are over 40,000 sq ft and could be subdivided today.  30 are over 60,000 sq ft and could be tripled if zoning allowed it.  SB9 applies to any parcel in Zones A and E that meet certain requirements and large residences can be partitioned into “plexes” so there’s lots of SB9 potential to go around.  Piedmont should have accounted for this in its HE.

Staff has always said the RHNA projections were about housing potential, but by underestimating that potential has produced an HE that increases density and development pressure in neighborhoods where it need not be. Staff has said SB9 units that develop in the future will count towards the RHNA target, but that doesn’t help now with the current HE site analysis and policy development.  Built-out cities like Piedmont should be using every planning tool to address what seem to be unrealistic RHNA projections.  It’s better planning as well.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member

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