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.

PUSD Names Dr. Jennifer Hawn as New Superintendent Piedmont, Calif. (March 8, 2023) –

After a nationwide search and extensive community engagement, the Piedmont Board of Education has selected Dr. Jennifer Hawn to serve as the District’s next Superintendent.  The appointment will be effective July 1, 2023.

Serving in public education for over 25 years, Dr. Hawn has dedicated herself to serving K-12 and college students in California. She has an extensive educational background, including broad experience as a teacher and administrator with the Beverly Hills Unified School District, an Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources with the Whittier City School District, a university instructor for Pepperdine University, and currently serves as Deputy Superintendent for Da Vinci Schools serving the Wiseburn Unified School District in Southern California.

“Dr. Hawn is an exceptionally well-rounded leader, with significant experience in the classroom and as an administrator, as well as district operations, including human resources and as chief academic officer,” said Board President Veronica Anderson Thigpen. “The Board was impressed by Jennifer’s in-depth knowledge about our district and by her passion for our new vision, mission and values. She is ready to work with the Board and community stakeholders to map the next phase of district priorities and build on PUSD’s stellar educational program. We are excited about her joining our team.”

“I am honored to be selected by the Piedmont Board and I’m looking forward to serving the Piedmont community, which demonstrates unparalleled dedication and support for ensuring the finest education for students,” Dr. Hawn said. “I am ready to collaborate with the Board, educators, families, and the Piedmont community to fulfill our vision of students who are ‘compassionate leaders and courageous problem-solvers, ready to take on challenges and make a difference in a complex and interconnected world.’ I am thrilled to lead this exemplary district in delivering a world-class education that ensures academic excellence, a sense of belonging, and opportunities for all of our students to thrive.”

Throughout her career, Dr. Hawn has led schools in the delivery of innovative educational programs. She has published work in educational journals including Principal Leadership and The High School Journal, and has presented at multiple conferences, including the California State Department of Education STEM conference. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Communication from Arizona State University, a Master of Arts in Teaching English from Loyola Marymount University, and a Doctorate in Education from the University of Southern California.

In July 2022, the Board named Dr. Donald Evans as Interim Superintendent for the 2022-23 school year. The Board partnered with executive search firm Leadership Associates to conduct a nationwide search for its next superintendent. The search process included nearly 50 meetings with community stakeholders and a survey with more than 400 responses. Feedback from these efforts informed the development of a superintendent profile for recruiting. In all, 22 applicants applied for the position.

The Board selected six candidates for first-round interviews and brought back three for a second-round. Once the finalist was confirmed, two board members conducted a site visit to Da Vinci Schools in El Segundo and met with more than 30 people who work or engage with Dr. Hawn in her current role. Having grown up in Manhattan Beach in Southern California, Dr. Hawn looks forward to joining the East Bay where her husband Andrew grew up. Dr. Hawn has two grown children, and enjoys hiking, including the annual family hike up Mt. Whitney.

During the remainder of the 2022-23 school year, Dr. Hawn will work directly with Dr. Evans and District leadership on the transition prior to taking over on July 1, 2023. A welcome event will be planned for the spring to introduce Dr. Hawn to the community.

Superintendent 3-23Jennifer Hawn

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 High School Hosts 54th-Annual Piedmont Bird Calling Show

After a three-year absence, the famed Piedmont Bird Calling Contest is set to return on Thursday, March 30, 7pm, at the new Alan Harvey Theater, 800 Magnolia Ave., on the campus of Piedmont High School.

Under the theme of ‘Maskarade,’ guests are encouraged to show their creativity  and personality through their masks – bird-themed or not.

Created in 1963, the Piedmont Bird Calling Contest grew into an annual event that over the decades has attracted attention both locally and nationally as winners have appeared on ‘The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson,’ and ‘Late Night with David Letterman.’ Recently, a former PHS student and participant demonstrated her skills on ‘The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.’ Though the show has changed somewhat over the years, its spirit and traditions were carried on by the many who share in a spirit of innovation.

Students have spent weeks and months perfecting their bird calls and will be judged based on three criteria:

• Authenticity of Call – The judges will act as experts of the Show to certify the authenticity of the call.
• Poise and Delivery – Both stage presence and smoothness of delivery are considered. The beauty and singularity of the bird call are essential.
• Content of Introduction – Contestants must write their own ‘sketches’. It should include pertinent information about their bird. The information should be organized, well-composed, and in good taste. Humor can be a plus or minus, depending on its appropriateness.

Tickets for the Piedmont Bird Calling Show will go on sale on March 2, through ShowTix4U.  General admission tickets will be available for $25. General admission student tickets will be available for $15.
Plan to buy tickets in advance because the one-time performance usually sells out.

Prior to every Bird Calling Contest, high school students are encouraged to submit their artwork for the official Contest poster. This year’s winner is PHS senior, Macie Gard.

Loss of 57 Parking Spaces offset by 45 Diagonal Slots and Reassigned Parking Spaces, Elimination of 2 Bus Stops, and One-Way Bonita Traffic –

On Tuesday, January 17th at 6:00pm the City Council will consider recommended Civic Center parking and circulation changes for the construction of the new Piedmont Pool Complex.  >council-current-agenda 1.17.23

See the staff report for diagrams of the proposed parking changes on Bonita Avenue, Vista Avenue, Hillside Avenue, Highland Avenue, removal of bus stops, etc. >  Staff Report 1.17.23 Changes to Parking and Traffic in the Civic Center Area to Accommodate Piedmont Community Pool Construction

These proposals are intended to mitigate the loss of 57 parking spaces in the area due to pool construction, including 20 “Permit A” spaces and 21 spaces reserved for City employees. The proposed changes would:

• Convert Bonita Avenue between Vista and Oakland Avenues to one-way traffic towards Oakland Avenue

• Convert existing parallel parking on Bonita Avenue between Vista and Oakland Avenues to diagonal parking, creating 10 new spaces

• Remove two bus stops on Highland Avenue near the Sheridan strip and add diagonal parking

Details of the proposal are available in the agenda materials:

• Full agenda report > Staff Repprt 1.17.23 Changes to Parking and Traffic in the Civic Center Area to Accommodate Piedmont Community Pool Construction

• Exhibits illustrating proposed changes

Give feedback on proposed changes

The City Council will consider this proposal at its next meeting: Tuesday, January 17th, 2023 6:00pm City Council Chambers, Piedmont City Hall (120 Vista Avenue) Agenda

Community members can provide feedback on the proposed changes in advance of the meeting by email or speak at the meeting virtually or in-person:

• Email: Send comments to citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov

• Comment remotely: Join the meeting on Zoom at https://piedmont-cagov.zoom.us/j/86233381014

If approved, the new configuration would remain in place until pool construction is complete, which could happen as soon as summer 2024.

2023-01-13-proposed-changes-to-civic-center-parking-and-circulation

Parking 2023-01-13-proposed-changes-to-civic-center-parking-and-circulation

Staff Repprt 1.17.23 Changes to Parking and Traffic in the Civic Center Area to Accommodate Piedmont Community Pool Construction

Adding 587 new housing units –

COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW OPEN UNTIL JANUARY 8, 2023 –

Piedmont officials in the notice below provide no mention of the City Charter requirement for voters to approve zoning changes permitting many of the 587 new housing units necessary for an updated Piedmont General Plan.  Zoning code changes are  required to incorporate the pending Housing Element into the General Plan. The City notes  the necessity of “changes to the land use categories” without mentioning the City Charter requirements.

Since the Housing Element was first considered and subsequently approved by the City Council for state consideration, residents have mentioned numerous concerns regarding the addition of the 587 new housing units.  NOW, until January 8, 2023 is the time to inform the City of Piedmont of any environmental or other concerns you may have.  See below for contact address. If you want your concern or interest to be part of the permanent record, note it in your communication and ask that a copy be sent to the Piedmont City Council.

kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov is noted as the primary contact.

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.