On Monday, April 4, City Council will be voting on whether the energy system for the new Aquatic Center will be all-electric or continue to rely on natural gas (a fossil fuel) for heating pool water, as in the past. Here are some frequently asked questions about an all-electric pool system, with answers drawn from information presented at the March 21st Council meeting by the City’s Sustainability Program Manager, as well as ELS Architecture and their energy engineer.  

Q: What are Piedmont’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets?

A: Our current targets, as outlined in our 2018 Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP 2.0), were in line with  State targets at that time – that is, to reduce our in-boundary emissions to 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to 8% below 2005 levels by 2050. But State goals have become stronger since then. California now targets achieving 100% emissions-free electricity and carbon neutrality by 2045.

Q: How close is Piedmont to achieving the GHG emissions reduction goals we set in 2018?

A: Piedmont has made incremental improvements over time but has far to go to meet our CAP 2.0 goals. The majority of our reductions so far can be attributed to forces outside Piedmont, such as increased home appliance efficiency. Since the majority of Piedmont’s emissions come from the residential sector, we can only meet our reduction targets if all residents make a concerted effort to decarbonize both their homes and their transportation. Unfortunately, rather than declining, our use of natural gas, the main source of GHG emissions from Piedmont buildings (municipal, residential, and commercial), has risen by 14% since 2014.

Q: What role must the City play in encouraging residents to decarbonize their homes and transportation?

A: The CAP 2.0 emphasizes that the City must focus on educating residents about emissions reduction opportunities and lead by example. Even though City emissions are only 2-4% of total Piedmont emissions, reducing these emissions will play an outsize role in Piedmont’s success in reducing its emissions overall, due to the demonstration effect the City’s efforts will have in motivating residents to decarbonize their own homes and transportation. Specific municipal or City goals in the CAP 2.0 include committing to Piedmont’s municipal facilities and activities becoming Zero-Carbon by 2050, about 25 years after the opening of the new pool facility.

Q: Will the City be able to meet its municipal carbon emissions reduction targets (as outlined in the CAP 2.0) if pool water in the new Aquatic Facility is heated by natural gas, a fossil fuel?

A: No. Heating the old pool with natural gas generated ~87% of the GHG emissions from municipal buildings and structures. If the new facility, with its increased pool square footage and water volume, were heated with natural gas, it would generate between 55-76% more emissions than the old pool (depending on whether or not some solar is installed). The City would not be able to make up for this increase in emissions by cutting emissions from other sources. In contrast, GHG emissions from operating an all-electric facility that relies on a combination of photovoltaic and thermal solar, electric heat pumps, and green grid electricity would be zero. The City would entirely eliminate the GHG emissions generated by the old facility, achieving a very significant municipal GHG emissions reduction.

Q: Using electric heat pumps to heat commercial-sized pools is a new application of this technology in California, so how can we be certain it will work?

A: ELS Architecture and the engineering firm they are working with are fully confident that electric heat pump technology will work for the new Piedmont Aquatic Center. They have designed an all-electric pool for Mountain View which will soon go out to bid. The reason an all-electric municipal pool seems innovative is that aquatic facilities comprise less than 3% of new public construction statewide. Looking at the public building sector overall,  from State and municipal buildings to buildings in the public education systems, new all-electric facilities are being constructed everywhere, and old buildings are undergoing significant retrofits to become all-electric. We are in the midst of an all-electric movement within both the public and private building sectors. Electric heat pump technology has been around for a long time, and, in states like Florida that are not piped for natural gas, 90% of commercial pools are heated by electric heat pumps. The reason this hasn’t been the case here in the West has been the cheap price of natural gas, a situation that is fast ending.

Q: How do the costs of an all-electric vs. a gas-powered system compare?

A: The upfront costs of an all-electric system will be higher by at least $600,000 (a more exact figure, based on recent facility design changes is forthcoming), but a lifecycle analysis shows that an all-electric facility will result in approximately $1,000,000 more in cost savings over 25 years, as compared to a system that uses natural gas. For more information, see the March 21 Staff Report on ELS’s Energy Use Report.

Q: Might the noise of the heat pumps be problematic for pool and tennis court users, as well as nearby residents?

A:  This will not be a complicated issue to resolve, as solutions are routinely found for much more complex noise issues. ELS will work with an acoustician on measures to dampen any undesirable sound from the array of heat pumps. Most of this work will take place after all the pool equipment is in place and functioning, but some pre-work may be done (for example, insulating certain walls and suspending a roof over the equipment).  Since we’ll have an array of heat pumps, it will be rare for them all to be working at their top (i.e. noisiest) capacity – for example, when the temperature gets below 30 degrees F. In addition, the heat pumps we’re looking at have a low decibel nighttime rating.                       

Q: Will relying on the clean electricity grid be more expensive than natural gas over the next 20 years?

A: The era of cheap natural gas is ending. Already, natural gas prices have gone up 200% since 2018, and every indication is that they will continue to rise. PG&E is proposing a 40% increase in natural gas prices over the next four years, as they add transportation and distribution costs for natural gas that aren’t on our current bills. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission is moving cost rates for natural gas infrastructure solely onto the developer (vs. sharing with rate payers). Moreover, within the next 5-10 years we’ll be seeing carbon pricing or carbon taxes adding to the cost of natural gas.

Q. Will the electricity grid be able to reliably supply us with the clean electricity an all-electric Aquatic Facility will need?

A: Yes. While upgrading California’s electricity transmission systems to accommodate the level of clean electricity the state aims to generate by 2045 is undoubtedly a challenge, there is no reason to worry that there won’t be enough electricity available. Our local clean electricity provider, East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), is supporting various projects to generate clean electricity locally and is continuously increasing the percentage of electricity from renewable sources in its power mix. Thanks to a 2018 City Council decision, the City is enrolled in EBCEs Renewable 100 plan, whereby the electricity EBCE purchases on our behalf comes only from renewable sources (wind, solar, and small-scale hydroelectric). Approximately 95% of Piedmont residents are also enrolled in Renewable 100.

Q: Isn’t it risky to rely on electricity during Planned Power Outages during fire season?

A: There’s no advantage to having a natural gas system to heat pool water during a power outage, since all natural gas boilers sold in California have electric power starts. They no longer have standing pilots that allow you to have gas service during an electric outage. The pumping system for keeping water circulating is the same between a natural gas and an all-electric system, so natural gas has no advantage here either. Currently, battery storage technology to use for emergency backup is not available, but advances are being made in solar battery storage.

Q: Could we start with a natural gas heated pool and pivot to an all-electric system later?

A: It would be hard and prohibitively expensive to retrofit for electricity later. Even if we included the pre-conduits and other infrastructure for electrification in a system that initially relied on natural gas, this would also push up costs. In either case, we would be paying for the cost of two different energy systems and abandoning the natural gas system before the end of the pool’s lifetime.

Q: Was the concept and cost of an all-electric facility factored into Measure UU?

A: No. When the conceptual master plan was initially developed in 2016, all-electric pool heating was not considered, and the baseline assumption was for natural gas, although some “green features” were proposed (solar and thermal tubes). But the details of the energy system were not specified, in the same way that most of the other details being fleshed out now (pool size, building and public space design, etc.) were not. Similarly, the 2016 conceptual plan did not do a GHG emissions analysis or consider how this municipal construction project would comply with Piedmont’s 2010 Climate Action Plan then in place. Since 2016, not only was Piedmont’s 2018 CAP 2.0 adopted, but the transition off natural gas and towards full electrification of public and private buildings and facilities across the state began in earnest, and other municipalities began to consider or actually design all-electric pools. After the passage of UU, Piedmont Connect and residents focused on how to reduce the carbon footprint of the new pool complex. Connect researched and modeled the possibility of designing an all-electric facility that would emit zero GHG emissions in its operation and help the City meet its CAP 2.0 goals. Connect’s calculations showed that it would be both economically and technologically feasible, the same conclusion that the project architects and engineers have now drawn. (A report Connect prepared in 2021 can be viewed here.) City staff and Council have made public commitments several times to support the “greenest” pool possible. When hired, ELS was directed by the City to conduct an energy analysis of the pool, and it stated publicly that it would design for an all-electric option. Since the City chose to wait until the design phase of the project to conduct this energy feasibility assessment and to decide on the facility’s energy system, it may appear that an all-electric facility is an afterthought. But, in reality, this discussion has been going on for some time.

Submitted by Margaret Ovenden, Piedmont Resident

Agenda and Participation Information HERE.

Staff Report HERE

Update on Community Pool Design Modifications and Direct Staff to: 1) Continue Review of Program and Cost Considerations Related to the 20 Versus 25 Yard Recreation Pool Lanes with Referral to the Community Pool Advisory Committee for a Review of the Recreation Pool Length, and 2) Direct Staff to Prepare a Donation Policy for the Acceptance of Donations for the Piedmont Community Pool Project

Staff Report HERE.

Agenda and Participation Information HERE.

Do you know who is going to be interviewed by the Council for Piedmont’s important Commissions and Committees?

Frequently, Piedmont residents have heard the City Council expound on the need for inclusion and transparency, yet the Council does not provide transparency or inclusion in some proceedings.  

On Monday, March 28, 2022, at a “Special Meeting,” the Piedmont City Council will once again perpetuate a long-held practice of interviewing candidates for appointments to volunteer positions on Piedmont public committees and commissions away from public broadcasts and records.  Although an “official” notice announces the public interview sessions, the meetings are either held in a small conference room, or, as in this case, the Police Department Emergency Operations Center (EOC) making public participation and observation of Council decision difficult. 

The March 28, 2022 meeting has:

• No cameras for a record of the meeting (due to lack of funds)

• No broadcasts for remote viewing (due to lack of funds)

• No publicity of  the applicant’s names or positions they seek

• No listing of the order of the interviews

• No timely release to the public of the applications provided to the Council

• No opportunity for meaningful public participation in the selections

• No record of Council member priorities

• No record of individual Council member preferences

The Agenda for the March 28, 2022;  (see Full Agenda > 3:28:2022 Appointees) states:

“Special City Council Agenda Monday, March 28, 2022 6:00 p.m. EOC, Police Dept., 403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA

Special Session

1. Interview of Candidates for City Commissions and Committees to be Followed by Possible Appointment to Posted Vacancies 0085″ 

[No applicant names, no order of interviews, no positions are noted.  There is no staff report for public information. ]

California’s sunshine law, the Brown Act, requires interviews for appointed public positions to Committees and Commissions to be done in public. Not only should the law be followed by word, but by spirit, allowing the public to readily observe and participate in Piedmont government decisions. 

If the Council is true to a desire for inclusion, transparency, and public participation, the Agenda needs to list the volunteer positions to be filled in addition to the applicants’ names, and the “Special Meeting” would be broadcasted to the public and recorded.

Decades old hidden appointment processes are being perpetuated.  Under current procedures residents of Piedmont cannot know why individual appointments are made.  Applicant information provided to Council members is by law to be timely provided to the public.  Once appointments have been made appointee names have been withheld “until the appointee was notified. “

Past practices of placing the public at arms length from important Council appointments, processes and decisions have been allowed to continue unquestioned by the Council.  For Piedmont to become inclusive, the old ways need to end in favor of accessible, transparent meeting processes.

During the heart of the pandemic, appointee interviews were of necessity held on Zoom allowing the public to view the appointment procedures remotely. However,  Council members indicated during the Zoom selection process that the open broadcasted interview sessions made the process challenging for the public was able to view and hear the decisions being made.  A social club atmosphere prevailed in selecting  the appointees, as Council members privately sent  phone texts to the City Clerk to indicate their appointment preferences.  The Council never asked the City Clerk which Council members favored which applicants, consequently the public could not know the preferences.. 

For Piedmont to become a truly inclusive City, decision processes should be readily and easily available to all Piedmonters in a transparent manner.

Ironically, the City Council is currently paying a contractor thousands of dollars to advise the City on “transparency” in regard to adding 587 new housing units in Piedmont. Expensive banners have been erected by the City at strategic locations on Piedmont light poles to inform Piedmonters of the impending changes to Piedmont’s Housing Element involving zoning changes and 587 new housing units.

Piedmont Civic Association asked Piedmont City Clerk, John Tulloch, for an explanation on the lack of a recording and broadcast of Council appointment processes. A response is copied below:

“The interviews were conducted in a noticed, open, public meeting, consistent with the City’s past practice for Council vacancy interviews. The meeting was conducted in the EOC to allow for a space in which interviews could be conducted in an open, public, COVID safe way that allowed the Councilmembers to interact with applicants in person.”

Piedmont Civic Association Editors’ Comment:  The size of the Council Chamber (City Hall) 120 Vista Avenue, where Piedmont’s cameras are located and broadcast originate, has a high ceiling making it more airy than the Police Department Emergency Operation Center, EOC.   

During the Commission and  Committee interviews,  the Council has asked candidates  to not be present when other candidates are interviewed. The Brown Act allows all public members to be present for public decision making processes. Volunteers for appointed positions can learn from one another during the interview process, which is an advantage for Piedmont. 

Importantly, many candidates who seek appointed positions might be potential candidates for Piedmont elected office. Interview processes allow residents to observe both the Council and the candidates engendering greater participation, inclusion, and interest in Piedmont policy making.

Various staff members have participated in the appointment processes by advising the Council during their selection process on the pros and cons of some applicants.

Open broadcasted meetings encourage the greatest public participation and strengthen our democratic government.

March  25, 2022 – City notice states:

Special City Council Meeting Agenda – March 28, 2022

The Ralph M. Brown Act Requires that all agendas be written clearly and in sufficient detail to allow the public to understand the question to be decided by the City Council. Piedmont makes every attempt to comply with both the letter and spirit of this law. If, however, you have questions concerning an item on a City Council agenda, please call the City Clerk’s office at (510) 420-3040. Also available are the Staff Reports for each item of business on the agenda. 

[When going to the link for Staff Reports, there is no Staff Report for the March 28, 2022 Agenda. There are no names or positions.]

To send comments to the City Council as a whole, and/or regarding a City Council agenda item, please email citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov. To send via U.S. Mail, please use the following address:

City Council
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611

To send an individual Councilmember a message, please find their contact information on the Councilmember page. Any correspondence sent to the City may be considered a public record.

Editors’ Note:  The comments made here in no way express an objection to the specific choices made by the City Council to fill positions. 

The Piedmont Puzzle, hosted on the Balancing Act app, is an online tool that let’s you pick where Piedmont grows in the future and what form that growth takes. Is it ADUs, apartments over ground-floor commercial, triplexes, fourplexes, tiny homes – or a mix of building types? .

. Chris Adams is president and co-founder of Balancing Act, which is a company that offers government transparency tools and which has been named to GovTech 100 every year since 2017. He is also a Senior Fellow at the University of Colorado School of Public Affairs.

Confused about RHNA? Watch these short videos for 10 things you need to know about the Housing Element. Topics covered in the videos include: •What is the RHNA? •What is the Housing Element? •What are the components of the Housing Element and General Plan?

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

  THOSE UNABLE TO USE OR MANIPULATE A SMARTPHONE OR COMPUTER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS  HOUSING ELEMENT POLICY MAKING PROCESS.

For more information call:

CITY OF PIEDMONT, CITY CLERK  (510) 420-3040

PIEDMONT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (510) 420-3050

For more information and future meetings click below:

PCA2022-03-21 Housing Element Workshop 3-24

“..the pool is the single biggest municipal GHG emitter in town.”

Letter to the City Council:

City staff is recommending that significant modifications be made to the schematic design to reduce the cost of the new pool. 

The staff report and lifecycle analysis in the energy report show that the all-electric option is the best financial and environmental option for the pool so I encourage you to direct staff to redesign the pool based on the all-electric option.

The lifecycle analysis shows that an all-electric pool saves the city $1,000,000 over 25 years, probably an underestimate given state and federal restrictions that will drive up the price of natural gas over that time.  Most importantly, the all-electric design will reduce GHG emissions compared to that from the existing pool, let alone the new pool.  Such reduction is needed for the City to achieve its 2030 and 2050 reduction targets.  More importantly, proceeding with the all-electric design will show the residents that City Council takes climate change seriously.  Having restricted the installation of natural gas in new construction in Piedmont, the all-electric option will show the City’s commitment to reducing its own GHG emissions and serve to motivate residents to take additional actions at reducing GHG emissions as well.

Electrifying the pool today is the single-most effective action the city can take to achieve the municipal GHG reduction targets set forth in CAP 2.0. The staff report implies that the current pool is less that 20% of municipal GHG emissions but that is biased by inclusion of employee commute as part of municipal emissions (figure 1), a GHG source City Council has little control over.  Excluding employee commute from municipal emissions, facilities comprise 44% of city GHG emissions.  And as figure 2 shows, city takeover of the pool in 2015 doubled municipal emissions – the pool is the single biggest municipal GHG emitter in town.  A natural gas option for the new pool would more than double municipal facilities emissions.  Achieving reductions in all municipal sectors is needed for the city to reach its GHG 2030 and 2050 targets and building an all-electric pool now will result in the single largest step this Council can authorize towards achieving those goals.

Figure 1

Figure 2

https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Service/CAP%202.0_CC%20Adoption.pdf?v=gwn3EF4Nr

The table on page 3 of the staff report shows that a cost savings of $1,000,000 is achieved with the all-electric option compared to the hybrid (natural gas) option.  The 2/17 presentation to the Pool Advisory Committee by ELS showed that this savings is attributable to utility costs – $77,600/year for natural gas, $57,100/year for electricity.  The figure on page 7 of Attachment A shows higher annual costs and the all-electric option still saves costs compared to the hybrid option, with or without photovoltaics but more so with photovoltaics.  Total 25-year costs assume escalations for both rates but it is a safe assumption that natural gas will incur added costs due to costlier production and stricter regulation than electricity will. These factors are hard to account for now, but I think would favor an even greater 25-year lifecycle cost savings from electricity compared to natural gas.  Some have raised the possibility of installing natural gas now and converting to electricity in the future. At the 2/17 PAC meeting, Clarence Mumuyac of ELS said “It’s really expensive” and the energy consultant advised against it.

The other important figure of the report is on page 8 of Attachment A – Facility Annual Emissions.  The difference between the two options is the most important reason for the all-electric option – no new GHG will be emitted from the all-electric pool.  Decarbonization is the path to reversing climate change yet since 2016, natural gas usage in Piedmont has increased 14%.  This is not from the municipal sector (those emissions have been declining) but what message will it send to our residents if this new facility so vital to our community contributes to global warming?

Getting the right design for the energy infrastructure of the pool facility now has important ramifications for the long-term operating costs and greenhouse gas emissions of the pool. In both cases, the all-electric option is the best option.   Additional cost analysis will be provided you by April 4, but would seem unlikely to change this conclusion.  It would assist the redesign efforts of ELS were you to give direction tonight that the pool facility redesign be based on the all-electric option and I encourage you do so.

The pool facility has reached the point where a difficult choice has to be made. Conservatively, $4,000,000 in costs savings have to be found if the City is to stay within the spending limits of ballot measure UU.  ELS is looking at reductions to the recreational pool but if those and an all-electric pool can’t be accommodated within the $25,000,000 UU limits then Council should look at reducing the size of the aquatic pool – it is the largest user of energy within the facility and largest area of square footage.  It is not fair to the larger number of residents who obtain seasonal passes to have their pool use restricted nor future generations of Piedmonters to have their climate impacted by GHG emissions from the aquatic pool.

Bond Measure UU generated a great deal of enthusiasm for the new pool and I think Council can rely on this community support to accept reductions to all the pools in the current design.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member, Piedmont Resident

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

The matter will be considered at the March 21, 2022 City Council meeting.

Agenda and participation information > PCA council-current-agenda 3212022

Staff report > https://www.piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=18419081

Staff report > https://www.piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=18419085

The Piedmont Civic Association congratulates Jennifer Long as Piedmont’s newest councilmember and thanks all 11 candidates who were willing to offer their skills to the City in this volunteer position.

At a special meeting on February 7, 2022, the Piedmont City Council selected Jennifer Long to fill the vacancy on the Council created by the resignation of Councilmember Tim Rood from among eleven applicants for the position. Ms. Long will be sworn in at the City Council meeting on February 22, 2022, and her term will run until the results of the General Municipal Election of November 8, 2022 are certified, which likely will take place at a Council meeting in December, 2022.  John O. Tulloch City Clerk

City Press Release: 2022-02-08 Long Appointed to City Council. 

Long, an attorney, resides on Crocker Avenue, where she lives and works. 

Long’s application:   Long, Jennifer – Application 2022

Selection of the New City Council Member to Fill the Vacancy has Citizens Confused

The Resignation of former Council member Tim Rood makes way for a replacement City Council Member outside of the normal election process.  Citizens reading the public posting could not tell how to participate or observe the February 7, 2022. 4pm City Council meeting focused on the Council member replacement.  The agenda does not notice a virtual/teleconferenced meeting.  See Agenda and Staff report linked below:

2.  Staff report on reasons to hold virtual/teleconferenced meetings > 2.7.2022

SECTION 4. The City Council reconfirms and incorporates the findings made in Resolution 77-2021 regarding the need for the Council and all Commissions, Committees, or advisory bodies of the City of Piedmont to meet by teleconference.

3.  Interviews of candidates

4.  Consideration of Appointment of Candidate to Vacant City Council Seat. > council-special-agenda 2.7.2022  

Council selection process thwarts public viewing and participation.

Per the California Brown Act (Sunshine law), Council candidate interviews and their actual applications seeking appointment to public office are required to be open and available to the public. The City is not following their own meeting procedures on COVID safety for virtual meetings.  The City has also not publicly disseminated the written applications.

The City has decided to hold the interviews and selection process in the Piedmont Police Department Emergency Operation Center (EOC) on Highland Avenue rather than in the Council Chambers wherein cameras can readily record and broadcast proceedings.  Only COVID compliant individuals can physically enter the Police Department to potentially observe and participate in the Council selection process. 

Candidate interviews had originally been scheduled “virtually” and would have been held in the Council Chambers allowing at home viewing through Zoom of the interview sessions and the Council selection process.

For years, the EOC and Council Conference Room have been selectively used for meetings where video recordings were not produced.  Some past noteworthy meetings held away from camera access have been the Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee, interviews of candidates for commission appointments, and the City Department Budget presentations. 

Persons interested in participating in the interview process may enter the Police Department EOC on Highland Avenue at their own risk and observe the interviews and the selection process Monday, February 7, 2022 at 4 p.m.

City of Piedmont 2022 City Council Vacancy Applicant List:

Robert Dickinson

Connie Herrick

Deborah Leland

Jennifer Long

Hugh Louch

Thomas MacBride

Richard Raushenbush

Steve Roland

Andrea Ruiz-Esquide

Billy Rusteen

Ruchi Shrivastava Medhekar

Agenda council-special-agenda 2.7.2022

Staff report continuing virtual meetings.2.7.2022

Editors’ Note:  On February 7, 2022, at the Special Council meeting held away from broadcast capability in the Police Department EOC, Jennifer Long was selected by the City Council to fill the Tim Rood vacancy. Once the City Clerk releases information about Jennifer Long, it will be published on this site.