Jul 19 2021

Dear Piedmont City Council,

Back in the spring, we approached the City about sharing the results of the calculations we had been working on since the fall about the feasibility of designing a pool facility that created zero carbon emissions in its operation. We were asked by the City Administrator to prepare a summary report, with the idea that we’d follow it up with an in-person (Zoom) meeting. We understand that the City Administrator’s leave may have been what prevented this from happening, but we still would like the opportunity to present our feasibility study. We find it concerning that our input has basically been ignored, as evidenced by the draft RFP for a pool design team, which makes no reference to Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan or to the energy and GHG calculations that are needed if the City is going to follow the CAP and aim for a zero or very low emissions pool facility.

To summarize, our analysis of the 2017 Conceptual Design found that, even with its proposed use of solar tubes, the new pool facility would need 46% more natural gas to operate than the old pool facility needed in 2019. This is clearly not in line with our CAP targets of reducing our emissions by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Piedmont Connect did some preliminary calculations to determine if it would be possible to design a pool heating system that uses zero natural gas. We found that it would, indeed, be possible, using primarily a combination of efficient electric air-to-water heat pumps powered by solar PV. We estimated the annual operating costs of two such systems — one using a heat pump with a COP (Co-efficiency of Production) of 4 and one using an even more efficient heat pump with a COP of 6.  And we compared these two zero emissions options with an all-gas option and the solar tube option presented in the 2017 Conceptual Plan.

 All-gas

 Solar tubes

   COP 4 Heat   Pump

  COP 6 Heat  Pump

Annual C02 emissions

 494 MT*  C02

  68 MT  C02

   0 MT C02

  0 MT C02

Annual operating cost

 $169,924

 $ 93,220

 $165,744

 $132,211

*MT = Metric Tons

As you can see, the operating cost of the system using a COP 6 Heat Pump is only about $39,000 more per year AND it delivers on having zero emissions, in line with meeting our CAP goals. The solar tube-based design of the 2017 Conceptual Plan, as we say above, would increase pool emissions by 46% over 2019 levels, making it impossible for the municipal sector to meet Piedmont CAP targets. (Since heating the old pool constituted around 67% of overall municipal emissions, there is just no room to increase these emissions and meet our CAP targets.) These numbers are preliminary, and an updated conceptual design would need to do further analysis.

Please do not approve this RFP until the Climate Action Plan targets and the necessity of aiming for a  zero carbon pool water heating system and pool building are thoroughly integrated into the expectations we have of bidders.

Sincerely,

Piedmont Connect’s Pool Committee

Indira Balkissoon

Garrett Keating

Margaret Ovenden

Tom Webster

Jul 19 2021

Dear Council, Staff, and Members of the Pool Advisory Committee,

My sense from last week’s Pool Advisory Committee and from speaking with Council Members is that everyone involved in this project wants a pool facility that emits as few carbon emissions as possible. But the schedule and work plan presented at last week’s Pool Advisory Committee meeting, as well as the draft RFP for a project design team before you tonight have me deeply concerned that we are not on track to do this. I believe that right now we are in danger of being lulled into a design process that is biased, inadequate, and likely to lead to failure. I urge you to send this RFP back to the drawing board and to re-evaluate the project timeline and milestones.

Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan

How we set up the design process for the pool facility now will determine whether or not we are able to make its operations as close to zero carbon as feasible. From the looks of the RFP, we aren’t making a serious attempt at all. First of all, why is there absolutely no mention of Piedmont’s 2019 Climate Action Plan in the RFP? The CAP is a guiding document for the City, developed by staff with community input and approved by Council. If we aren’t going to pay attention to it now, for the first new major municipal construction project since it was passed, why did we bother investing our time and energy to develop it? Why don’t we just admit to the world that we in Piedmont value our comfort and convenience over making a serious effort to reduce our GHG emissions? An explanation of the Climate Action Plan and Piedmont’s GHG emissions targets needs to be part of  the “Background” section of the RFP, and it needs to be made clear to potential bidders that their proposals need to clearly explain how they will approach reaching these emissions reduction targets.

2017 Conceptual Design 

Planning for serious GHG emissions reductions in line with California and Piedmont emissions reduction targets has not been part of the conversation about the new pool facility to this point — not in the conceptual design process (at least rigorously), not in the UU campaign, not in the interviews for Pool Advisory Committee members. Granted, the early stages of this process were before the completion of our 2019 CAP and before the developed world started to experience widespread and unmistakable climate disasters. Now that we know how concertedly we need to act to mitigate climate change, we cannot move forward assuming that the 2017 conceptual design is the project “bible” and that everything must be planned around it. I am very concerned, based on information presented at the first PAC meeting and in this RFP, that staff and the project management team see that conceptual design as already being locked in.

Previously, Connect was told that the 2017 conceptual design was just a placeholder and that it would be thoroughly re-done when the actual project began. However, the information presented at the PAC meeting seemed to indicate that this 2017 conceptual design is what will be taken before the public for “validation.” Since it’s old, the conceptual design doesn’t take into account the emissions reduction targets set by Piedmont’s 2019 CAP. Its “green tech” elements are simply outdated and inadequate. It proposes to accomplish 55% of the pool water heating with a solar tube array (passive solar), leaving 45% of the pool water heating to natural gas. Since the proposed new facility will triple the pool area of the old facility, the 2017 design will still lead to an increase in the facility’s natural gas usage, despite its “green tech” features. The design would significantly (likely irreparably) set back the City’s GHG emissions reduction efforts. (For more details about the problems with the 2017 conceptual design in terms of emissions reductions, see page 3 of the April report Piedmont Connect prepared at the request of the City Administrator.)

The RFP appears to deepen this problem by paving the way for an early ruling out of attempting a zero emissions design. Instead of starting the project by figuring from scratch how to design a zero emissions facility, it calls for working backwards from the (flawed) 2017 conceptual design to see if it can be made zero emissions. If this is how we go about it, the answer will likely be, “no, it’s impossible.”

If the facility is truly going to achieve as few emissions as possible, the specific emissions reduction technologies that could achieve this need to be incorporated into the conceptual design from the beginning, as the space they would occupy will be part of the space of the overall facility and thus influence its layout (these technologies would likely include high efficiency air-to-water electric heat pumps, powered by on-site solar PV, passive solar elements, etc., all of which need dedicated space). If we try to reverse our way out of the 2017 design, we are almost guaranteed failure.

Emissions Calculations

While those of us in Connect who have been analyzing the possibilities for a zero emissions facility have called for doing the emissions calculations early, we were not asking for what the RFP calls for (“an in-depth feasibility and cost/benefit analysis to determine if the facility can reach a Net Zero Energy for construction, operations and maintenance of the facility. This analysis shall be performed in the Preliminary stage of design to make an early determination of the feasibility of this goal.”). The way the thinking of project managers seems to be going, the zero net carbon features are being seen as add-ins, frills that would be nice to have, but not essential to the project. With this mindset, zero carbon technologies will be first on the chopping block when it comes to value engineering. Instead, they need to be non-negotiable, and, if value engineering is needed, some of the actual frills of the project should be what we cut until we can get to them later. A pool energy system is not something that can easily be revised later. We may need to incorporate some of the elements in stages, but we need to plan for them from the beginning.

In addition, the type of GHG emissions analysis Connect has been calling for is not a simple cost-benefit analysis. This analysis will require a separate team of experts in complex energy and emissions calculations (so this team needs to be added to the RFP’s list of consultants who will be needed). These are not calculations that a team coming at the issue from a cost/benefit perspective will have the expertise to do correctly. They will be unfamiliar with the newer technologies that will be needed in a zero carbon design, and, as such, they could easily rule them out without understanding their role.

CEQA

Another big flaw in the RFP is that the section on CEQA submittals (1.3.4.1) does not reference the GHG assessment that is now part of CEQA (as of 2019). Here’s a link to the new language: https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf  

In summary, “The revision of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4 clarified several points, including the following:

  • Lead agencies must analyze the greenhouse gas emissions of proposed projects. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (a).)
  • The focus of the lead agency’s analysis should be on the project’s effect on climate change, rather than simply focusing on the quantity of emissions and how that quantity of emissions compares to statewide or global emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b).)
  • The impacts analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is global in nature and thus should be considered in a broader context. A project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to statewide, national or global emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b).)
  • Lead agencies should consider a timeframe for the analysis that is appropriate for the project. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b).)
  • A lead agency’s analysis must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b).)
  • Lead agencies may rely on plans prepared pursuant to section 15183.5 (Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gases) in evaluating a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b)(3).)
  • In determining the significance of a project’s impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is consistent with those plans, goals, or strategies. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b)(3).)
  • The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (c).)

LEED Certification

In the RFP and in the project management team’s presentation at the PAC meeting, when LEED certification was brought up, it was made to sound like LEED would apply to the entire facility. In my understanding, there’s no LEED certification system for pool water heating systems (I’d love to be proved wrong). LEED may perhaps apply to the pool structure, but it’s the pool water heating that will be by far the major source of the facility’s GHG emissions (unless we eliminate natural gas usage). It’s disingenuous (greenwashing) to label the entire facility as LEED certified, if this leaves out the major source of GHG emissions. In addition, for the structural elements of the pool (such as the pool house), why would we limit ourselves to LEED Silver? Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum LEED standards are older standards and mainly focused on energy efficiency and sustainable building materials. We should be aiming, instead, for the newer LEED Zero Carbon standard, which accounts for energy sources and verifies net zero goals. We strongly urge you to aim for LEED Zero Carbon, for the applicable parts of the project. Even if we can’t reach LEED Zero Carbon in the end, we need to set an ambitious goal to start with, rather than admitting defeat from the beginning.

This can be a pool facility for the 21st century, if we put our minds and wills to it. It’s time to pause and re-do the design team RFP as well as the project work plan and timeline.

Margaret Ovenden, Piedmont Resident

Jul 19 2021
Jul 19 2021

To the Piedmont City Council:

To date, the City has engaged the community in the design and funding of the new pool but has yet to assess community sentiment for building a pool that will not add to Piedmont’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  All of California and indeed the world are experiencing the early stresses of unchecked climate change and I think most Piedmonters do not want to build a pool that will add to that problem for their children.

The establishment of the Pool Advisory Committee offers the City the opportunity to have this community engagement about the proposed pool’s impact on climate change. To that end, selecting the right Project Architect will be essential to engaging the PAC and community in designing a pool that offers creative options but also tradeoffs to achieve the 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets set forth in Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).

Unfortunately, the Griffin template used for the RFQ/P is inadequate for soliciting proposals to conduct this engagement and creative pool design.  For example, the staff report states that the “Scope of Services and Work Plan notes the City’s environmental goals” but that is not true; nowhere in the request for proposals do the words “Climate Action Plan” occur.  GHG reduction is without question the City’s most urgent environmental goal, yet there is no condition in the RFQ/P seeking services to assist the City with meeting it’s 2030 and 2050 targets.

The only concession to city environmental goals appears to be the incorporation of LEED silver design principles, outdated principles that do not address GHG reduction, rather than LEED-Zero, the latest LEED standards that incorporate renewable energy into the design.  Similarly, the RFQ/P calls for a Net Zero Energy (NZE) assessment of the conceptual facility, not Net Zero Carbon (ZNC)-driven design that could help achieve the city’s CAP goals. The RFQ/P should at least acknowledge the 2030 and 2050 reduction targets as project goals and solicit proposals that show how the new pool will integrate with the city-wide GHG reduction targets.

Staff gave assurances that if the RFQ/P does not solicit adequate proposals then additional rounds of solicitation will be undertaken. Unfortunately, this RFQ/P starts on the wrong foot and should be re-drafted to seek stronger proposals that deliver the services the city needs to achieve CAP goals.  The staff report acknowledges that the original date for issuance of the RFQ/P was August 2.

I suggest that Council take no action this evening [July 19] and instead give direction to staff to incorporate stronger language into the RFQ/P requesting proposals address GHG reduction of the conceptual design through design and energy infrastructure.  The current conceptual design fails to show any GHG emissions calculations so the City can obtain this analysis by having consultants do this in their proposals.

In the event Council decides to proceed with the RFQ/P, consider the following changes:

Acronyms/Definitions: add a definition for “building” to this section to clarify that the term includes the pool house and the pools.  GHG emissions from the pools vastly exceed those of the pool house and must be included in any LEED or NZE analysis for the facility.

1.1 Basic Services:  Don’t specify LEED silver as the design goal. First, this bar is too low and it sends a signal to consultants that they can achieve this project objective without appreciably addressing GHG emissions.  State instead that the city seeks the highest LEED certification for the pool and let consultants compete by submitting creative proposals.

1.2.12 Value Engineering: This is a very important element of the work plan as there are numerous redundancies and inefficiencies in the current conceptual design. Language should be added to this section stipulating that value engineering be initiated during the conceptual design phase so changes can be presented during the community outreach phase.

And some clarification may be needed in the RFQ/P.  The first table below is from the feasibility assessment of the pool presented on the City website during the community pool bond initiative.  The second table below is that presented in the RFQ/P (page 6).  While the total lap pool area is the same (9600 sq. ft) there is a discrepancy in the number and length of swimming lanes.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member

Inline image

Inline image

8. Consideration of the Issuance of a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for Architectural/ Engineering/Planning and Design Services of the Piedmont Community Pool 0270-1022 https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851805

Jul 18 2021

Special Closed Session 6 pm

Special & Regular Session 6:30 pm

Consent Calendar

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes for 05/22/2021, 06/07/2021, and 06/21/2021

2. 2 nd Reading of Ord. 761 N.S. Renewed and Amended Lease for the Piedmont Educational Foundation at 401 Highland Avenue 0705, 0045  https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851807

3. Approval of an Agreement with the Local Government Commission for a the Placement of a Civic Spark Fellow for FY 2021-2022 0045

4. Receipt of a Report on the City’s Investment Portfolio 0475-3070 https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851792

5. Approval of the Replacement of Two Police Department Unmarked Vehicles 0045

6. Approval of a Renewed Agreement with Alameda County Regarding the Collection of Taxes 0045

Public Forum This is an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda.

Ceremonial Items Introduction of New Employees

Regular Agenda

7. Consideration of the Designation of Four Parking Spaces on Bonita Avenue as Ninety Minute Parking and an Agreement with East Bay Community Energy for Electric Vehicle Charger Funding 0045, 0735  at this point  https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851796

8. Consideration of the Issuance of a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for Architectural/ Engineering/Planning and Design Services of the Piedmont Community Pool 0270-1022 https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851805

9. Consideration of an Agreement with the University of Texas, San Antonio to Conduct Data Analysis of Piedmont Police Department Calls for Service 0045 https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851788

10. Consideration of Memoranda of Understanding with the Following Labor Groups for the Period of 07/01/2021 through 06/30/2025: a. Piedmont Firefighters Association b. Piedmont Police Officers Association 0045  https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17851800

Reports from Councilmembers

Announcements

Old business and consideration of future agenda items

Adjourn

Agenda and participation via teleconference below:

https://piedmont.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf

More staff reports > https://piedmont.ca.gov/government/city_council/staff_reports

 

Jun 24 2021

Alameda County Grand Jury points to Piedmont as an example –

Piedmont Measure TT was identified by the Grand Jury as problematic.  Piedmont’s City Council, responsible for the ballot question language, proposed an increase to the city’s real estate transfer tax. The measure was rejected by voters by 48% yes to 52% no.

The question placed on the Piedmont ballot read as follows:

Shall the City of Piedmont, to be in alignment with neighboring East Bay  Cities, increase the real estate transfer tax from $13.00 to $17.50 per $1,000  of transfer price, generating $948,462 annually until ended by voters, to provide general tax revenue for city services and to repair and maintain city facilities including police and fire stations, parks, and recreation facilities, and other city infrastructure, be adopted?”

The Grand Jury stated:

“Piedmont’s Measure TT recited a list of possible expenditures, including ‘to repair and maintain city facilities including police and fire stations, parks, and recreation facilities, ‘ yet none of these expenditures was required by the  proposed ordinance. That such spending might occur does not make the question an accurate and impartial synopsis of a measure, which may not result in any additional spending on the mentioned repair and  maintenance. Piedmont’s measure also included the statement that a purpose of the measure was ‘to be in alignment with neighboring East Bay Cities.’   The grand jury did not see how this statement related to a description of the measure or to its purpose.”

The Grand Jury Report notes Ballot Questions [Language found on ballots asking for a yes or no vote] often fail the accuracy, transparency and impartiality requirement.

Several key points:

  • Alameda County Grand Jury investigation focused exclusively on the accuracy, transparency and impartiality of ballot questions.
  • Ballot Questions are required by law to be Brief, Accurate and Impartial.
  • Ballot Questions suffer from a “proponent’s bias.”
  • Ballot Questions fall short of what voters have a right to expect in terms of transparency and impartiality, even when satisfying minimum legal standard.
  • The Grand Jury declined to prosecute violators, instead urging governments to improve their behavior within the requirements of the California Elections Code.

Click the link below to READ the full 2020-21 Alameda County Grand Jury report: http://grandjury.acgov.org/reports.page?

Jun 20 2021

“In reviewing the City’s long term projections and considering the current economic situation, the Committee reminds the Council of several things:

• The financial projections seek to maintain, over the long term, an 18% General Fund balance (which, the Committee thinks is prudent). Achieving this target, however, requires that the City eliminate or reduce transfers to the Facilities Maintenance Fund, which addresses ongoing and deferred maintenance of city facilities, and eliminate supplemental funding for street and sidewalk repairs beyond the current budget year. Current projections indicate the Facilities Maintenance Fund will be depleted by FY 27-28. Even without incorporating the yet to be determined costs of major capital projects referenced above, the Facilities Maintenance Fund is inadequately capitalized for the duration of the 10- year projections. This underfunding is not sustainable; it will severely affect repair and replacement expenditures within this decade.

• The Committee supports the conservative approach used to establish the budget for transfer tax revenues given their historic volatility. The Committee also supports the modest increase in projected transfer tax revenue, from the $2.8 million consistently used in the recent past, to $3.2 million annually beginning in FY23. This increased budget amount could still be attained with a recessionary pace of sales and/ or drop in sales prices given substantial gains in Piedmont home values over the past decade. The Committee recommends that to the extent actual transfer tax revenue exceeds the conservative estimate, such funds be used to fund the Facilities Maintenance Fund, consistent with prior years.

• The projected pension expenses have increased based on an updated actuarial study completed earlier this year, which assume CalPERS 2 Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee investment returns decline to 6.0% over the next 20 years. However, future pension costs could still rise should CalPERS investment performance be below target due to a sustained downturn in financial markets.

• The prior funding of the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Fund, supplemented by the proposed capital transfer from the current budget surplus, will provide the City much needed flexibility in managing future pension cost increases, as the City’s obligations are expected to increase substantially over the course of this decade. However, this flexibility may be adversely affected by stock market fluctuations to the extent there is significant decline in values during the withdrawal years.

• As in prior years, the projections continue to show that the long term financial health of the City is dependent on property-related taxes, especially the continuation of the Municipal Services Parcel Tax. The projections assume that the MSPT continues with a standard CPI adjustment each year, and the Committee supports this approach.

• The City continues to benefit from a robust economic recovery and rising Bay Area housing prices. Given the uncertainty as to how long such favorable economic conditions will persist, it is important to continue with conservative property tax and transfer tax assumptions.”

READ the entire Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Report 2021-2022

June 21 – AGENDA DETAILS: SCHEDULE AND PARTICIPATION

Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee members:

Deborah Leland, Chair

Andrew Flynn,

Cathie Geddeis,

Robert McBain,

Paul Raskin,

Frank Ryan

Vanessa Washington

Jun 5 2021

budget PUBLIC HEARING FY 2021-2022 Taxes

Budget Advisory committee to meet after the Council first considers the 2021- 22 budget and tax levies.  The Committee was formed following a major failing by the City when allowing the undergrounding project in upper Piedmont to go over budget by $2 million due to incorrect contracts, funding, and oversight.

The City has not been following the charge to the committee.  Charge example: “Provide a financial review of any new program commitments and funding sources in excess of $250,000 in any fiscal year.” 

On the June 7 Council Agenda the Council is asked to approve a $600,000+ contract for management of the Municipal Pool construction, yet there is no review by the BAFPC indicated in the staff report.

See May 2. 2021 article:    Housing Element Consulting Services $691,230

BAFPC charge

Although the City website states minutes are available, none have been publicly disseminated and there is no evidence minutes were approved by the Committee, as the minutes have never been found on any Committee agenda.

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee is one of the most vulnerable public bodies to a conflict of interest, yet the City Council does not require compliance with disclosure of assets per state conflict of interest laws. This is not to say there have been conflicts of interest, for none have manifested.

 

May 27 2021

“In the last housing cycle, Piedmont was asked to plan for 60 new homes and the city fell short, issuing permits for just 37 units*. This cycle, the city is expected to plan for nearly 600 new homes.  …

In a staff report on future housing development, the Piedmont Planning Division  highlighted several ideas from residents about how to build more affordable housing, including placing it on land annexed from Oakland and subsidizing development of new units and purchasing apartments for teachers and first responders in the neighboring city.” SF Chronicle May 20, 2021

The May 20, 2021 SF Chronicle article contained several errors.  The 60 new housing units are the planning goal for the current cycle.  Piedmont is on track to exceed its effort to add 60 units by the deadline at the end of 2022.  The proposed 587 new housing units is the planning goal assigned for the cycle beginning in 2023 and ending 2031.

City staff reports “The 2020 annual progress report shows that the City of Piedmont is close to meeting and surpassing the annual rate of construction of new housing units anticipated by the RHNA [Regional Housing Needs Allocation] having issued building permits for the construction of approximately 73 new units out of a state-mandated allocation of 60 new units by the end of 2022.”

As a denser city, Piedmont will be seriously challenged in the future to plan for its uncontested 587 additional housing units RHNA.  The State considers that local governments play a vital role in developing affordable housing. In 1969, the state mandated that all California cities, towns and counties must plan for the housing needs of our residents—regardless of income. 

Other cities having greater land availability than Piedmont have contested their allocation for increased housing units.  State laws allow for input on  draft RHNA based on individual cities conditions.

The Piedmont City Council has consistently voiced their desire to meet Piedmont’s draft allocation (587) and add the new housing units within Piedmont. 

The City Council has moved ahead on the 2023 planning process, hiring consultants, asking residents where they want to put 587 new units, and forming committees to pursue and influence Piedmonters in regard to the 587 new units.  Public hearings in Piedmont have yet to be held on the Piedmont opinions of the new housing expansion. 

Why is the Piedmont RHNA for the cycle beginning 2023 approximately 10 times larger than the current RHNA?

One contributing factor is the new “equity adjustment,” a formula was proposed that increases allocations of lower-income units for some jurisdictions identified as having racial and socioeconomic demographics that differ from the regional average. Five jurisdictions that met the formula were excluded.  These jurisdictions were excluded from the equity adjustment to avoid directing additional lower-income RHNA units to jurisdictions with racial demographics that are different than the rest of the region but that already have a high share of lower-income households.  [See tables beginning on page 31 of this report.]

Per the Piedmont City Charter, some of the potential methods of increasing Piedmont housing units will require voter approval to make zoning changes.

May 24 2021

Zoom meeting details 2021-05-25 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Agenda

  1. Election of a Chairperson
  2.  Fiscal Year 2020-21 Financial Update
  3.  Review Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget and Consideration of FY 2021-2022 Budget Report
  4.  Review Long Range Financial Plan

Distributed presentation >2021-05-25 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Presentation