OPINION: Structural Integrity of Essential Services Buildings, Police, Fire, City Center Pedestrian vs Traffic Issues, Over Budget Pools Project, and Moraga Canyon Plan
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 )
I’m not sure that the need for seismic retrofits of Piedmont’s historic civic buildings justifies the enormous cost of duplicating these civic functions in Moraga Canyon. Piedmont is a built-out city. Mr. Chandler seems to be getting ahead of most of the community in terms of both popular support for such a relocation and willingness to pay.
I believe one issue with not going forward with a joint Pool/ESB bond initiative in 2020 was the question of whether the pool was an “essential service”. Certain essential structures (schools, public safety bldgs) have a lower level of voter approval (55%) than the traditional 66% majority. Perhaps the current Council is waiting on resolution of ACA1, a bill that would lower voter approval for virtually all public projects to 55% (see the list of eligible projects):
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/ACA1/2023
As I recall the Glass Report noted that the major seismic risk was structural damage to the fire house doors that would prevent egress of the vehicles. The departments may have other wish lists but that specific issue can be addressed rather quickly.
And was the pool redesign a project management issue or an inflation issue?
Decentralizing public safety to the edge of town seems unwise. Response times during normal times to certains sections of town would become longer and if aterial Moraga Avenue is ever cut off, or just experiences congested traffic, then response times become dangerously long.
As I understand it, Mr. Chandler is suggesting that the Specific Plan include the option of an ESB in Moraga Canyon. That makes sense to me. There has been concern that the current ESB is inadequate as well as seismically unsafe. It is quite possible that it is better to build a new ESB while operating from the current ESB, so that essential services are not disrupted by trying to rebuild in its current location. We do not need to resolve all issues relating to a future ESB “fix” to keep an option open by including a potential ESB in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. Otherwise, we might have to repeat the planning process if we decide in the future it makes the most sense.
A more significant concern here should be that serious concerns about the ESB were raised years ago. If there is doubt as to that concern, let’s do whatever studies are needed to resolve it. If there is a problem, let’s fix it.
I think one component of the Housing Element allows for the building of worker housing in public buildings. It’s discussed somewhere in the document. Could such housing be used for the firefighters so they don’t need to sleep in the firehouse? I think the ESB report identified the current accommodations as inadequate. Likewise the Corp yard could be used to store surplus fire vehicles which I think are now stored in those garages on Magnolia. Perhaps the Site Plan will consider these options to facilitate a retrofit of city facilities.
I think one component of the Housing Element calls for the building of worker housing in public buildings. It’s discussed somewhere in the document. Could such housing be used for the firefighters so they don’t need to sleep in the firehouse? I think the ESB report identified the current accommodations as inadequate. Likewise the Corp yard could be used to store surplus fire vehicles which I think are now stored in those garages on Magnolia. Perhaps the Site Plan will consider these options to facilitate a retrofit of city facilities.