Piedmont City Council
March 20, 2023

Attached
48 69 21 43.8%
Single-Family Home:

Detached
3,710 3,714 4 0.1%
Multifamily Housing: Two
to Four Units
87 117 30 34.5%
Multifamily Housing: Fiveplus Units
79 79 00 0.0%
Mobile Homes 0 0 0 N/A
Total 3,924 3,979 55 1.4%
Agenda Report Page 257 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-44 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment In Piedmont, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Multifamily Housing: Two to Four Units (see Figure A-32). The City of Piedmont counts ADU production as multi-family (2-4 units) or single family attached when reporting new construction to the Department of Finance (DoF). This likely accounts for the higher-than-expected estimates of multi-family and single-family attached construction since 2010. There may be other errors present in the DoF data. The City of Piedmont has reported there have been 7 single family attached and no multi-family housing units constructed since 2010.

Figure A-32: Housing Type Trends, City of Piedmont
Notes:

Universe: Housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Department of Finance, E-5 series) 48 3,710 698779 3,714 117 79 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Single-Family Home:

Attached
Single-Family Home:

Detached
Multifamily Housing:

Two to Four Units
Multifamily Housing:

Five-plus Units
Mobile Homes
Units
2010 2020
Agenda Report Page 258 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 45 Vacant units make up 2.6 percent of the overall housing stock in Piedmont, compared to 5 percent in the county and 6 percent in the region. This is based on an average from 2015 to 2019. Of the 99 vacant units, there are no vacant units to rent, 26 available to buy, and 73, or 76 percent, are classified as ‘other vacant’. This is considerably different than County and regional trends, which illustrate a variety of vacancy types. (see Figure A-33).4 Figure A-33: Vacant Units by Type
Notes:

Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004)
4 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (2.5 percent). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant “other vacant”.
26% 26% 24%
6% 6%
13% 22%
74%
44% 36%
5% 6%
6% 7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Piedmont Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Vacant Housing Units
For Rent For Sale
For Seasonal, Recreational, Or Occasional Use Other Vacant Rented, Not Occupied Sold, Not Occupied
Agenda Report Page 259 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-46 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 6 percent of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.

In a Region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions. The largest share of vacancies in Piedmont is due to “other vacant” reasons, similar to that of Alameda County and the Bay Area.

A.4.2 Housing Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the degree of potential housing insecurity or instability, meaning the number of persons or households that may lose access to housing for a variety of reasons, including overpayment, overcrowding, or lack of housing options. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if rental prices increase. In Piedmont there are a total of 3,838 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes (12.1 percent versus 87.9 percent) (see Figure A-34). By comparison,

46.5 percent of households in Alameda County are renters, while 44 percent of Bay Area households rent their homes.

Figure A-34: Housing Tenure
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B25003
88%
54% 56%
12%
46% 44%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Piedmont Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Agenda Report Page 260 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 47 In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In Piedmont, 89.5 percent of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 15.5 percent of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure A-35). Therefore, most multi-family units in Piedmont are rented.

Figure A-35: Housing Tenure by Housing Type, City of Piedmont Notes:

Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032)
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for Communities of Color while facilitating homebuying for White residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.

In Piedmont, 47.8 percent (22 of 46 total households) of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 94.2 percent for Asian households (539 of 572 total), 90.8 percent for Latino households (89 of 98 total), and 87.4 percent for White households (2,780 of 3,179 total). Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements. 89%
56%
15%
11%
44%
85%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Detached SingleFamily HomesAttached SingleFamily HomesMulti-Family Housing
Mobile Homes Boat, RV, Van, or
Other
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Agenda Report Page 261 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-48 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment Table A-15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder, City of Piedmont Racial/Ethnic Group Owner
Occupied
% of Total
Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
% of Total
Renter
Occupied
Total # of
Households
American Indian or Alaska
Native (Hispanic and NonHispanic)
0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Asian / API (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic) 539 8.8% 33 3.8% 572
Black or African American
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 22 0.4% 24 2.7% 46
Hispanic or Latino 89 1.4% 9 1.0% 98
Other Race or Multiple Races
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 32 0.5% 9 1.0% 41
White (Hispanic and NonHispanic) 2,780 45.2% 399 45.7% 3,179 White, Non-Hispanic 2,691 45.7% 399 45.7% 3,090
Total 6,153 100.0% 3,979 100.00% 10,132
Notes:

Universe: Occupied housing units
For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latino. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latino may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latino, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I))
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options to move or downsize in an expensive housing market.

In Piedmont, 27.0 percent of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 and 3.7 percent of householders over 65 years of age are renters. The age group with the most renters is the 35-44 group with 29 percent renters (see Figure A-36).

Agenda Report Page 262 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 49 Figure A-36: Housing Tenure by Age, City of Piedmont
Notes:

Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007)
A.4.3 Housing Units Permitted
Between 2015 and 2019, 37 housing units were issued permits in Piedmont. Of these housing units permitted, 40.5 percent were for above moderate-income housing, 24.3 percent were for moderate-income housing, and 35.1 percent were for low- or very low-income housing. (see Table A-16). Because almost half (44 percent) of its 6th Cycle RHNA is allocated for lower-income housing, the City’s housing plan (Section IV) contains additional programs and policies to increase the representation of very low, low, and moderate-income units permitted.

Table A-16: Housing Permitting, City of Piedmont
Income Group Number of Units
Above Moderate-Income Permits 15
Moderate Income Permits 9
Low Income Permits 8
Very Low-Income Permits 5
Notes:

Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income:
units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction 89%
71%
84%
95%
84%
98%
90%
100%
11%
29%
16%
5%
16%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 15-
24 Age 25-
34 Age 35-
44 Age 45-
54 Age 55-
59 Age 60-
64 Age 65-
74 Age 75-
84 Age 85+
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Agenda Report Page 263 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-50 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.

Sources: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)) A.4.4 Housing Age and Condition
The age of housing stock is a key indicator of the community’s overall housing condition. As homes get older, there is a greater need for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of key infrastructure systems. If not properly addressed, an aging housing stock can represent poorer living standards, incur more expensive repair costs and, under certain conditions, lower overall property values.

Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the Region.

In Piedmont, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built in 1939 or earlier, with 2,523 units constructed during this period, which is approximately 64.1 percent of housing units (see Figure A-37). The housing stock in Alameda County is newer, with the largest portion of units built between 1960 and 1979. Of Alameda County housing stock, 39.2 percent was built before 1960 while 86.5 percent of Piedmont’s housing stock was built before 1960. Only 23 units, or 0.6 percent of the current housing stock, was built after 2010. In Alameda County, 3.2 percent of housing units were built in 2010 or later.

Figure A-37: Housing Units by Year Structure Built, City of Piedmont Notes:

Universe: Housing units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034)
2,523
882
355
123
31 23
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Built 1939 Or
Earlier
Built 1940 To
1959
Built 1960 To
1979
Built 1980 To
1999
Built 2000 To
2009
Built 2010 Or
Later
Units
Agenda Report Page 264 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 51 Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the Region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau gathers data to gain a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present, including lack of kitchen facilities or lack of plumbing.

In Piedmont, no residents reported lacking a kitchen or a lack of plumbing.

The City noted there are very few code enforcement complaints regarding housing conditions.

The City estimates one complaint per year, and no complaints are localized in any one part of the City. City staff are aware of several homes with substandard conditions and are working to help the property owners bring their homes into minimum habitability requirements. Staff typically encounter 1 or 2 homes a year and notify owners of grant opportunities and other programs.

Agenda Report Page 265 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-52 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment Section A.5 Housing Costs and Affordability
A.5.1 Ownership Costs
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in Piedmont was estimated at $2,369,680 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued at $2M+ (see Figure A40). By comparison, the typical home value is $951,380 in Alameda County and $1,077,230 in the Bay Area (see Figure A-38).

Figure A-38: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Notes:

Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given Region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)) 2%
5% 6%
1%
15% 16%
2%
28%
23%
5%
26%
20%
16% 18% 18%
21%
5%
8%
52%
4%
9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%
Piedmont Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Owner Occupied Units
Units Valued Less than $250k Units Valued $250k-$500k Units Valued $500k-$750k Units Valued $750k-$1M Units Valued $1M-$1.5M Units Valued $1M-$2M Units Valued $2M+
Agenda Report Page 266 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 53 The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 668.2 percent in Piedmont from $308,470 to $2,369,680. (see Figure A-39).

Figure A-39: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Notes:

Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075)
A review of all homes sold from March 2022 to February 2023, found in Table A-17, reveals that exclusively single -family homes were bought during that time. The median home had 4 bedrooms,

2.5 bathrooms, and 2533 square feet. The median purchase price was $2,583,750 for a price per square foot of $1,034.405.
5 Federal Funds interest rates increased from 3% to 4.75 percent between September 21, 2022 and February 1, 2023.

The effects of this change are only beginning to impact the financial and real estate markets. $100,000
$600,000
$1,100,000
$1,600,000
$2,100,000
$2,600,000
Bay Area Alameda County Piedmont
Agenda Report Page 267 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-54 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment Table A-17: Houses Sold in Piedmont March 2022-February 2023 Sold Date Property Type Price Beds Baths Square
Feet
$/Square
Foot
February-28-2023 Single Family Residential $2,610,000 3 2 2040 $1,279.41 February-21-2023 Single Family Residential $1,948,000 3 1.5 2045 $952.57 February-14-2023 Single Family Residential $2,700,000 5 3 3002 $899.40 February-6-2023 Single Family Residential $2,500,000 4 2.5 3774 $662.43 February-1-2023 Single Family Residential $4,925,000 5 4.5 3940 $1,250.00 January-5-2023 Single Family Residential $1,400,000 4 3 2477 $565.20 December-9-2022 Single Family Residential $3,275,000 4 3.5 4466 $733.32 December-2-2022 Single Family Residential $1,900,000 4 3 2648 $717.52 December-1-2022 Single Family Residential $2,250,000 5 3 2917 $771.34 December-1-2022 Single Family Residential $622,000 3 2 1591 $390.95 November-30-2022 Single Family Residential $3,285,000 4 4.5 4015 $818.18 November-30-2022 Single Family Residential $2,700,000 4 3.5 2749 $982.18 November-23-2022 Single Family Residential $1,725,000 3 1 1642 $1,050.55 November-17-2022 Single Family Residential $2,100,000 4 3.5 2395 $876.83 November-14-2022 Single Family Residential $2,750,000 2 2 2127 $1,292.90 November-14-2022 Single Family Residential $7,250,000 6 5 6750 $1,074.07 November-14-2022 Single Family Residential $3,450,000 4 2.5 2634 $1,309.79 November-8-2022 Single Family Residential $1,500,000 3 1 1563 $959.69 November-4-2022 Single Family Residential $2,850,000 4 3.5 3758 $758.38 November-2-2022 Single Family Residential $3,100,000 3 3.5 2765 $1,121.16 October-31-2022 Single Family Residential $2,050,000 3 2.5 2400 $854.17 October-28-2022 Single Family Residential $2,890,000 5 3 2813 $1,027.37 October-26-2022 Single Family Residential $2,530,000 3 2.5 2643 $957.25 October-24-2022 Single Family Residential $4,200,000 5 4 4590 $915.03 October-19-2022 Single Family Residential $2,605,000 4 2.5 2605 $1,000.00 October-18-2022 Single Family Residential $2,925,000 4 3 2809 $1,041.30 October-18-2022 Single Family Residential $2,950,000 3 3.5 3074 $959.66 October-12-2022 Single Family Residential $2,400,000 3 3 2080 $1,153.85 October-10-2022 Single Family Residential $3,500,000 3 2.5 2995 $1,168.61 October-7-2022 Single Family Residential $9,250,000 5 5 7162 $1,291.54 October-6-2022 Single Family Residential $1,225,000 3 2 1556 $787.28 September-30-2022 Single Family Residential $1,550,000 3 2 1104 $1,403.99 September-28-2022 Single Family Residential $2,425,000 3 2.5 2225 $1,089.89 September-27-2022 Single Family Residential $2,319,000 3 2.5 1952 $1,188.01 September-26-2022 Single Family Residential $1,295,000 2 1 1364 $949.41 September-23-2022 Single Family Residential $3,425,000 4 3 3765 $909.69 September-20-2022 Single Family Residential $5,020,000 3 4.5 4583 $1,095.35 September-19-2022 Single Family Residential $1,555,000 3 1.5 1296 $1,199.85 September-16-2022 Single Family Residential $2,200,000 4 2.5 2184 $1,007.33 Agenda Report Page 268 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 55 Table A-17: Houses Sold in Piedmont March 2022-February 2023 Sold Date Property Type Price Beds Baths Square
Feet
$/Square
Foot
September-16-2022 Single Family Residential $2,583,750 3 2.5 2945 $877.33 September-14-2022 Single Family Residential $1,920,000 3 2 1912 $1,004.18 September-12-2022 Single Family Residential $3,260,000 4 3.5 3290 $990.88 September-6-2022 Single Family Residential $1,600,000 3 2 1504 $1,063.83 September-6-2022 Single Family Residential $3,260,000 4 2.5 3760 $867.02 September-6-2022 Single Family Residential $2,900,000 5 2.5 3177 $912.81 August-25-2022 Single Family Residential $5,825,000 6 5.5 5585 $1,042.97 August-24-2022 Single Family Residential $2,795,000 5 5 3491 $800.63 August-19-2022 Single Family Residential $2,100,000 3 2 1696 $1,238.21 August-15-2022 Single Family Residential $1,400,000 3 1 1369 $1,022.64 August-15-2022 Single Family Residential $5,600,000 6 4.5 7652 $731.83 August-12-2022 Single Family Residential $2,526,000 3 3 2408 $1,049.00 August-10-2022 Single Family Residential $3,188,020 3 2.5 2428 $1,313.02 August-3-2022 Single Family Residential $7,000,000 7 5.5 5343 $1,310.13 August-1-2022 Single Family Residential $1,205,000 2 1 1438 $837.97 July-28-2022 Single Family Residential $3,925,000 4 3.5 3070 $1,278.50 July-27-2022 Single Family Residential $1,850,000 3 2 1656 $1,117.15 July-25-2022 Single Family Residential $4,082,500 5 4 4793 $851.76 July-21-2022 Single Family Residential $4,000,000 5 3 2979 $1,342.73 July-15-2022 Single Family Residential $1,800,000 3 1.5 1753 $1,026.81 July-15-2022 Single Family Residential $2,050,000 3 1.5 1836 $1,116.56 July-12-2022 Single Family Residential $1,900,000 3 2.5 2028 $936.88 July-6-2022 Single Family Residential $5,500,000 6 4.5 5272 $1,043.25 July-5-2022 Single Family Residential $3,025,000 4 3 2573 $1,175.67 July-5-2022 Single Family Residential $1,740,000 3 1.5 2062 $843.84 July-1-2022 Single Family Residential $1,400,000 3 1 1620 $864.20 July-1-2022 Single Family Residential $2,435,000 3 2.5 1740 $1,399.43 June-29-2022 Single Family Residential $2,225,000 3 3 2151 $1,034.40 June-28-2022 Single Family Residential $2,550,000 3 3 2533 $1,006.71 June-23-2022 Single Family Residential $2,125,000 3 2.5 2328 $912.80 June-23-2022 Single Family Residential $4,000,000 5 3.5 4936 $810.37 June-14-2022 Single Family Residential $1,800,000 3 2 1467 $1,226.99 June-13-2022 Single Family Residential $3,828,000 4 3 2254 $1,698.31 June-13-2022 Single Family Residential $2,030,000 3 2.5 2263 $897.04 June-13-2022 Single Family Residential $2,805,000 4 2.5 2102 $1,334.44 June-7-2022 Single Family Residential $4,250,000 5 3.5 3338 $1,273.22 June-7-2022 Single Family Residential $1,900,000 5 2.5 3059 $621.12 June-6-2022 Single Family Residential $4,400,000 4 3 3123 $1,408.90 June-3-2022 Single Family Residential $4,510,000 4 5 3834 $1,176.32 Agenda Report Page 269 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-56 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment Table A-17: Houses Sold in Piedmont March 2022-February 2023 Sold Date Property Type Price Beds Baths Square
Feet
$/Square
Foot
June-3-2022 Single Family Residential $5,300,000 5 4 4885 $1,084.95 June-3-2022 Single Family Residential $4,200,000 5 3.5 3645 $1,152.26 June-2-2022 Single Family Residential $1,650,000 5 2 2162 $763.18 June-1-2022 Single Family Residential $4,400,000 5 5 4552 $966.61 May-27-2022 Single Family Residential $5,900,000 5 3.5 3970 $1,486.15 May-27-2022 Single Family Residential $1,950,000 2 1.5 1280 $1,523.44 May-27-2022 Single Family Residential $2,350,000 3 3 2123 $1,106.92 May-26-2022 Single Family Residential $2,111,000 4 2 2425 $870.52 May-25-2022 Single Family Residential $2,500,000 3 2 2119 $1,179.80 May-24-2022 Single Family Residential $2,995,000 4 2.5 3384 $885.05 May-20-2022 Single Family Residential $2,800,000 3 2.5 2235 $1,252.80 May-20-2022 Single Family Residential $2,300,000 5 2.5 2482 $926.67 May-17-2022 Single Family Residential $12,000,000 6 8 9928 $1,208.70 May-17-2022 Single Family Residential $4,225,000 5 3.5 3647 $1,158.49 May-13-2022 Single Family Residential $2,425,000 3 2 2065 $1,174.33 May-11-2022 Single Family Residential $2,100,000 4 2 2670 $786.52 May-9-2022 Single Family Residential $5,612,500 5 4.5 4203 $1,335.36 May-8-2022 Single Family Residential $3,300,000 3 2.5 2494 $1,323.18 May-6-2022 Single Family Residential $1,800,000 3 3 1655 $1,087.61 May-5-2022 Single Family Residential $3,225,000 3 2 1809 $1,782.75 April-26-2022 Single Family Residential $5,200,000 5 6.5 5887 $883.30 April-26-2022 Single Family Residential $2,350,000 4 2 1915 $1,227.15 April-25-2022 Single Family Residential $1,570,000 3 2 1300 $1,207.69 April-25-2022 Single Family Residential $3,330,000 4 3.5 3671 $907.11 April-20-2022 Single Family Residential $2,350,000 4 2.5 2347 $1,001.28 April-14-2022 Single Family Residential $2,200,000 3 2 1271 $1,730.92 April-13-2022 Single Family Residential $3,200,000 5 4 3230 $990.71 April-12-2022 Single Family Residential $2,570,000 3 3.5 2694 $953.97 April-7-2022 Single Family Residential $4,100,000 5 4.5 4175 $982.04 March-31-2022 Single Family Residential $2,900,000 4 3 1829 $1,585.57 March-30-2022 Single Family Residential $1,800,000 3 1 1640 $1,097.56 March-28-2022 Single Family Residential $3,200,000 3 3 2755 $1,161.52 March-25-2022 Single Family Residential $1,650,000 3 2 2824 $584.28 March-23-2022 Single Family Residential $2,520,000 5 4 3968 $635.08 March-23-2022 Single Family Residential $3,900,000 4 2.5 3237 $1,204.82 March-18-2022 Single Family Residential $1,310,000 4 2 1850 $708.11 March-18-2022 Single Family Residential $3,300,000 4 2.5 2771 $1,190.91 March-14-2022 Single Family Residential $3,750,000 4 3 2460 $1,524.39 March-4-2022 Single Family Residential $2,425,000 3 2 2322 $1,044.36 Agenda Report Page 270 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 57 Table A-17: Houses Sold in Piedmont March 2022-February 2023 Sold Date Property Type Price Beds Baths Square
Feet
$/Square
Foot
March-3-2022 Single Family Residential $1,780,000 3 2.5 1742 $1,021.81 March-2-2022 Single Family Residential $1,958,888 4 2 2424 $808.12 Median Home Sold in Past Year $2,583,750 4 2.5 2533 $1,034.40 Average Home Sold in Past Year $3,016,426 4 3 2902 $1,054.04 Notes: Vacant Land and Multifamily properties (entire properties with more than 1 unit) are excluded Source: Redfin
A.5.2 Rental Costs
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly Communities communities of Colorcolor. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the State.

It is more expensive to rent a home in Piedmont than it is in Alameda County and the Bay Area.

Based on U.S. Census data, which often lags market valuations, 61.5 percent of rental units in Piedmont rented for more $3,000 or more per month, and 15.1 percent of units rent at $2,500- $3,000 per month (see Figure A-40). Outside the City, a majority of units are available at rents between $1,500-$2,000 per month.

Figure A-40: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Notes:

Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056)
5% 6% 6%
12% 10%
3%
22% 19%
8%
25% 23%
8%
17% 17% 15%
11% 12%
61%
7%
13%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%
Piedmont Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Rental Units
Rent less than $500 Rent $500-$1000 Rent $1000-$1500 Rent $1500-$2000 Rent $2000-$2500 Rent $2500-$3000 Rent $3000 or more
Agenda Report Page 271 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-58 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment Since 2009, according to U.S. Census data, the median rent has increased by 70.4 percent in Piedmont, from $1,490 to $3,130 per month (see Figure A-41). In Alameda County, the median rent has increased 36.0 percent, from $1,240 to $1,690. The median rent in the Region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, just over 54.0 percent increase.

Piedmont’s rent increase outpaced both the county and the Bay Area.

Figure A-41: Median Contract Rent
Notes:

Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year) A study of the City’s current rent price finds that Piedmont currently offers no apartment complex units for rent. This leaves ADUs and single -family homes as the only option for renters in the City.

Furthermore, studios and 2-bedroom homes are unavailable, therefore only 1 bedroom ADUs and single family homes with 3 or more bedrooms are the available choices. Table A-18 displays information on the rentals that were available on Zillow.com in March 2023. $1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Dollars
Piedmont Alameda County Bay Area
Agenda Report Page 272 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 59 Table A-18: Rentals Available in Piedmont
Unit Type Square Feet Total Monthly Rent Price Per Square Foot 1 Bedroom
ADU 475 $ 1,495 $ 3.15
ADU 880 $ 2,995 $ 3.40
ADU 500 $ 2,150 $ 4.30
1 Bedroom Median 500 $ 2,150 $ 3.40
1 Bedroom Average 618 $ 2,213 $ 3.62
2 Bedroom

N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 Bedroom
Single Family 1,815 $ 5,500 $ 3.03
Single Family 2,373 $ 7,900 $ 3.33
Single Family 1,408 $ 5,800 $ 4.12
Single Family 1,381 $ 5,800 $ 4.20
Single Family 4,015 $ 8,500 $ 2.12
Single Family 2,186 $ 5,800 $ 2.65
Single Family 2,000 $ 6,800 $ 3.40
3 Bedroom Median 2,000 $ 5,800 $ 3.33
3 Bedroom Average 2,168 $ 6,586 $ 3.26
4 Bedroom
Single Family 3,630 $ 11,200 $ 3.09
Single Family 3,257 $ 8,900 $ 2.73
Single Family 3,202 $ 7,250 $ 2.26
Single Family 1,864 $ 6,500 $ 3.49
Single Family 3,350 $ 9,500 $ 2.84
Single Family 2,832 $ 6,995 $ 2.47
4 Bedroom Median 3,230 $ 8,075 $ 2.78
4 Bedroom Average 3,023 $ 8,391 $ 2.81
5 Bedroom
Single Family 4,034 $ 9,500 $ 2.35
Single Family 5,042 $ 12,000 $ 2.38
Single Family 2,828 $ 12,000 $ 4.24
5 Bedroom Median 4,034 $ 12,000 $ 2.38
5 Bedroom Average 3,968 $ 11,167 $ 2.99
Notes: Properties found using Zillow.com between February 22 and March 1, 2023. Search parameters were Piedmont, CA as location and active rentals as type.

Source: Zillow.com
Agenda Report Page 273 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-60 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-39: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Notes:

Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075)
A.5.3 Overpayment
According to HCD, households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing, including utilities, are generally considered to be overpaying or “cost burdened.” Those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” A standard measure of housing affordability can be determined by comparing the cost of market rate housing to the price residents can afford to pay for housing based on their income levels. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. When a household is overpaying for housing costs, the household has less income for other necessities, such as including health care, food, transportation, and clothing. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness. In the event of unexpected circumstances, such as loss of employment and health problems, lowerincome households with a burdensome housing cost are more likely to become homeless or be forced to double-up with other households, which can lead to overcrowded conditions. $100,000
$600,000
$1,100,000
$1,600,000
$2,100,000
$2,600,000
Bay Area Alameda County Piedmont
Agenda Report Page 274 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 61 Piedmont has a lower proportion of cost-burdened households compared to the countyAlameda County and the Bay Area. Of Piedmont’s households, approximately, 12 percent are costburdened, and 9 percent are severely cost- burdened. In the cCounty, the proportions are 20 percent and 17 percent, respectively. (sSee Figure A-42).

Figure A-42: Cost Burden Severity
Notes:

Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities).

For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091)
Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Piedmont, 8.6 percent of renters spend 30.0 percent to 50.0 percent of their income on housing compared to 12.9 percent of those that own (see Figure A-43).

Additionally, 12.5 percent of renters spend 50.0 percent or more of their income on housing, while

8.4 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened. In total, 21.3 percent of homeowners and 21.1 percent of renters experience some level of cost burden. 76%
61% 62%
12%
20% 20%
9% 17% 16%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Piedmont Alameda County Bay Area
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Not Computed
Agenda Report Page 275 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-62 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment Figure A-43: Cost Burden by Tenure, City of Piedmont
Notes:

Universe: Occupied housing units
Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities).

For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091)
In Piedmont, 14.2 percent of households spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 13.5 percent spend 30 percent to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure A-44). As expected, lower-income households are more likely to be housing cost-burdened than higher-income households. For example, 95.3 percent of Piedmont households making less than 30 percent of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. Over 68 percent of moderate-income households are cost- burdened. For Piedmont residents making more than 100 percent of AMI, just five5.0 percent are severely cost-burdened, and 84.3 percent of those making more than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing.
78%
62%
13%
9%
8%
12%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Not Computed
Agenda Report Page 276 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 63 Figure A-44: Cost Burden by Income Level, City of Piedmont Notes:

Universe: Occupied housing units
Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities).

For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) To estimate the number of lower-income households overpaying for housing by tenure, HUD CHAS data from 2015-2019 (in-lieu of data from 2013-2017) are summarized in Table A-19. When examining cost burden by income level and tenure, several noteworthy characteristics become apparent:
• Though a majority of extremely low-income (0-30 percent AMI) households are housing cost burdened, the burden is most pronounced for homeowners within this income range. • All very low-income (31-50 percent of AMI) renter occupied households are cost burdened • Households earning 100 percent AMI or greater are less likely to be cost burdened than compared to other income groups; however there are many Piedmont households at this income level who are dealing with cost burden. Owners in this income category are more likely to be cost burdened than renters.

Throughout the Region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of available affordable options. In Piedmont, however, the largest proportion of homeowners and renters alike fall in the 32%
43%
84%
29%
68%
35%
11%
95%
66%
22%
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
Agenda Report Page 277 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-64 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment “Greater than 100 percent of AMI” group. Renters are not significantly more likely than owners to be cost burdened, except in the 80-100 percent AMI category, indicating a need for more moderately priced market-rate rental units available to households not eligible for subsidy or income assistance. The Housing Element includes several programs which target housing production, including multi-family and lower and moderate income housing development including:
• Program 1.F: (Increase Allowances for Housing in Zone B) • Program 1.J: (SB 9 Facilitation Amendments)
• Program 5.H (Housing for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and Households) • Program 5.I (Housing for Extremely Low-Income Families) • Program 1.M: Manufactured and Mobile Home
• Program 3.B: Increase Number of Legal Accessory Dwelling Units • Program 3.D: Monitoring Additional ADU Development Opportunities • Program 3.E: Affordable Housing Fund
• Program 3.F: Incentives for Rent-Restricted ADUs
Table A-19: Cost Burden Severity by Tenure and Income Level, City of Piedmont Income Category Owner
Households
Renter
Households
Cost Burdened Households as a % of
Income Level
Owner Renter
0-30% AMI
Total Households 165 20
Cost Burden >30% 150 15 91% 75%
Cost Burden >50% 115 15
31-50% AMI
Total Households 70 45
Cost Burden >30% 55 45 79% 100%
Cost Burden >50% 55 20
51-80% AMI
Total Households 110 4
Cost Burden >30% 55 0 50% 0%
Cost Burden >50% 10 0
81-100% AMI
Total Households 165 40
Cost Burden >30% 50 29 30% 73%
Cost Burden >50% 25 4
>100% AMI
Agenda Report Page 278 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 65 Table A-19: Cost Burden Severity by Tenure and Income Level, City of Piedmont Income Category Owner
Households
Renter
Households
Cost Burdened Households as a % of
Income Level
Owner Renter
Total Households 2,865 350
Cost Burden >30% 370 4 13% 1%
Cost Burden >50% 60 0
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release
PCurrently, People of Color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 44.1 percent spending 30.0 percent to 50.0 percent of their income on housing, and Hispanic or Latino residents are the most severely cost burdened with 27.3 percent spending more than 50.0 percent of their income on housing (see Figure A-45).

Figure A-45: Cost Burden by Race, City of Piedmont
Notes:

Universe: Occupied housing units
Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities).

For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the 49%
75% 76%
44%
73%
24%
25%
12%
44%
27%
11% 12%
27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API,
Non-Hispanic
Black or African
American, NonHispanic
White, NonHispanicOther Race or
Multiple Races,
Non-Hispanic
Hispanic or
Latinx
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Cost Burden Not computed Agenda Report Page 279 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-66 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latino” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

Larger families in Piedmont, however, are not more likely to be cost burdened than all other household types. In Piedmont, 11.7 percent of large family households experience a cost burden of 30.0 percent to 50.0 percent, while 1.3 percent of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Approximately 13.7 percent of all other households have a cost burden of

30.0 percent to 50.0 percent, with 15.3 percent of households spending more than 50.0 percent of their income on housing (see Figure A-46).

Figure A-46: Cost Burden by Household Size, City of Piedmont Notes:

Universe: Occupied housing units
Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities).

For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) 71%
87%
14%
15% 12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All other household types Large Family 5+ persons
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
Agenda Report Page 280 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 67 When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be costburdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for lowincome seniors. Almost nine percent of seniors making less than 30.0 percent of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100.0 percent of AMI, 85.2 percent are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30.0 percent of their income on housing (see Figure A-47). In total, nearly one-third of seniors are cost burdened.

Figure A-47: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level, City of Piedmont Notes:

Universe: Senior households
For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely costburdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose- Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County).

The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Housing Costs Compared to Ability to Pay
The ability to pay for housing is a function of housing cost and other essential living expenses in relation to household income. Since above-moderate income households do not generally have problems in locating affordable units, affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that are low- to moderate-income. 9% 10%
38% 36%
85%
33%
62%
44%
14%
91%
57%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
Agenda Report Page 281 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-68 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment Table A-1207 shows the 2021 income limits and compares these income limits to affordable (no more than 30 percent of gross income) rent and purchase prices. The median gross rent ($3,133) in Piedmont is generally affordable for 3 person households earning 120 percent or more of the Alameda County median income ($99,406). The median purchase price of a home in Piedmont ($2,369,680) is not affordable for even high-earning households. Households must earn at more than 200 percent of AMI, to be able to afford to buy an average priced home in the city.

Table A-1920: 2021 Alameda County Ability to Pay for Housing and Fair Market Rent and Purchase Prices Number of Persons in Household
1 2 3 4
Extremely Low (0-30% AMI)
Annual Income Limit $28,800 $32,900 $37,000 $41,100
Monthly Income $2,400 $2,742 $3,083 $3,425
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $720 $823 $925 $1,028
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $125,250 $145,000 $165,000 $185,000 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $164,000 $190,000 $215,750 $241,750 Very Low (301-50% AMI)
Annual Income Limit $47,950 $54,800 $61,650 $68,500
Monthly Income $3,996 $4,567 $5,138 $5,708
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,199 $1,370 $1,541 $1,713
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $217,750 $250,750 $283,750 $317,000 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $285,000 $328,250 $371,500 $414,500 Low (501-80% AMI)
Annual Income Limit $76,750 $87,700 $98,650 $109,600
Monthly Income $6,396 $7,308 $8,221 $9,133
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $1,919 $2,193 $2,466 $2,740
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $356,500 $409,500 $462,250 $515,000 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $467,000 $536,000 $605,000 $674,000 Median (100% AMI)
Annual Income Limit $87,900 $100,500 $113,050 $125,600
Monthly Income $7,325 $8,375 $9,421 $10,467
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $2,198 $2,513 $2,826 $3,140
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $388,000 $449,000 $476,951 $508,420 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $506,000 $566,430 $630,000 $704,800 Moderate (80-120% AMI)
Annual Income Limit $105,500 $120,550 $135,650 $150,700 Monthly Income $8,792 $10,046 $11,304 $12,558
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $2,638 $3,014 $3,391 $3,768
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $495,500 $568,000 $640,500 $713,250 Agenda Report Page 282 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment City of Piedmont |A- 69 Table A-1920: 2021 Alameda County Ability to Pay for Housing and Fair Market Rent and Purchase Prices Number of Persons in Household
1 2 3 4
Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $648,250 $743,250 $838,500 $934,750 120-150% AMI
Annual Income Limit $131,850 $150,750 $169,575 $188,400 Monthly Income $10,988 $12,563 $14,131 $15,700
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $3,296 $3,769 $4,239 $4,710
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $559,400 $646,200 $732,400 $818,700 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $754,000 $871,300 $987,500 $1,104,000 150-180% AMI
Annual Income Limit $158,220 $180,900 $203,490 $226,080 Monthly Income $13,185 $15,075 $16,958 $18,840
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $3,956 $4,523 $5,087 $5,652
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $682,600 $786,900 $890,600 $994,500 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $917,400 $1,057,600 $1,197,000 $1,336,900 180-200% AMI
Annual Income Limit $175,800 $201,000 $226,100 $251,200 Monthly Income $14,650 $16,750 $18,842 $20,933
Max. Monthly Gross Rent1 $4,395 $5,025 $5,653 $6,280
Max. Purchase Price 5% down2 $763,300 $879,300 $994,700 $1,110,100 Max. Purchase Price 20% down3 $1,026,000 $1,181,700 $1,336,910 $1,492,000 Notes:
1 30% of income devoted to maximum monthly rent or mortgage payment, including utilities, taxes, and insurance 2 Assumes 95% loan (i.e., 5% down payment) @ 2.875% annual interest rate and 30-year term 3 Assumes 80% loan (i.e., 20% down payment) @ 2.875% annual interest rate and 30-year term Source: Zillow Mortgage Calculator
A.5.4 At-Risk Housing Assessment
While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.

The data in the table belowTable A-21 below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the State’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing.

However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the State, so there Agenda Report Page 283 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
A-70 | City of Piedmont Appendix A: Demographics and Housing Needs Assessment may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are no assisted units in Piedmont in the Preservation Database.

While there are no at-risk multi-family housing projects in Piedmont, the City does have 9 nine affordable accessory dwelling units with rent restrictions expiring between 2025 and 2035.

Table A-2021: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, City of Piedmont IncomeRisk of Conversion Piedmont Alameda County Bay Area Low 0 23,040 110,177
Moderate 0 167 3,375
High 0 189 1,854
Very High 0 106 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 0 23,502 116,459
Notes:

Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the State’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the State. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at- risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Low Risk: affordable homes that are at- risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Source: ABAG 2021 Pre-certified Housing Needs Data (California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020))
Agenda Report Page 284 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-1 Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis
and Methodology
Contents
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology ................... B-1 Section B.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ B-2 B.1.1 Overview and Purpose ...................................................................................... B-2 B.1.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .................................................................. B-2 B.1.3 Data................................................................................................................... B-3 Section B.2 Future Residential Development Potential ........................................................ B-3 B.2.1 Accessory Dwelling Units .................................................................................. B-3 B.2.2 Entitled and Proposed Developments ............................................................... B-5 B.2.3 Density and Capacity Assumptions............................................................... B-666 B.2.4 Methodology.................................................................................................. B-888 B.2.5 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites.................................................................. B-111112 Section B.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites in Meeting RHNA.................................... B-232217 B.3.1 Specific Plan............................................................................................ B-242318 B.3.2 Housing Sites Map .................................................................................. B-272520 B.3.3 Housing Sites Table ................................................................................ B-292722 Agenda Report Page 285 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-2 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology Section B.1 Introduction
B.1.1 Overview and Purpose
According to California Government Code §65580-65589, the Housing Element must include an inventory of adequate sites that are zoned and available within the planning period to meet the jurisdiction’s fair share of regional housing needs across all income levels. The sites inventory, in addition to projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and entitled or in process development projects, assists in determining if the jurisdiction has enough developable land to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), given its current regulatory framework and market conditions. This Appendix details the sites inventory and supporting analysis methodology and assumptions.

B.1.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Jurisdictions must provide sufficient land to accommodate enough housing for all economic segments of the community. Compliance is determined by the jurisdiction’s ability to provide adequate development capacity through appropriate development regulations and land use policies. The number of new units that must be accommodated is established through each jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected housing needs for the planning period. This share for each jurisdiction is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a regional planning agency, is responsible for distributing the RHNA to each jurisdiction within its nine-county region. The RHNA is distributed by income category.

For the 2023-2031 Housing Element update, Piedmont is allocated a RHNA of 587 units as follows:
• Extremely Low and Very Low Income (income less than 50 percent of AMI): 163 units (28 percent)
• Low Income (income of 50 to 80 percent of AMI): 94 units (16 percent) • Moderate Income (income of 80 to 120 percent of AMI): 92 units (16 percent) • Above Moderate Income (income greater than 120 percent of AMI): 238 units (40 percent) For this Housing Element planning period, January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031, the City must ensure the availability of adequate residential sites to accommodate these units. This Appendix provides an overview of the methodology used to evaluate the adequacy of sites within Piedmont and identifies such sites for future residential development to fulfill the City’s share of regional housing needs.

Agenda Report Page 286 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-3 B.1.3 Data
The sites inventory analysis used data provided by the City, such as GIS data and building permit/entitlement information. The following is an overview of the data used:
• City GIS data, including Base Zoning Districts, General Plan Land Use designation, Existing Use, Assessor Parcel Number (APN), parcel size, etc. • Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) applications and permit approval history • Entitled projects and projects in the entitlement phase • Prior housing element site inventories
• Annual Progress Reports filed with HCD during the 5th Cycle • Zoning Code allowed density and floor area ratio standards (FAR) Section B.2 Future Residential Development Potential
B.2.1 Accessory Dwelling Units
State laws in effect since January 1, 2018, have significantly eased the development standards and streamlined the approval process for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). As a result, the City of Piedmont has experienced an increasing trend in ADU building permit issuance and production in recent years. Table B-1 shows the number of building permits issued for ADUs in Piedmont from 2018 through 2022.

Table B-1: Permitted ADUs – Building Permits Issued
Year Permitted ADUs
2018 14
2019 10
2020 21
2021 22
2022 26
Total 93
Annual Average 18.6
Source: City of Piedmont, 2022
Over a 5-year period from 2018 through 2022, the City of Piedmont issued an average of 18.6 ADU building permits per year. Therefore, the City is estimating 18.5 ADUs to be produced each year, or 148 ADUs during the eight-year planning period, given recent historical trends.

Agenda Report Page 287 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-4 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology In 2020, the City of Piedmont adopted an ADU Ordinance consistent with State law. Since then, the City has utilized SB 2 Grant Program funding to analyze the State compliant ADU Ordinance in Division 17.38 of the City Zoning Code, develop potential incentives for deed restricted affordable ADU development (e.g,, allowing an additional ADU entitlement, allowing height limit and number of story increases, allowing an increased floor-to-area ratio, expanding the allowable square footage of garage conversions, etc.) and generate pre-approved ADU plans, which can help streamline application and approval of ADUs and JADUs. The ADU analysis and incentives were released for public review in October 2021.

The Housing Element incorporates feasible recommendations from this report to continue to incentivize ADU production to help meet the City’s RHNA (see Section IV and below).

Furthermore, the City will monitor ADU production and affordability throughout the planning period and implement additional actions if target ADU numbers are not being met (Programs 3.C and

3.D below). Programs in the Housing Element to further incentivize ADU production include:
• Program 1.B: Market-Rate Accessory Dwelling Units
• Program 1.C: Public Engagement for Accessory Dwelling Units • Program 1.E: Require ADUs for New Single-Family Residence Construction • Program 1.M: Manufactured and Mobile Home
• Program 3.B: Increase Number of Legal Accessory Dwelling Units • Program 3.C: Monitoring Accessory Dwelling Unit Missed Opportunities • Program 3.D: Monitoring Additional ADU Development Opportunities • Program 3.E: Affordable Housing Fund
• Program 3.F: Incentives for Rent-Restricted ADUs
• Program 3.H: Monitor ADU Occupancy/Affordability
The City projects that given the programs identified above, an additional 12 ADUs (on average

1.5 ADUs per year) will be produced throughout the eight-year planning cycle and that ADU programs in the Housing Element will center on principles of diversity, equity, and access for ADUs (See Appendix F). Therefore, the City projects 160 total ADUs (148 ADUs based on recent historical trends plus 12 ADUs given ADU-specific programs in the Housing Element) will be constructed during the 6th cycle.

ABAG conducted a regional ADU affordability analysis to provide local governments in the region with assumptions for ADU affordability that can be used to assign projected ADUs to income categories. The ADU affordability assumptions identified in the ABAG analysis were applied to ADUs projected over the planning period are listed in Table B-2.

Agenda Report Page 288 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-5 Table B-2: Affordability per ABAG ADU Survey
Income Level Percent ADU Projections
Extremely Low/Very Low 30% 48
Low 30% 48
Moderate 30% 48
Above Moderate 10% 16
Total 160
Source: ABAG, 2021
In addition to utilizing the affordability assumptions identified by ABAG referenced above, the City has committed to conducting its own local survey of both ADU affordability levels and ADU occupancy in order to better understand the characteristics of its current ADU stock (see Program

3.H), and adjust assumptions or incentives to support the City’s reliance on ADUs in the planning period. In addition, through Program 1.S, upon receipt of the letter from HCD outlining any potential noncompliance issues related to ADUs, the City will revise its ADU ordinance for compliance with State ADU law. This will also serve to increase the number of ADU applications during the planning period.

B.2.2 Entitled and Proposed Developments
Because the RHNA projection period for the 2023-2031 Housing Element begins on June 30, 2022, housing developments that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projected period or that have been proposed or received entitlement and are not expected to be issued a certificate of occupancy or final permit on or after July 1, 2022, can be credited toward the RHNA (assuming they will be completed before the end of the planning period (January 31, 2031)). Table B-3 lists those projects that meet those criteria and can be credited toward the 6th Cycle RHNA. Entitled and proposed developments would result in 1 net new unit.

Table B-3: Approved/Entitled Developments
APN Address Status
Units by Income Level
Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total Net
New1
50-4579-41 89 Maxwelton Rd Permit issued 1 1
Total 1 1
1 No projects are located on parcels with existing residential units where the existing residential units will be demolished.

Approved ADU associated with this project at 89 Maxwelton Road is accounted for in the ADU projections section.

Source: City of Piedmont
Agenda Report Page 289 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-6 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology B.2.3 Density and Capacity Assumptions
Table B-4 identifies the maximum allowed and realistic densities used in the site inventory analysis, in dwelling units per acre (du/ac), for zones that allow residential uses. The densities assume the City completes Programs 1.F, to increase the maximum allowed density in Zone B to 60 dwelling units per acre, Program 1.H to increase the maximum allowed density in Zone D to 81 dwelling units per acre, and Program 1.D to modify Zone A to allow religious institution affiliated housing in Zone A at densities of 21 dwelling units per acre.

Table B-4: Density Assumptions
Zone Maximum du/ac Realistic du/ac
1 Notes
A
Single Family
Residential 1 unit per site 1 unit per site ‒
A
Religious Institution
Affiliated Housing 21 du/ac* 17 du/ac
*Requires Zone Amendment
to allow religious institution
affiliated housing
B Public Facilities 60 du/ac* 48 du/ac *Requires Zone Amendment to allow 60 du/ac
C
Multi-Family
Residential 60 du/ac* 48 du/ac *Requires Zone Amendment to allow 60 du/ac D
Commercial/Mixed
Use Residential 81 du/ac* 65 du/ac *Requires Zone Amendment to allow 81 du/ac E
Single Family
Residential Estate 1 unit per site 1 unit per site ‒
1 Realistic du/ac is calculated by discounting 20 percent of Maximum Du/Ac. See narrative below for more information.

The most recent multi-family development in Piedmont is the completion of former Program 1.B from the 5th Cycle Housing Element. The City approved the Linda Avenue townhome project in 2015, with construction completed in 2018. The project was built on a 0.35-acre site and reached 100 percent of the maximum allowed capacity of 20 units an acre, with seven new units completed.

Based on comparable developments that have occurred in and near Piedmont (see Tables B-5 and B-8), a developer preference to utilize the most development potential as possible on a given site given land costs, best practices, capacity estimates utilized in prior housing element cycles, and the experience of other jurisdictions in analyzing realistic capacity, the City conservatively assumes a 20 percent density reduction from maximum allowed density for multi-family and residential mixed-use development projects in Zone D to account for potential site constraints.

The projects in Table B-5, in particular, demonstrate the viability and trend to develop housing on sites of all sizes, at a range of densities similar to those proposed for Piedmont (i.e., 60-81 du/ac), and with similar development regulations as proposed for Zone C and Zone D in the Housing Element (see programs 1.G and 1.H). There is also significant regional evidence pointing to projects achieving densities greater than 100 percent by utilization of State density bonus incentives (see Tables B-5 and B-89). Since the State does not allow cities to project unit potential Agenda Report Page 290 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-7 produced through density bonuses in the Housing Element, the City maintains a conservative approach to estimating realistic density and realistic capacity.

The sites inventory proposes 60 housing units on a portion of 18 acres of City-owned land along Moraga Avenue, portions of which are currently used for the City corporation yard and as a City park. Another 83 units of lower income housing are sited on two sites larger than ½ acre in Zone D on Grand Avenue. In addition, the proposed sites inventory includes above moderate-income, multi-family housing on sites less than ½ acre in Zone D on Grand Avenue. Although Zone B and D do allow 100 percent non-residential development, the City has control over development on city owned sites in Zone B and there is no history in the past 30 years of any redevelopment of privately owned sites into entirely non-residential projects. The two most recent redevelopment projects include a 1997 mixed-use development (ground floor commercial with residential unit above) in Zone D at 1235 Grand Avenue and the 2015 Linda Avenue townhome project described above, which converted a commercial use into an entirely residential project. There is no local evidence of 100 percent commercial redevelopment during the past three decades, therefore the City maintains a conservative assumption that multi-family projects would be developed at 80 percent of the maximum allowed density in Zone B and D. Additionally, the City must comply with no-net loss provisions, and if any sites do not develop with the number of units as anticipated in the Housing Element, the City will identify additional sites to ensure adequate capacity for remaining RHNA throughout the planning period. To further facilitate residential development the Housing Element includes Program 1.H to modify development standards in Zone D to increase development potential and waive the ground floor commercial requirement to incentivize housing and Program 4.U. to modify the findings for Conditional Use Permits to reduce constraints to residential development.

As indicated in Table B-5, the development of small parcels (e.g., less than a quarter of an acre, and in some cases, less than a tenth of an acre) in the Bay Area is commonplace. Given high land values and unmet demand, the size of smaller parcels does not present an impediment to the redevelopment of these parcels for housing. In addition, the City is proposing programs 4.J Small Lot Housing Study and 4.K Small Lot Affordable Housing Study to study and undertake measures to promote the development of smaller lots.

In addition, to substantiate its assumptions in Zone D (maximum 81 du/acre), realistic capacity projections (80 percent of maximum density), and the inclusion of small lots in the sites inventory, the City conducted analyses of housing developments with a similar profile throughout the Bay Area (see Table B-5).

For example, the 4395 and 4429 Piedmont Avenue projects in Oakland both have a maximum allowable density of 79 dwelling units per acre, comparable to the 81 dwelling units per acre maximum density proposed in Zone D through Program 1.H. While 350 24th Street in Oakland is developing at 77 percent of its maximum density, projects such as 711 Walker Avenue and 4395 Piedmont Avenue in Oakland, 270 E. Empire Street in Santa Clara, and 107 G Street in San Rafael are all developing at 100 percent of maximum allowable density, or more.

Agenda Report Page 291 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-8 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology In addition to Table B-5, the projects in Table B-8 include several examples of projects developing on nonvacant land at over 200 percent the maximum allowable density. These examples, provided from this fine-grained, site-by-site analysis in surrounding areas, demonstrate strong residential demand for high-density, multi-family residential development in the East Bay, even on nonvacant sites, and support the conservative assumptions the City of Piedmont is making in the sites inventory.

Table B-5: Density and Capacity Project Examples
Project City Site Size
(ac)
Allowed Density
(max du/ac) Units
Achieved
Density (du/ac)
Affordable
Units?
Percent
Achieved
350 24th St. Oakland 0.04 97 (450 sf/unit) 3 75 N 77%
711 Walker Ave. Oakland 0.21 54 (800 sf/unit) 14 66 N 122% 4429 Piedmont
Ave.

Oakland 0.17 79 (550 sf/unit) 10 58 N 73%
4395 Piedmont
Ave.

Oakland 0.30 79 26 89 N 113%
107 G St. San Rafael 0.17 44 10 59 N 135%
270 E Empire St. Santa Clara 1.70 56 96 56 Y 100%
1309 Mission Rd. South San
Francisco 0.48 50 20 42 N 83%
Although not required, in order to understand development opportunities for higher density and mixed-use scenarios, the City conducted site feasibility analyses in the Spring and Summer of 2021 and a massing model in October 2022. The results of the original analysis, published in October 2021, indicate the feasibility of affordable residential mixed-use development on lots 0.45 acres and 0.80 acres when utilizing the State Density Bonus, with resulting densities up to 83 dwelling units per acre. Additional analyses demonstrated the possibility of a 100 percent residential project on a 0.65-acre lot, resulting in 62 units (96 du/ac). To facilitate these densities, the City will complete Programs 1.D, 1.F, and 1.H (as noted above) to increase base density in Zone D to 81 dwelling units per acre and to modify the standards in Zone D to increase height to four stories of residential and reduce parking to minimum one parking space per unit.

B.2.4 Methodology
To create Housing Element sites inventory in compliance with State law, the City of Piedmont developed a comprehensive, iterative methodology to screen parcels for near-term development.

The methodology is comprised of several phases described below.

Phase 1a: Vacant Sites that Allow Residential
The City identified all vacant parcels that allow residential (per Table B-4). Parcels were determined to be vacant based on City GIS data, which classified vacant parcels from a previous Agenda Report Page 292 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-9 vacant land inventory. Then, City staff reviewed each parcel by APN and address to confirm vacant status of all parcels.

Phase 1b: Nonvacant Sites that Have Residential Development Potential (See Section B.2.5)
Since the City is generally nearly built out, the City also identified nonvacant sites to analyze in the sites inventory. Parcels that were considered during this phase included:
• Religious institutions and their parking lots (AB 1851) • City-owned land (subject to replacement or relocation of facilities for city operations) • Multiple sites under the same ownership
• Parking lots
• Public land (e.g. EBMUD reservoir)
• Underutilized commercial and mixed-use sites
Phase 2: Screening
Parcels that passed through Phase 1 were then screened using the criteria below:

1. The parcel does not have a current entitlement

2. Current use is not a right-of-way, utility, gas station, or other public use with no near-term redevelopment potential (e.g. utility sites)

3. Site has street access, or can be accessible through an easement by the same property owner
Phase 3: Categorization
Remaining eligible parcels were assessed to determine which income levels they can accommodate. Each parcel was determined to be able to accommodate a specific income category given its maximum allowable density standards (see Table B-6). The lower income category threshold is consistent with the default density for Piedmont pursuant to Government Code §65583.2.

Table B-6: Income Levels by Density
Density Allowed by Zone Income Level
< 20 dwelling units/acre Above Moderate
≥ 20 dwelling units/acre, less than 0.5
acres or greater than 10 acres in size Moderate/Above Moderate ≥ 20 dwelling units/acre, >.05 acres and
<10 acres in size Lower
Source: LWC, HCD
Agenda Report Page 293 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-10 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology Per HCD guidance, sites accommodating lower-income housing should be between 0.5 and 10 acres in size. All sites originally considered lower income based on density, but whose lot size is smaller than 0.5 or larger than 10 acres were categorized for moderate or above moderateincome housing. Furthermore, there are several sites in Zone A which are conservatively classified for moderate income housing because they do not meet the site size criteria for lower income. These sites could be developed for religious institution affiliated housing pursuing to AB 1851, and therefore could potentially include a greater depth of affordability than is assumed in the sites inventory.

Phase 4: Site-by-Site Assessment
Despite the screening analysis, some potential sites had existing development or other conditions (e.g., ownership, existing uses that were not likely to discontinue during the planning period, etc.) that preclude them from the sites inventory. The analysis included multiple rounds of site-by-site assessments and refinement of sites and zoning recommendations to ensure adequate capacity.

Analysis was based on additional information from direct observation or firsthand experience from City staff. For example, parcels that had development potential (i.e., no built structures, Cityowned) but were used for recreation or were otherwise not preferred as housing sites were not included. Additionally, sites that had previously been excluded from the inventory were revisited subject to certain conditions, such as zoning amendments, coordinated replacement of cityfacilities and operations to maintain service, or inclusion in a specific plan study. (For more information on a proposed specific plan study, see Section B.3.1. and Program 1.L) As part of its site-by-site analysis, the City also commissioned two economic reports to analyze the feasibility of development of City-owned property at the Civic Center, along with modernizing civic uses. The first report, dated August 1, 2022, analyzed the feasibility of developing 40 lowincome and 13 moderate-income units at the Civic Center and found that the Civic Center would need at least 0.5 acres and additional funding or regulatory incentives, such as a density of 100 units per acre (this density could include use of a density bonus), to develop these units. The report found Piedmont overall to be attractive to affordable housing developers because of its “highest resource” designation.

The second report analyzed the feasibility of developing 13 to 18 moderate-income or above moderate-income housing units at no more than 5 stories at 801 Magnolia Avenue in the City’s Civic Center area. The report concluded that 13 to 18 units could fit at 801 Magnolia at densities that would not require higher than five stories, and that the coordinated development under a Civic Center Master Plan and provision of additional funding sources or other development incentives would be needed to increase feasibility. These efforts illustrate the City’s thoroughness in its site evaluations and commitment to facilitating the development of housing.

The result of these economic studies, combined with public input received from April through November 2022 resulted in refinement to the sites inventory and inclusion of additional sites.

Agenda Report Page 294 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-11 This site-by-site analysis included an evaluation of environmental and infrastructure constraints, which are described in Appendix C. All identified sites have access to infrastructure and utilities, with water and sewer capacity to support proposed development. The only exceptions are the few lots without current street frontage, which would require an access easement across an existing parcel and lateral sewer and water extensions from the nearest street, as noted in Table B-1011. In addition, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) provided notice that general water and sewer capacity exists for the potential housing development but that individual project sponsors will be responsible for the cost of any main extensions and will need to work with EBMUD to plan for water and sewer service infrastructure.

Phase 5: Parcels in Prior Housing Elements
Vacant parcels from both the 4th and 5th Cycles and non-vacant parcels from the 5th Cycle can be reused in this Housing Element (the 6th Cycle) to accommodate lower-income housing, but they must be rezoned to allow projects with at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower income households to be permitted by-right. While the 5th Cycle listed 58 vacant sites in Zone A and Zone E, the City did not rely on any of these vacant sites to accommodate the 5 th Cycle lower-income
RHNA. In the 5th Cycle, the City relied on redevelopment of two commercial sites in Zone D, 29 Wildwood Avenue and 1201 Grand Avenue, for 6 lower income units. Neither 5 th Cycle site is
being reused in this 6
th Cycle sites inventory. Therefore, all 6th Cycle sites are eligible for use without limitations or rezoning with the specifications above.

B.2.5 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites
Since residential land in Piedmont is generally nearly built out, the sites inventory includes nonvacant sites. Nonvacant sites are relied on to accommodate more than 50 percent of the City’s lower income RHNA. Therefore, the City conducted an analysis to determine if substantial evidence exists to support the premise that housing can be accommodated on these sites and/or existing uses on these sites will be discontinued during the planning period (2023-2031).

Nonvacant parcels primarily include relatively large properties (over 0.50 acres) irrespective of current use, underutilized sites with surface parking, and commercial buildings where the existing uses are of marginal economic viability, or the structures are at or near the end of their useful life.

Screening for potential sites considered market conditions and recent development trends throughout the Bay Area and the State and utilized conservative assumptions in projecting units well below observed densities for residential and mixed-use projects.

Table B-7 provides an overview of five nonvacant sites in Piedmont that can accommodate lower income housing. As indicated in Table B-9, all of the sites are proposed to allow 21 to 81 dwelling units per acre. The sites listed in Table B-7 have a wide variety of uses including City Corporation Yard, commercial uses, and a church. The uses on the two City-owned sies are not impediments, as the City has control over the function and development of the property. The following character and opportunity for redevelopment of the three sites are privately owned sites is provided below:

Agenda Report Page 295 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-12 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology 1221 Grand Avenue
Ace Hardware located at 1221 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4557-15-1, Land Use Category:

Mixed Use
This site is currently home to a single-story commercial building operating as a Ace Hardware, built prior to 1990, and consists of .65 acres of land. The parcel provides a large surface parking lot which takes up approximately half the site, with 26 parking spaces.

Historical aerial imagery shows that the current structure predates 1980. The site is oriented towards Grand Avenue, one of the City’s busiest thoroughfares. At a proposed density of 81 du/ac the site could potentially provide up to 53 housing units for the City.

The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 0.76% per year over the past 10 years. There are no known impediments that would potentially prevent the future redevelopment of this parcel to include multi-family residential development. 1221 Grand Avenue is currently developed with a single-story commercial building, operating as an Ace Hardware store, along the City’s busiest thoroughfare. Approximately half of the site contains a surface parking lot, and historical aerial imagery shows that the current structure predates 1980. The age of the structure and large quantity of surface parking make it a candidate for redevelopment, particularly with the greater density and additional land use allowances as proposed under the Housing Element. This site is well served by public transit. The existing use would not be an impediment to redevelopment of the site. Additionally, the City has received a letter of property owner interest in developing the property for multi-family residential use during the cycle.

Office building located at 1337 - 1375 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4558-15-2, Land Use Category: Mixed Use
This site consists of two single-story office buildings connected by a breezeway, built in 1989. The location houses several medical offices and a Sylvan Learning location. The parcel is oriented as a corner lot and includes two parking lots that comprise approximately half of the parcel area, along the City’s busiest throughfare, one facing Sunnyside Avenue and another with access from Linda Avenue. The parking lots provides approximately 30 parking spots with no landscaping on the property. The site consists of .63 acres and at a proposed density of 81 du/ac could accommodate up to 53 housing units. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 1.46% per year over the past 10 years. Investments in the property have centered around maintenance and upkeep.

The property at 1337 Grand Avenue contains a two-story structure with medical and other offices, including a Sylvan Learning Center, as well as two parking lots that comprise approximately half of the parcel area, along the City’s busiest throughfare. Based on aerial imagery, the current buildings date back to the early 1990s. The site is well-served by Agenda Report Page 296 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-13 public transit. The age of the structure and large quantity of surface parking make it a candidate for redevelopment, particularly with the greater density and additional land use allowances as proposed under the Housing Element. These existing uses would not be an impediment to redevelopment of the site. Additionally, the City has received a letter of property owner interest in developing the property for multi-family residential use during the cycle.

Church and school located at 5201 Park Blvd, APN: 51-4820-11-18, Land Use Category: Residential - House of Worship
5201 Park Blvd. currently houses two-story Zion Lutheran Church and a two-story branch of the Renaissance International School, built in 1955. Park Boulevard is an arterial roadway. The parcel has a large surface parking lot providing approximately 50 parking spaces and shares the lot with an adjacent parcel. The parcel is surrounded by unused open space area and is across the street from an open space area. The parcel has 2.22 acres and at a proposed density of 21 du/ac a maximum of 47 units could potentially occupy this site. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 1.35% per year over the past 10 years.
5201 Park Boulevard is a large site currently developed and operating as a religious facility with a substantial portion of the site undeveloped and/or used for parking. Park Boulevard is an arterial roadway. The church school site has been included because of the opportunity for affordable housing reflected in AB 1851 and AB 2244. AB 1851 and AB 2244 facilitates the provision of affordable housing on religious institution property and prohibits cities from requiring the replacement of parking spaces lost due to the construction of housing units, eliminating up to 50 percent of the required number of spaces (Government Code §65913.6). The existing use would not be an impediment to redevelopment of the site. Additionally, the City has received a letter of property owner interest in developing a large portion of the property for multi-family residential use during the cycle.

Table B-7, below, provides data on the nonvacant sites included in the sites inventory designated for lower income units. Table B-8 describes several examples of nonvacant parcelssites in the Bay Area that are redeveloping for housing. Table B-8 describes several nonvacant sites in the Bay Area that are redeveloping for housing.

Table B-7: Existing Uses on Lower Income Sites
APN Address Zone Site Size
(ac) Existing Use Lower Income Unit Capacity1
051 482001118 5201 Park Blvd. A 2.22 Church 37
048A700200303 and
050 457906100, et al.
898 Red Rock Rd. and
Red Rock/Moraga Ave.

B

8.99 and

1.49 Corporation Yard, Park,
Corporation Yard Parking 60
Agenda Report Page 297 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-14 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology Table B-7: Existing Uses on Lower Income Sites
APN Address Zone Site Size
(ac) Existing Use Lower Income Unit Capacity1
050 455801502 1337 Grand Ave. D 0.63 Commercial 41
050 455701501 1221 Grand Ave. D 0.65 Commercial 42
Total 180
1 Assumes zoning amendments consistent with Programs 1.D, 1.F, 1.H, and 1.L Source: City of Piedmont, LWC
In addition to identifying non-vacant sites for accommodating lower income unit capacity, sites with existing improvements have been identified as sites suitable to accommodate housing for moderate and above moderate income households during the planning period. These properties have not been the site of significant capital improvements over the last decades (See Table B-8) and in general contain improvements and uses that would not form an impediment to redevelopment during the planning period. In each case the property has either not seen any meaningful capital investment or the owner has indicated that they would be open to redeveloping the property during the planning period.

Wells Fargo 356 Highland Ave (Terrace), APNs: 50-4623-5, 50-4623-6-2 Land Use Category: Mixed Use
This address contains 2 parcels, the terrace which is on APN 50-4623-5 and the two-story primary building which is currently occupied by a bank and office spaces, built in 1972 or earlier, on APN 50-4623-6-2. The total acreage of the two parcels is .32 acres and with a proposed density of 81 du/ac could potentially create up to 26 new units. The building and terrace occupy tangential parcels. The parcels have not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 1.26% per year over the past 10 years. The property has not undergone any significant capital improvements in the last decade, this combined with the age of the improvements would not cause the existing uses to be an impediment towards future redevelopment.

CitiBank & Mulberry’s Market 333/335 Highland Ave, APNs: 50-4624-10, 50-4624-11 | Land Use Category: Mixed Use
This address contains two parcels. APN 50-4624-10 contains Citibank (333 Highland Ave) and Mulberry’s Market (335 Highland Ave). APN 50-4624-11, both built in 1972 or earlier, is a paved area which contains parking and a connection to the adjacent building’s (Bank of America) parking lot and access to Vista Ave. CitiBank and Mulberry’s Market one-story and has entrance oriented towards the street and parking lot with nine parking spots in the commercial strip. The total acreage of the two parcels is .29 acres and with a proposed density of 81 du/ac a maximum of 24 new units could be built. Although the building Agenda Report Page 298 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-15 located on APN 50-4624-10 shows an increase in improvement value over the past decade, recent transfers are due to changes in the trust and a restructuring of ownership, not a sale of the property. A review of the building permits show that investments made in recent years are general maintenance, such as an HVAC replacement in 2022 (valued at $45,000), rather than significant investments in property upgrades or expansion. Thus, the improvements would not cause the existing uses to be an impediment towards future redevelopment.

Bank of America 345 Highland Ave, APN: 50-4624-12, Land Use Category: Mixed Use
This single parcel contains .15 acres of land and is currently occupied by a Bank of America branch, built in 1972 or earlier, on the corner of Highland Avenue and Vista Avenue. The building is two-stories and is oriented on the street corner with a shared parking lot to the small commercial strip. The parcel contains approximately eight parking spaces. The parcel has not had an increase in improvement value relative to total assessed value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of .82% per year over the past 10 years. The property has not undergone any significant capital improvements in the last decade, this combined with the age of the improvements would not cause the existing uses to be an impediment towards future redevelopment.

Dental office and Dance School located at 1333 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4557-2, Land Use Category: Mixed Use
This single parcel sits on .14 acres of land and currently contains a two-story commercial building, built in 1961, with a dance studio on the first floor and a dental office on the second floor. The parcel is a corner lot and provides five parking spots at the rear of the building. At a proposed density of 81 du/ac the site could potentially create a maximum of 18 units in the City. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 1.23% per year over the past 10 years. These existing uses would not be an impediment to redevelopment of the site.

Medical office building located at 1331 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4557-4-1, Land Use Category: Mixed Use
The parcel located at 1331 Grand Ave currently contains a two-story medical office building, built circa 1991, on .14 acres with structured parking occupying the first floor. The building faces Grand Avenue. At a proposed density of 81 du/ac the site could potentially create a maximum of 18 units in the City. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 1.31% per year over the past 10 years. These existing uses would not be an impediment to redevelopment of the site.

Agenda Report Page 299 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-16 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology Single -family home located at 1327 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4557-5, Land Use Category:

Mixed Use
This parcel is a three-story single -family home, built in 1924, sitting on .11 acres of land with one parking space occupying part of the first floor. The home faces Grand Avenue and contains landscaping in the front and rear yards. The home was last sold in 2010 for $915,000. At a proposed density of 81 du/ac the parcel could potentially provide a maximum of 9 units for the City. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 1.09% per year over the past 10 years. There are no known impediments that would potentially prevent the future redevelopment of this parcel to include multi-family residential development.

Single -family home located at 1321 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4557-6, Land Use Category:

Mixed Use
This parcel is a three-story single -family home sitting on .11 acres of land with one parking space occupying part of the first floor and contains landscaping in the front yard. The building faces Grand Avenue. The structure was built in 1914 . At a proposed density of 81 du/ac the parcel could accommodate 9 units for the City. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 0.42% per year over the past 10 years. There are no known impediments that would potentially prevent the future redevelopment of this parcel to include multi-family residential development.

Single -family home located at 1311 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4557-7, Land Use Category:

Mixed Use
This parcel is a three-story single -family home, built in 1914, sitting on .11 acres of land.

The home does not have an off- street parking space and faces Grand Avenue and contains landscaping in the front yard. According to the Alameda County Assessor, the property has not sold since 1992. At a proposed density of 81 du/ac the parcel could accommodate 9 units for the City. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 0.33% per year over the past 10 years. There are no known impediments that would potentially prevent the future redevelopment of this parcel to include multi-family residential development.
1243 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4557-8, Land Use Category: Mixed Use This parcel is a two-story single -family home sited on .11 acres of land and provides one parking space on the parcel. The building faces Grand Avenue and contains landscaping in the front and rear yards. The home was built in 1923 and has not recorded any significant new improvements. At a proposed density of 81 du/ac the parcel could accommodate 9 units for the City. The home was last sold in 2022 for $1,800,000. While the property has seen investment in improvements in the past several years, the current Agenda Report Page 300 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-17 property owner has indicated to the City via email that they would be willing to consider a redevelopment offer should it arise.

Single -family home located at 1239 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4557-9, Land Use Category:

Mixed Use
This parcel is a two-story single -family home sitting on .11 acres of land and provides one parking space on the parcel. The building faces Grand Avenue and contains landscaping in the front and rear yards. The home was built in 1923 and has not recorded any significant new improvements. At a proposed density of 81 du/ac the parcel could accommodate 9 units for the City. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 0.42% per year over the past 10 years. There are no known impediments that would potentially prevent the future redevelopment of this parcel to include multi-family residential development.

Mixed use building located at 1235 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4557-10, Land Use Category: Mixed Use
This parcel is a two-story structure, built in 1923, with a retail store on the ground floor and two residential units on the second floor. The building sits on .11 acres of land and oriented towards Grand Avenue. The parcel does not provide any parking spaces. The parcel was last sold in 1996 for $249,000. At a proposed density of 81 du/ac the parcel could potentially accommodate of 9 units. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 1.29% per year over the past 10 years. There are no known impediments that would potentially prevent the future redevelopment of this parcel to include multi-family residential development.

Single -family home located at 1246 Grand Ave, APN: 51-4638-15-3, Land Use Category: Mixed Use
This parcel is a two-story single -family home, built in 1951, sitting on .11 acres of land facing Grantd Avenue and adjacent to a gas station. The parcel contains one parking space with landscaping at the front of the home. The home was last sold in 2013 for $675,000. At a proposed density of 81 du/ac the parcel could accommodate 9 units on this site. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of

0.94% per year over the past 10 years. There are no known impediments that would potentially prevent the future redevelopment of this parcel to include multi-family residential development.

Plymouth United Church of Christ (424 Monte Vista Ave. Oakland, CA 94611) This address is home to Plymouth United Church of Christ, a single-story church in Oakland, built in 1959, with parcels that fall within Piedmont. In Piedmont, 5 parcels exist associated with this address. One parcel, (Olive Ave, APN: 50-927-4-3, Land Use Agenda Report Page 301 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-18 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology Category: Residential - House of Worship) contains the church’s parking lot and abuts Olive Avenue in Piedmont. The other four parcels are vacant land providing approximately 25 parking spots with sparse vegetation and include the following:
• Olive Ave, APN: 50-927-5, Land Use Category: Residential - House of Worship • Olive Ave, APN: 50-927-6, Land Use Category: Residential - House of Worship • Olive Ave, APN: 50-927-7, Land Use Category: Residential - House of Worship • Oakland Ave, APN: 50-927-13, Land Use Category: Residential - House of Worship
The total acreage from the 5 parcels totals .48 acres. With a proposed density of 21 du/ac, developing this land could accommodate 10 additional units in the City. The current building has not expanded in recent years and does not impede future development on the surrounding sites. The City has received a letter of property owner interest in developing the property for multi-family residential use during the cycle.

Piedmont Community Church and Linda Beach Cooperative Preschool located at 400 Highland Ave, APN: 50-4623-4, Land Use Category: Residential - House of Worship
400 Highland Ave houses Piedmont Community Church and Linda Beach Cooperative Preschool, built in 1921 with later additions built prior to 1990. Both buildings are twostories and wrap-around an open space courtyard. The back of the building provides five parking spaces with a long private driveway. The location has 1.5 acres of land which at a proposed density of 21 du/ac could accommodate 31 new housing units for the City. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 1.10% per year over the past 10 years. The City has received a letter of property owner interest in developing the property with multi-family residential use during the cycle, and the current use does not impede potential for redevelopment during the planning period.

Kehilla Community Synagogue located at 1300 Grand Ave, APN: 50-4636-35, Land Use Category: Residential - House of Worship
This site is home to Kehilla Community Synagogue, built in 1952, which sits on .4 acres of land. The two-story building sites on a corner lot. The parcel provides 17 parking spaces with a small courtyard outside of the building. At a proposed density of 21 du/ac the location could accommodate 8 housing units for the City. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 0.76% per year over the past 10 years. The City has received a letter of property owner interest in developing the property with multi-family residential use during the cycle, and the current use does not impede potential for redevelopment during the planning period.

Agenda Report Page 302 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-19 Corpus Christi Elementary School located at 4925 Park Blvd, APN: 11-4812-11-10, Land Use Category: Residential - House of Worship
This address houses Corpus Christi Elementary School, a religious affiliated elementary school, built in 1951, located adjacent to Corpus Christi Church (on a separate parcel).

The building has areas with one-story and two-stories and is located on a corner lot. The parcel provides a large parking lot behind the building with approximately 55 parking spaces. The location has 1.49 acres of land at a proposed density of 21 du/ac could accommodate 31 additional housing units for the City. The parcel has not demonstrated an increase in improvement value relative to total value in the past decade with an average annual improvement value increase of 1.03% per year over the past 10 years. The City has received a letter of property owner interest in developing the property with multi-family residential use during the cycle, and the current use does not impede potential for redevelopment during the planning period.

Table B-8 summarizes the relevant factors for these sites.

Table B-8: Above Moderate Non-Vacant Sites, Improvement Value Changes APN Address Tenant(s)/Use Land Use
Category Zone
2012-2022
improveme
nts Change
in Value
Improvements
change 2012-
2022 as % of
2022 value
Annual
Change in
Value
2012-2022
050 462300500 356 HIGHLAND AVE
(terrace)
Vacant (Wells Fargo at
address) mixed use D $0 0.00% 0.00%
050 462300602 356 HIGHLAND AVE Wells Fargo mixed use D $323,480 12.59% 1.26% 050 462401000 333 HIGHLAND AVE CitiBank/Mulberry's Market mixed use D $477,414 29.60% 2.96% 050 462401100 333 HIGHLAND AVE CitiBank/Mulberry's Market parking lot mixed use D $0 0.00% 0.00%
050 462401200 345 HIGHLAND AVE Bank of America mixed use D $77,434 8.17% 0.82% 050 455700200 1333 GRAND AVE Dental Office and Dance
School mixed use D $183,446 12.33% 1.23%
050 455700401 1331 GRAND AVE Multiple Tenants mixed use D $104,475 13.11% 1.31% 050 455700500 1327 GRAND AVE Single Family Residential
Home mixed use D $119,920 10.86% 1.09%
050 455700600 1321 GRAND AVE Single Family Residential
Home mixed use D $14,454 4.24% 0.42%
050 455700700 1311 GRAND AVE Single Family Residential
Home mixed use D $6,192 3.27% 0.33%
050 455700800 1243 GRAND AVE Single Family Residential
Home mixed use D $372,494 28.44% 2.84%
050 455700900 1239 GRAND AVE Single Family Residential
Home mixed use D $6,953 4.18% 0.42%
050 455701000 1235 GRAND AVE Store/Office with
Apartments/Lofts mixed use D $91,718 12.95% 1.29%
051 463801503 1246 GRAND AVE Single Family Residential
Home mixed use D $73,294 9.40% 0.94%
Agenda Report Page 303 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-20 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology Table B-8: Above Moderate Non-Vacant Sites, Improvement Value Changes APN Address Tenant(s)/Use Land Use
Category Zone
2012-2022
improveme
nts Change
in Value
Improvements
change 2012-
2022 as % of
2022 value
Annual
Change in
Value
2012-2022
051 482001118 5201 PARK BLVD Renaissance International
School
residential
- house of
worship
A $209,530 13.49% 1.35%
050 455801502 1337 GRAND AVE Multiple Tenants mixed use D $764,010 14.61% 1.46% 050 455701501 1221 GRAND AVE Ace Hardware mixed use D $69,638 7.65% 0.76% 050 092700403 OLIVE AVE Plymouth United Church of
Christ Church Parking Lot
residential
- house of
worship
A $250 0.64% 0.06%
050 092700500 OLIVE AVE Plymouth United Church
vacant land
residential
- house of
worship
A $0 0.00% 0.00%
050 092700600 OLIVE AVE Plymouth United Church
vacant land
residential
- house of
worship
A $0 0.00% 0.00%
050 092700700 OLIVE AVE Plymouth United Church
vacant land
residential
- house of
worship
A $0 0.00% 0.00%
050 092701300 OAKLAND AVE Plymouth United Church
vacant land
residential
- house of
worship
A $0 0.00% 0.00%
050 462300400 400 HIGHLAND AVE
Piedmont Community
Church/Linda Beach
Cooperative Preschool
residential
- house of
worship
A $220,006 10.95% 1.10%
051 463603500 1300 GRAND AVE Kehilla Community
Synagogue
residential
- house of
worship
A $203,680 7.56% 0.76%
051 481201110 4925 PARK BLVD
Corpus Christi Elementary
School (adjacent to Corpus
Christi Church)
residential
- house of
worship
A $119,767 10.29% 1.03%
Development trends in the Bay Area and across the State demonstrate the intensification of underutilized properties into multi-family and high-density residential mixed-use projects.

Piedmont has experience in this type of redevelopment with Piedmont Station Townhouses on Linda Avenue (a former PG&E substation site on less than 1/2 acre), which was completed in 2017. This project produced 7 units on 0.35 acres for a density of 20 dwelling units per acre with units selling for an average of $1.85 million. However, redevelopment of nonvacant sites with higher densities is occurring in neighboring Oakland and provides insight on potential interest in redevelopment in Piedmont for market-rate and affordable housing.

Table B-8 9 identifies nine recently developed, planned, and proposed residential projects in Oakland and the surrounding region on nonvacant parcels. Some of these projects are being constructed on relatively small sites that had existing low density uses on underutilized lots, which are similar to the conditions in Piedmont opportunity sties, as described above. Furthermore, many of the examples in Table B-9 are within 4 to 6 story buildings, which are allowed by-right or Agenda Report Page 304 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-21 with a density bonus, under the proposed changes to Piedmont’s Zone B, C, and D regulations.

The size of the sites ranges from 0.27 to 1.77 acres and the existing uses include churches, public facilities, and commercial. By-right densities range from about 30 to almost 200 dwelling units per acre, with most sites utilizing more than the allowed density due to utilization of density bonus.

However, several of the projects in Table B-8 are within the range proposed by the City (see Table B-4). This correlation shows a trend of development in the region to redevelop low density commercial buildings into mid-rise multi-family.

Table B-9: Development on Nonvacant Sites in Oakland and the Bay Area City Address
Site
Size
(ac)
Previous
Use
Built
Height
Final
Unit
Count
Number of
Affordable
Units
By-Right
Density
(du/ac)
Density
Bonus? Status
Built
Densit
y
(du/ac
)
% of
Max
Density
Oakland
230 W
MacArthur
Blvd.

0.27 Gas
Station
(1 story)
6 stories 57 6 31 Y UnderConstruction 211 681%
Oakland 285 12th
St. 0.34 Parking Lot 7stories 65 65 65 Y In Design Stage 191 294% Oakland 3419 San
Pablo Ave. 0.35
Commercia
l Building
and
Parking Lot
7 stories 60 60 55 Y In Design Stage 171 311%
Oakland 7120
Hawley St. 0.5
Warehous
e
(1 story)
6 stories 59 59 54 Y UnderConstruction 118 219%
Oakland 532 Union
St. 0.62 Parking Lot 6stories 110 0 110 N Complete 2021 177 161% Oakland
2372
Internation
al Blvd.

0.63 Agnes
Memorial
Church
(Other
commercial
and
industrial
nonhistoric
buildings)
(1 story)
4 stories 60 60 99 Y Entitlements 2020 95 96%
Oakland 115 E 15th
St. 0.66 Parking Lot 5stories 92 91 63 Y Complete2014 139 221% Oakland 430
Broadway 1.37
County
Probation
Departmen
t
(4 stories)
8 stories 150 150 198 Y Preliminary Concept 109 55%
Walnut
Creek
1880-1888
Trinity Ave. 0.65
Religious
Facility
(2 stories)
4 stories 45 45 50 Y Complete 2020 68 136%
As discussed in Section B.2.3, the City of Piedmont also conducted a site feasibility analyses on smaller lots (0.45 acres, 0.65 acres, and 0.80 acres) that indicates the feasibility of affordable residential mixed-use development with densities up to 83 dwelling units per acre when utilizing the State Density Bonus and a possibility of 100 percent residential projects at up to 96 units per acre. To encourage the redevelopment of nonvacant sites with higher-density residential uses, Agenda Report Page 305 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-22 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology including housing affordable to households with lower incomes, the City proposes multiple programs to provide financial assistance, incentives, and regulatory concessions. These include, but aren’t limited to:
• Program 1.B: Market-Rate Accessory Dwelling Units
• Program 1.D: Allow Religious Institution Affiliated Housing Development in Zone A • Program 1.E: Require ADUs for New Single-Family Residence Construction • Program 1.F-1.H: Increase Allowances for Housing in Zones B, C, and D • Program 1.J: SB 9 Facilitation Amendments
• Program 1.L: Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
• Program 1.Q: Density Bonus Ordinance
• Program 1.R: Lower-Income Sites Modifications to Address Shortfall • Program 3.D: Affordable Housing Fund
• Program 4.J: Small Lot Housing Study
• Program 4.K: Small Lot Affordable Housing Study
• Program 4.L: Allow Parking Reductions for Multi-Family, Mixed-Use, and Affordable Projects
• Program 4.M: Allow Multi-Family and Residential Mixed-Use Projects by Right Subject to Objective Standards
As described above, many of the nonvacant housing sites identified in the City have underperforming uses and/or excess capacity. Based on recent development trends throughout the Bay Area and proactive efforts on the part of the City to encourage redevelopment of nonvacant sites, these sites are likely to redevelop during the planning period to provide much needed housing in the City of Piedmont.

Agenda Report Page 306 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-23 Section B.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites in Meeting RHNA Table B-9 10 summarizes the City’s methods for satisfying its RHNA and outlines the unit capacity of the sites inventory based on density assumptions provided above (Tables B-4 and B-65).

Based on ADU projections (Table B-2), entitled projects (Table B-3), and available sites (Table B-10B-11), the City has capacity for 644 units across all income categories, resulting in a 10 percent, or 58-unit, surplus over the RHNA.

Table B-910: Residential Development Potential and RHNA Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA See Very Low 163 94 92 238 587
Approved/Entitled Projects - - - - 1 1
Remaining RHNA 163 94 92 237 586
ADUs See Very Low 48 48 48 16 160
Site Inventory 1,2 1803 67 237 484
Total Capacity 276 115 253 644
Surplus 19 23 16 58
1 . See Table B-10 for the complete inventory
2 . See Section B.3.1 for information on the Specific Plan

3. For calculation purposes, extremely low, very low, and low income totals were grouped.

Source: City of Piedmont, LWC
The scenario in Table B-9 10 relies on zoning amendments, identified in previous sections, to ensure adequate capacity for all income levels. With completion of these amendments (Program

1.D, Program 1.F, Program 1.H, and Program 1.L), the City will have adequate capacity in all income categories, as shown in Table B-911. In addition, the City proposes a program to facilitate lot splits in single-family residential areas, as allowed under Senate Bill 9. The expected increase in new housing units under this program is not included in the estimated development potential in single-family zones. The City will monitor development during the 6th Cycle planning period, and will identify additional sites for housing development, if needed, to maintain availability of adequate sites.

AB 725 requires that 25 percent of a city’s above-moderate income RHNA and 25 percent of the city’s moderate-income RHNA be met on sites which accommodate four or more units per site.

As shown in Table B-10, approximately three-fourths (180 units) of Piedmont’s above moderateincome RHNA (238 units) is expected to occur on multi-family or mixed-use sites or as part of a specific plan (see Section B.3.1). Similarly, almost three-fourths (67 units) of the moderate income RHNA (92 units) are expected on sites accommodating 4 or more units.

Agenda Report Page 307 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-24 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology B.3.1 Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
As part of Program 1.L: Specific Plan, the City of Piedmont proposes to include four City-owned parcels along Moraga Avenue in Moraga Canyon in the northeastern portion of the City into a new specific Specific planPlan. The parcels included in the specific Specific plan Plan study area are: APN 050 457901900, 050 457908000, 048A700200303, and 050 457906100. North of Moraga Avenue are two parcels, totaling approximately 13.4 acres, that contain Coaches Field and Kennelly Skate Park recreational facilities, the City’s Public Works Department corporation yard, two small parking lots, and open space on sloping terrain. South of Moraga Avenue are two parcels, totaling approximately 4.85 acres, that provide an open space area, named Blair Park.

The proposed specific Specific plan Plan study area abuts Mountain View Cemetery to the north, and single-family residential neighborhoods to the east, south, and west.

Together, the four City-owned parcels and public right-of-way total approximately 18.25 acres. The City has the ability to subdivide the parcels and declare them to be surplus under the Surplus Land Act (SLA- California Government Code §54222 et seq.) with the purpose of allowing for the development of a minimum of 132 housing units at all income levels, while continuing to provide on-site City facilities and services. Parcelization and use of the notice and transfer provisions in the Surplus Land Act will help facilitate development of the large parcel at the site (APN 048A700200303 – 11.90 acres) to create affordable housing for lower-income households; affordability will be required through the Specific Plan process (see below).

These sites provide a viable development opportunity for mixed-income residential in a variety of housing forms, including single-family, duplex, and multi-family types. The City proposes to prepare a specific plan (Government Code §65450 et. seq) for the area to accommodate housing needs, incorporate existing amenities, modernize current city functions for efficiency, and minimize potential impacts. Park and recreational uses will be reconfigured and remain in the study area as an integral amenity, with the parking to be reconfigured, as needed, as part of the specific plan. The specific plan will also be designed to accommodate the City corporation yard vehicle storage as efficiently as possible, with the potential for some of the storage uses to be relocated off-site, if needed, to ensure adequate space for intended residential development.

The two largest subareas, located and accessed from Moraga Avenue, are relatively flat and provide the greatest potential for affordable multi-family development. Utilization of the State Density Bonus can increase yield, reduce development constraints, and contribute to greater affordability options. The development expected north of Coaches Field with steeper topography is anticipated to be lower density and at above moderate-income prices/rents. Grading and access will be addressed during the specific plan process.

The sites inventory (Table B-101) demonstrates that the above 132 housing units could be accommodated on two parcels north of Moraga Avenue. The number of units accommodated south of Moraga Avenue (Blair Park and the Moraga Avenue right-of-way from Highland Avenue to the northern limit of the City border) is undetermined. The distribution of housing units would be established through the specific plan process. Including Blair Park and the related Moraga Agenda Report Page 308 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-25 Avenue public right-of-way in the specific plan study area provides the City design flexibility and a more comprehensive analysis of all the City-owned land in Moraga Canyon.

The City proposes Program 1.L (Specific Plan) in Section IV of the Housing Element to clarify how the City will phase the project, ensure affordable housing development, and produce at least 100 60 units of lower income housing and 22 72 units of above moderate-income housing.

There are no known impediments to development. In part, the City has identified this area for development because it has long recognized that the City facilities in the study area need improvement. In 2017, the City hired Callander & Associates to develop a plan to expand Coaches Field to provide an under-14 soccer field. Kennelly Skate Park is underused, due in part to its location. Because they were largely repurposed and adapted from unrelated uses, the buildings and facilities in the Public Works corporation yard do not optimally serve the City’s facility and vehicle fleet maintenance needs. An efficient and modern corporation yard is desired. The acreage surrounding the corporation yard and Coaches Field to the north, east and west is vacant and available for improvement. Blair Park is unimproved and underused. The preparation of a Moraga Canyon Specific Plan provides the opportunity to plan improvements to City facilities along with the desired housing, develop a financing plan, and schedule their implementation.

The City issued a request for proposals (RFP) seeing professional services for the preparation of a Moraga Canyon Specific Plan on January 23, 2023. Proposals were received on March 13, 2023 and contract execution and project kick-off are expected to occur by the end of May 2023.

There are no known impediments to the development of housing within the study area. The scope of services detailed in the RFP include but are not limited to the following:
• Detailed guidance on phasing and subdivision that accommodates the 60 units of lowerincome housing and 72 units of above moderate-income housing identified for the study area in Housing Element program 1.L and the Sites Inventory and that prioritizes and expedites the identification of a site for the development of affordable housing that meets the criteria and timelines to secure Alameda County Measure A-1 funding. (The due date for the City to gain County approval of a project using Measure A-1 funding is December 31, 2024.);
• The preparation of a surplus land declaration;
• A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, infrastructure projects, and financing measures necessary to implement the Specific Plan; and • An evaluation of the economic feasibility of the Specific Plan.

Figure B-1 provides a preliminary conceptual plan of the proposed Moraga Canyon specific Specific plan Plan study area potential site development and housing units.

Agenda Report Page 309 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-26 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology Figure B-1: Preliminary Conceptual Plan for Development on City-owned Property (Specific Plan) Agenda Report Page 310 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-27 B.3.2 Housing Sites Map
Figure B-2, below, shows the inventory of Housing Element sites by income category.

Agenda Report Page 311 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-28 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Sites Inventory and Methodology Figure B-2: Draft 6
th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory by Income Category Agenda Report Page 312 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-29 B.3.3 Housing Sites Table
Table B-10 11 lists the parcels in the City’s Housing Element sites inventory with unit capacity by income category.

Agenda Report Page 313 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-30 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology Table B-1011: Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory by Income Category APN Address Existing Land Use Zone
GP Land
Use
Category
Acres Existing
Density
Proposed
Density
Units
Max
Units
Realistic Income Infrastructure
In
Previous
Cycles?
050 086000400 1069 WINSOR AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.19 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 092800400 770 KINGSTON AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.19 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate
water/sewer
extension needed N
050 092801301 KINGSTON AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.12 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 455001500 HOWARD AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.11 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 455104100 NACE AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.21 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 457100101 MORAGA AVE at Pala Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.21 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 457902001 MORAGA AVE owned
by 261 Scenic Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.15 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 457903300 1 MAXWELTON ROAD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.26 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate
water/sewer
extension needed N
050 457904300 14 NELLIE AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.27 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 457905601 1 ABBOTT WAY Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.13 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 460101802 156 SCENIC AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.09 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 460102003 162 SCENIC AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.16 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 460104400 279 SCENIC AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.29 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
050 462104601 538 BLAIR AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.13 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 466801934 REQUA PL Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.26 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 467603400 148 HAZEL LN Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.21 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 469301000 780 HIGHLAND AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.11 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 469900902 551 MOUNTAIN AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.17 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 470000500 415 PACIFIC AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.60 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 471302300 14 LITTLEWOOD DR Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.83 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 473200400 117 WOODLAND WAY Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.20 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 473300702 WILDWOOD
GARDENS Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.17 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
Agenda Report Page 314 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-31 Table B-1011: Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory by Income Category APN Address Existing Land Use Zone
GP Land
Use
Category
Acres Existing
Density
Proposed
Density
Units
Max
Units
Realistic Income Infrastructure
In
Previous
Cycles?
051 473301800 WISTARIA WAY Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.32 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 473600202 85 WILDWOOD
GARDENS Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.37 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate
water/sewer
extension needed N
051 473602301 370 WILDWOOD AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.11 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 473602307 WILDWOOD AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.27 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 473902100 OAK RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.31 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 474502907 PORTAL AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.31 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 478600800 62 FARRAGUT AVE Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.24 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 482800703 280 INDIAN RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.36 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 482801003 280 INDIAN RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.23 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 482800904 280 INDIAN RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.23 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 480303700 403 HAMPTON RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.23 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 480901002 50 ST JAMES PL Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.14 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 481201700 SANDRINGHAM RD PGE Site A
Low Density
Residential 0.27 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 480901900 22 VALANT PL Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.19 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 481302200 ST JAMES DR Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.14 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 481801600 111 SANDRINGHAM
RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.21 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 481900100 490 HAMPTON RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.20 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 481902000 440 HAMPTON RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.20 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 482003300 PARK BLVD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.37 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 482003500 PARK BLVD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.37 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 482003700 PARK BLVD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.46 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 482600600 HUNTLEIGH RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.32 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
Agenda Report Page 315 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-32 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology Table B-1011: Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory by Income Category APN Address Existing Land Use Zone
GP Land
Use
Category
Acres Existing
Density
Proposed
Density
Units
Max
Units
Realistic Income Infrastructure
In
Previous
Cycles?
051 482600900 139 LEXFORD RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.29 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 482600700 145 LEXFORD RD Residential- Vacant A
Low Density
Residential 0.30 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 470104603 43 BELLEVUE AVE Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 0.26 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 472800104 26 SEA VIEW AVE Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 0.39 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate
water/sewer
extension needed N
051 472800401 26 SEA VIEW AVE Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 0.71 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate
water/sewer
extension needed N
051 472800502 GLEN ALPINE RD Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 0.71 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate
water/sewer
extension needed N
051 472800503 GLEN ALPINE RD Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 0.13 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate
water/sewer
extension needed N
051 472800604 74 SEA VIEW AVE Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 0.75 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate
water/sewer
extension needed N
051 472802000 5 HAMPTON RD Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 0.55 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 472802100 5 HAMPTON RD Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 0.53 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 480201300 17 GLEN ALPINE RD Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 0.47 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 480201600 INDIAN GULCH RD Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 0.26 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
051 480300101 70 SOTELO AVE Residential- Vacant E
Estate
Residential 1.06 1 unit per lot 1 unit per lot 1 1
Above
Moderate N
048A700200303 898 RED ROCK RD Corporation Yard B
Parks,
Recreation
and Open
Space

11.90 5 du/ac TBD/SP 0 72 Above
Moderate N
050 462300500 356 HIGHLAND AVE
(terrace)
Mixed
UseCommercial D Mixed Use 0.04 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 3 2
Above
Moderate N
050 462300602 356 HIGHLAND AVE CommercialMixed
Use D Mixed Use 0.28 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 23 18 Above Moderate N 050 462401000 333 HIGHLAND AVE CommercialMixed
Use D Mixed Use 0.22 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 18 14 Above Moderate N 050 462401100 333 HIGHLAND AVE CommercialMixed
Use D Mixed Use 0.07 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 6 5
Above
Moderate N
050 462401200 345 HIGHLAND AVE CommercialMixed
Use D Mixed Use 0.15 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 12 10 Above Moderate N 050 455700200 1333 GRAND AVE Mixed
UseCommercial D Mixed Use 0.14 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 12 9
Above
Moderate N
050 455700401 1331 GRAND AVE Mixed
UseCommercial D Mixed Use 0.14 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 12 9
Above
Moderate N
Agenda Report Page 316 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Piedmont | B-33 Table B-1011: Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory by Income Category APN Address Existing Land Use Zone
GP Land
Use
Category
Acres Existing
Density
Proposed
Density
Units
Max
Units
Realistic Income Infrastructure
In
Previous
Cycles?
050 455700500 1327 GRAND AVE Mixed UseResidential D Mixed Use 0.11 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 9 6 Above
Moderate N
050 455700600 1321 GRAND AVE Mixed UseResidential D Mixed Use 0.11 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 9 6 Above
Moderate N
050 455700700 1311 GRAND AVE Mixed UseResidential D Mixed Use 0.11 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 9 6 Above
Moderate N
050 455700800 1243 GRAND AVE Mixed UseResidential D Mixed Use 0.11 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 9 6 Above
Moderate N
050 455700900 1239 GRAND AVE Mixed UseResidential D Mixed Use 0.11 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 9 6 Above
Moderate N
050 455701000 1235 GRAND AVE Mixed Use D Mixed Use 0.11 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 9 5 Above
Moderate N
051 463801501 1246 GRAND AVE Mixed UseResidential D Mixed Use 0.11 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 9 6 Above
Moderate N
050 457901900 MORAGA AVE Parks and Private
Open Space B
Parks,
Recreation
and Open
Space

3.73 5 du/ac TBD/SP 0
TBD w/
Specific
Plan
Above
Moderate N
050 457908000 MORAGA AVE Parks and Private
Open Space B
Parks,
Recreation
and Open
Space

1.12 5 du/ac TBD/SP 0
TBD w/
Specific
Plan
Above
Moderate N
237
051 482001118 5201 PARK BLVD Residential - House
Of Worship A
Low Density
Residential 2.22 1 unit per lot 21 du/ac 46.6 37 Lower N 048A700200303 898 RED ROCK RD Corporation Yard B
Parks,
Recreation
and Open
Space

11.90 5 du/ac TBD/SP 0 30 Lower N
050 457906100 643 MORAGA AVE Corporation Yard B
Public
Facilities 1.50 5 du/ac TBD/SP 0 30 Lower N
050 455801502 1337 GRAND AVE Mixed
UseCommercial D Mixed Use 0.63 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 51 41 Lower N 050 455701501 1221 GRAND AVE Mixed
UseCommercial D Mixed Use 0.65 20 du/ac 81 du/ac 53 42 Lower N 180
050 092700403 OLIVE AVE Residential - House
Of Worship A
Low Density
Residential 0.16 1 unit per lot 21 du/ac 3 3 Moderate N 050 092700500 OLIVE AVE Residential - House
Of Worship A
Low Density
Residential 0.08 1 unit per lot 21 du/ac 2 2 Moderate N 050 092700600 OLIVE AVE Residential - House
Of Worship A
Low Density
Residential 0.08 1 unit per lot 21 du/ac 2 2 Moderate N Agenda Report Page 317 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
B-34 | City of Piedmont Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology Table B-1011: Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory by Income Category APN Address Existing Land Use Zone
GP Land
Use
Category
Acres Existing
Density
Proposed
Density
Units
Max
Units
Realistic Income Infrastructure
In
Previous
Cycles?
050 092700700 OLIVE AVE Residential - House
Of Worship A
Low Density
Residential 0.08 1 unit per lot 21 du/ac 2 2 Moderate N 050 092701300 OAKLAND AVE Residential - House
Of Worship A
Low Density
Residential 0.08 1 unit per lot 21 du/ac 2 1 Moderate N 050 462300400 400 HIGHLAND AVE Residential - House
Of Worship A
Low Density
Residential 1.50 1 unit per lot 21 du/ac 31 25 Moderate N 051 463603500 1300 GRAND AVE Residential - House
Of Worship A
Low Density
Residential 0.40 1 unit per lot 21 du/ac 8 7 Moderate N 051 481201110 4925 PARK BLVD Residential - House
Of Worship A
Low Density
Residential 1.49 1 unit per lot 21 du/ac 31 25 Moderate N Subtotal Moderate 67
Total Inventory 484
Agenda Report Page 318 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C-1
Appendix C:Housing Constraints
Contents
Appendix C: Housing Constraints ..............................................................1 Section C.1 Introduction............................................................................................................2 C.1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................2 C.1.2 Summary ...............................................................................................................2 Section C.2 Governmental Constraints.....................................................................................3 C.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................3 C.2.2 Land Use Controls.................................................................................................4 C.2.3 Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement...................................................20 C.2.4 Permits and Procedures......................................................................................21 C.2.5 On and Off-site Improvements and Impact Fees.................................................28 C.2.6 Other Potential Regulatory Constraints...............................................................30 Section C.3 Non-Governmental Constraints...........................................................................30 C.3.1 Housing Supply/Conditions .................................................................................31 C.3.2 Development Costs .............................................................................................32 C.3.3 Availability of Financing.......................................................................................32 C.3.4 Local Opposition to New Housing Construction ..................................................34 C.3.5 Summary .............................................................................................................34 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints.............................................................................35 C.3.6 Environmental Constraints ..................................................................................35 C.3.7 Infrastructure Constraints ....................................................................................36 Agenda Report Page 319 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-2 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints
Section C.1 Introduction
C.1.1 Introduction
This Appendix covers local governmental, non-governmental, and environmental and infrastructure constraints to housing production in Piedmont.

C.1.2 Summary
City policies and regulations, such as the Zoning Ordinance, and market factors outside of the City’s control affect the quantity and type of residential development that occurs in Piedmont. The following summarizes key governmental and nongovernmental constraints to housing development as detailed in this Appendix.

Governmental Constraints
• Piedmont is considerably built-out, with few vacant parcels available and suitable for higher density residential development. The City will conduct further study to understand viability of multi-family and/or affordable housing development on small lots or develop a program to help facilitate the consolidation of land to realize the potential in areas designated for multi-family.
• Subjective design guidelines and findings for approval, while not temporarily applicable to multi-family projects due to State law (SB 330), could result in uncertainty for developers and a longer permit review process in the future. The City is currently preparing objective design standards for multi-family and residential mixed-use projects to comply with SB330 as well as SB35.
• Certain zoning provisions will need to be updated to comply with State law, including allowing Low Barrier Navigation Centers by-right in residential zones (AB 101), allowing Agenda Report Page 320 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C-3
qualifying transitional and supportive housing by-right in residential zones (AB 2162), allowing employee housing for six or fewer employees by-right in residential zones which allow single-family uses, allowing manufactured homes in residential zones as a primary structure, permitting residential care facilities for six or fewer persons by-right in residential zones, and including regulations for the provision of housing types designed for persons with disabilities.
• Piedmont’s City Charter requires a majority of voters to approve the reduction, enlargement, or reclassification of zones in a general or special election. However, the City can update the zoning text, including residential density increases and development regulations, if consistent with the intent of the land use classification of the General Plan, through legislative action by the City Council. The contours of the ability to modify the City Code in this regard will need to be further established by the City Attorney’s office.

Nongovernmental Constraints
• Economic conditions in Piedmont reflect a competitive housing market for both for-sale and rental housing.
• Piedmont has little undeveloped land available, so future housing development will be constrained by existing development or require demolishing existing structures, improvements, and uses. The shortage of available vacant land may constrain housing production due to the increased costs associated with redevelopment. • Local opposition can sometimes be a barrier for growth and development.

Section C.2 Governmental Constraints
C.2.1 Introduction
Local policies and regulations can affect the quantity and type of residential development. Since governmental actions can constrain the development and the affordability of housing, State law requires the housing element to "address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing" (Government Code § 65583(c)(3)).

As with other cities, Piedmont’s development standards and requirements are intended to protect the long-term health, safety, and welfare of the community. The City charges fees and has various procedures and regulations developers are required to follow. There are many locally imposed land use and building requirements that can affect the type, appearance, and cost of housing built in Piedmont. These local requirements include zoning standards, development processing procedures, development fees, and design guidelines and standards. Other building and design requirements imposed by Piedmont follow state laws, the California Building Code, Subdivision Agenda Report Page 321 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-4 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints
Map Act, energy conservation requirements, etc. In addition to a review of these policies and regulations, an analysis of the governmental constraints on housing production for persons with disabilities is included in this Section.

C.2.2 Land Use Controls
This section provides an overview of the City’s existing land use controls and their relation to the City’s housing supply. The 6th Cycle Housing Element includes new programs to modify development regulations and remove restrictions within each of the five zoning districts in Piedmont in compliance with State law.

C.2.2.1 General Plan Land Use Designations
The City adopted the 2025 General Plan in 2009. The Land Use Element of the General Plan directs the location and form of future development in the City.

The General Plan includes five land use designations that allow residential development at a variety of densities (see Table C-1). Density is used for residential land use designations and is described in terms of dwelling units per net acre of land (du/acre). For primarily non-residential designations, intensity is used, expressed as the floor area ratio (FAR) of total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot and the total land area of that lot (e.g., a single-story building that covers half of the lot would have an FAR of 0.50:1).

Table C-1: City General Plan Residential Land Use Designations General Plan
Designation
Allowable
Density/Intensity Description
Estate
Residential 1-2 units/acre The Estate Residential land use category designates areas suitable for large homes developed at densities of one to two units per gross acre.

Low-Density
Residential 3-8 units/acre
Low-Density Residential is the predominant General Plan designation in Piedmont, applying to about 75 percent of the City. The designation denotes areas developed at densities ranging from three to eight units per gross acre.

MediumDensity
Residential
9-20 units/acre
The Medium-Density Residential designation provides for the development of multi-family housing and accessory structures that are harmonious with the character of existing development.

Mixed-Use
Up to 20
units/acre, or
Floor Area Ratio
of 0.75
The Mixed-Use designation includes the City’s commercial properties, as well as a handful of existing residences that are zoned for commercial use. Projects which are entirely commercial are permitted in these areas, subject to a maximum FAR of 0.75. Projects which include multi-family residential uses are encouraged but are only permitted when combined with ground floor commercial uses; densities in such projects may not exceed 20 units per acre.

Public
Facilities
Floor Area Ratio
of 0.75
The Public Facilities designation applies to public schools and municipal facilities, including City Hall, the Corporation Yard, and the Veterans Building. It has been applied only to land owned by the City of Piedmont and the Piedmont Unified School District. Although the maximum FAR is 0.75, the actual FAR on most parcels with this designation is considerably lower.

Source: City of Piedmont General Plan (2009)
Agenda Report Page 322 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C-5
The City is considerably built-out, with few vacant parcels available and suitable for residential development. While the City’s General Plan identifies a range of land uses, including categories for multi-family and mixed-use, the limited amount of land area designated for the provision of multi-family housing or mixed-use is a constraint to housing development in the City. Though the Medium-Density Residential and Mixed-Use designations allow for a moderate amount of density, the number and size of parcels with this designation are limited to the commercial district along Grand Avenue between Linda and Wildwood Avenues, as well as the Piedmont Civic Center. As reported in the Land Use Element, single-family residential makes up just over 68 percent of the City’s land uses, with only 3.7 percent designated for both multi-family residential and commercial.

The Grand Avenue and Oakland Avenue corridors in the City’s western half are the area’s most amenable to denser housing production. Lower elevations and proximity to neighboring Oakland present an opportunity for a transitional zone between the mixed-use commercial pattern of the Grand Lake and Piedmont Avenue neighborhoods and the larger lots of the City’s ”uphill” area.

However, the majority of Piedmont’s smallest lots (between 4,000-6,999 square feet) are concentrated in the City’s western half. The City should conduct further study to understand viability of multi-family and/or affordable housing development on small lots, or develop a program to help facilitate the consolidation of land to realize the potential in this area, see Programs 4.J and 4.K.

C.2.2.2 Zoning Districts
The Zoning Ordinance is Chapter 17 of the Piedmont City Code (PCC), officially titled Planning and Land Use. The Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map are available on the City’s website consistent with Government Code §65940.1(a)(1)(B). This Section analyzes the Zoning Ordinance and the zones that allow residential development. The City has five zoning categories, all of which allow residential uses in some capacity. Table C-2 lists the zones that allow residential development with a description of each.

Table C-2: Zones that Allow Residential Development
Zone Description
Zone A: Single-family
residential
Zone A is established for single-family residential use. The intent is to:
• Preserve, protect, and enhance Piedmont’s residential character, protecting the quiet, family atmosphere of neighborhoods.
• Protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, light deprivation, intrusions on privacy, overcrowding, excessive traffic, insufficient parking, blockage of significant views, and other adverse environmental impacts. • Maintain openness and areas of vegetation between residences to enhance a healthy environment.
• Achieve design compatibility between additions, remodeling, and other new construction by establishing development standards.
• Minimize the out-of-scale appearance of large homes, parking areas, and other development relative to the lot size and to other homes in a neighborhood.

Zone B: Public
facilities
Zone B is established to regulate and control development of public facilities that are compatible with the character of surrounding uses.

Agenda Report Page 323 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-6 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints
Table C-2: Zones that Allow Residential Development
Zone Description
Zone C: Multi-family
residential
Zone C is established to regulate and control residential development, including some multi-family dwellings, in harmony with the character of the neighborhood.

Zone D: Commercial
and mixed-use
commercial/residential
Zone D is established to regulate and control commercial and mixed-use commercial/residential development, where pedestrian-oriented commercial development will serve City residents, consistent and in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and adjacent residential areas.

Zone E: Single-family
residential estate
Zone E is established for estate residential homes, which tend to be larger lots. The other purposes set forth for Zone A also apply to Zone E.

Source: City of Piedmont City Code, Chapter 17 (Planning & Land Use) C.2.2.3 Development Standards
Development standards can constrain new residential development if the standards make it economically unfeasible or physically impractical to develop a particular lot, or when it is difficult to find suitable parcels to accommodate development meeting the criteria for building form, massing, height, and density in a particular zoning district.

Through its Zoning Ordinance, the City enforces minimum site development standards for new residential uses. Table C-3 summarizes the basic standards for the City’s zoning districts that allow residential development.

Table C-3: Development Standards in Zones that Allow Residential Development Zoning District Min. Lot
Area
(sq.ft.)
FAR (max)
/Density
Max. Lot
Coverage
Max.

Height (ft.)
Min.

Frontage
(ft.)
Min. Setbacks (ft.)
Front Side Rear
Zone A: Singlefamily residential
8,000 <5,000 sq.ft.-
55%
5,001-10,000
sq.ft. – 50%
>10,000
sq.ft. – 45%
40% 35 60 20 5 5
Zone B: Public
facilities
All as set
forth for
Zone A.

See
section

17.20.04 0.

Zone C: Multi-family
residential
10,000 <5,000 sq.ft.-
55%
5,001-10,000
sq.ft. – 50%
>10,000
sq.ft. – 45%
Multi-family
50% 35 90 20 5 5
Agenda Report Page 324 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C-7
Table C-3: Development Standards in Zones that Allow Residential Development Zoning District Min. Lot
Area
(sq.ft.)
FAR (max)
/Density
Max. Lot
Coverage
Max.

Height (ft.)
Min.

Frontage
(ft.)
Min. Setbacks (ft.)
Front Side Rear
dwellings:
min. 12
units/acre,
max. 21
units/acre
Zone D:

Commerci
al and
mixed-use
Civic
Center
– Multi-family
dwellings:
max. 21
units/acre
–
40 (3
stories)
– – If abutting
singlefamily
residence:
5 Grand
Avenue
35 (3
stories)
25 ft. max.
within 10 ft.
from
adjacent
singlefamily
Along
Wildwood/Sunn
yside/Linda
Ave.: 10 from lot
line
Along Grand
Ave.: 15 from
curb or 3 from
lot line,
whichever is
greater
5 Zone E: Singlefamily residential
estate
20,000 <5,000 sq.ft.-
55%
5,001-10,000
sq.ft. – 50%
>10,000
sq.ft. – 45%
50% 35 120 20 20 20
Source: City of Piedmont City Code, Chapter 17 (Planning & Land Use) Agenda Report Page 325 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-8 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints
Parking Requirements
Required parking spaces in residential zoning districts are shown in Table C-4. The City does not provide provisions for reducing parking rates. The City also prohibits the reduction of or elimination of existing parking, unless the parking is associated with an Accessory Dwelling unit, is unusable or replaced, or is approved as part of an additional bedroom permit or a variance request.

Table C-4: Residential Parking Rates
Residential Use Required Number of Spaces
Single family residential (all zones)
Accessory dwelling unit 0
1 Dwelling unit 700 sq.ft. or less 1
Dwelling unit greater than 700 sq.ft.
1-4 bedrooms 2
5-6 bedrooms 3
7+ bedrooms 4
Multi-family residential (Zone C)
Accessory dwelling unit 0
1 Dwelling unit 700 sq.ft. or less 1
Dwelling unit greater than 700 sq.ft. 1.5
Mixed-use residential/commercial (Zone D)
Accessory dwelling unit 0
1 Studio or 1 bedroom 1
2 bedrooms 1.5
3+ bedrooms 2
1 Under Government Code section 65852.2, the City may not require parking for an accessory dwelling unit located within 1/2 mile of public transit. Piedmont’s ordinance establishes no parking requirement for accessory dwelling units..

Source: City of Piedmont City Code, Division 17.30 (Parking) Development Standards Analysis
Piedmont’s basic development standards are generally not a constraint to housing development.

Large-lot, single-family residential zoning districts (Zones A and E) cover the vast majority of residential land area in the City, with minimum lot sizes, setback minimums, etc. generally appropriate to single-family residential neighborhoods. Zone C (Multi-Family Residential) and Zone D (Commercial and Mixed-Use) allow for higher densities and reduced setbacks but cover only a handful of lots primarily along the Grand Avenue corridor and in the Civic Center. Both Zone C and Zone D have three-story maximum height limitations, which may affect project feasibility given the impact of other cumulative standards, such as maximum density, maximum Agenda Report Page 326 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 9 lot coverage, and parking requirements. To help reduce constraints, the City proposes Programs

1.G and 1.H to increase maximum density for multi-family and modify standards, including height, to facilitate increased densities and Program 4.L to allow for parking reductions or parking waivers for certain special needs populations and multi-family, mixed-use, and affordable projects.

C.2.2.4 Provisions for a Variety of Housing
The City has adopted provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that facilitate a range of residential product types. Table C-5 provides a list of housing types and the zoning districts in which they are allowed, require a conditional use permit, or are not allowed. Housing types not mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance but regulated by various State provisions are also included in the table below.

Table C-5: House Types Permitted by Zoning District
Residential Type
Zoning Districts
Zone A: Singlefamily residentialZone B: Public
facilities
Zone C: Multifamily residential
Zone D:

Commercial and
mixed-use
Zone E: Singlefamily
residential
estate
Single-family dwelling P P P P P
Accessory dwelling unit P P P P P
Multi-family dwelling – – P – –
Mixed-use
commercial/residential – – – C1 –
Emergency shelter,
supportive housing, or
transitional housing
– P – – –
Small and large family
day care P – – C P
Rented room/ShortTerm Rental 2 P – – – P
Residential care
facility/group home (≤6) – – – – –
P = Permitted
C = Conditionally Permitted
– = Not Permitted
1 Mixed-use commercial and residential developments must have both: (1) ground floor retail, office, or service commercial uses to primarily serve City residents. Ground floor residential use is not permitted, except for an entry to the upper floor(s); and (2) multi-family residences above the ground floor of not more than 20 units per net acre.

When affordable housing is provided, the Planning Commission will grant a density bonus in accordance with Government Code section 65915.
2 Rented room subject to section 17.40.020 and short-term rental subject to a short-term rental permit in Section

17.40.030.

Source: City of Piedmont City Code, Chapter 17 (Planning & Land Use) Agenda Report Page 327 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-10 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints To bring the City of Piedmont into compliance with State law, the 6th Cycle Housing Element proposes Goal 4 (Elimination of Housing Constraints) and the following programs (further described in the subsections below):
• Program 1.M (Mobile and Manufactured Homes)
• Program 4.I (Health and Safety Code 17021.5 Compliance) • Program 4.M (Facilitate Multi-Family and Residential Mixed-Use Projects by Right Subject to Objective Standards)
• Program 4.N (Allow Transitional and Supportive Housing by Right in Zones that Allow Residential Uses)
• Program 4.O (Allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by Right in Zones that Allow Residential Uses)
• Program 4.P (Residential Care Facilities)
• Program 4.R (Permit Streamlining)
• Program 4.T (Establish Standards for Emergency Shelters) • Program 5.H (Housing for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and Households) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Zoning Ordinance Division 17.38 (Accessory Dwelling Units) provides supplemental standards for ADUs and Junior ADUs. These standards were adopted February 2020 to reflect current State law. The City is also working with HCD to review and revise the latest revisions to the ADU ordinance made to comply with the most recent State laws. HCD’s review is underway and the City will expand Program 1.S (ADU Compliance) to ensure timely updates to the Zoning Code to align with State ADU law. The City allows ADUs to be rented to a tenant pursuant to State law, provided an annual business tax for rental property is paid and the unit is rented in accordance with any rent restrictions under the conditions of approval and recorded declaration(s). Short-term rentals of ADUs for less than 30 days is prohibited. The City is currently in the process of analyzing any limitations of the legally compliant ADU Ordinance, developing incentives for construction of market rate and deed-restricted affordable ADUs, and developing pre-approved prototype plans to help streamline and facilitate ADU production. (see Programs 1.B., 1.C., 1.E., 3.B., 3.C., 3.D.,

3.E., 3.F., 3.H., 5.H., and 5.I)
Applicants may request an exception to unit size requirements, subject to the following requirements:
• For ADUs with one bedroom or less:
o Expansion of up to 1,000 square feet requires the imposition of covenants which keep rent affordable to low-income households.
o Expansion of up to 1,200 square feet requires the imposition of covenants which keep rent affordable to very low-income households.
• For ADUs with more than one bedroom:

Agenda Report Page 328 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 11 o Expansion of up to 1,200 square feet requires the imposition of covenants which keep rent affordable to very low-income households.

Multi-Family
Multi-family dwellings are permitted by-right in Zone C on properties that meet the site development standards described in Table C-3. Multi-family dwellings are permitted with a conditional use permit as part of mixed-use commercial/residential development in Zone D, but are limited to upper-stories, with retail, office, or service commercial uses required on the ground floor.

The City is currently undergoing a study to develop recommendations for objective design standards for multi-family and residential mixed-use projects, with the intent of reducing level of review and allowing multi-family and residential mixed-use by-right, subject to the objective standards proposed in. See Program 4.M (Objective Design Standards).

Emergency Shelters/Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Health and Safety Code §50801(e) defines an emergency shelter as emergency housing as housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less. Additionally, Government Code §65583(a)(4) requires cities to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or zones must also include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelters in the community.

The City allows permits emergency shelters as a by-right, permitted use in Zone B (Public Facilities) as part of a collective use designation that includes transitional housing and supportive housing (discussed separately below). As a permitted use, emergency shelters are not required to obtain any other discretionary permit required by the City (i.e., conditional use permit). Design review is required for any use, including single-family, that requires a building permit. So while an emergency shelter in existing structure would be permitted, new construction would require design review. Though the Zoning Ordinance does not provide its own definition of “emergency shelter,” it cross-references to Health and Safety Code §50801(e) to verify its compliance with State law.
in Zone B as part of a collective use designation that includes transitional housing and supportive housing (discussed below). There is vacant land in Zone B which can accommodate an emergency shelter While the State law (Government Code §65583(a)(4)) allows cities to impose specific, objective standards on the operation of emergency shelters (e.g., maximum number of beds, parking requirements, etc.), specified standards to enhance the compatibility of emergency shelters, the City has not adopted explicit standards addressing operational and design criteria consistent with Government Code §65583(a)(4), which provides guidance on what such standards could address.for emergency shelters. The Housing Element includes Program 4.T (Establish Standards for Emergency Shelters) to establish objective standards for emergency Agenda Report Page 329 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-12 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints shelters consistent with SB 2 and Government Code Section 65583(a)(4), and to eliminate the design review requirement for new construction consistent with objective standards. 1 .

As shown in Figure C-1, Zone B, which allows emergency shelters by-right, exists throughout the City. All Zone B parcels are within one-half mile of services and amenities such as schools, bus stops, fire station, religious institutions, City Hall, and the Mulberry’s Market grocery store in Piedmont. Zone B comprises 28 parcels that together total approximately 80 acres of land. The objective standards the City is adopting for emergency shelters as part of Program 4.T (Establish Standards for Emergency Shelters) will facilitate their development. In addition, the City includes Program 4.V, to amend Zone A to allow emergency shelters as an accessory use to religious facilities in Zone A.

According to the 2022 Alameda County Point-in-Time (PIT) Count, there were an estimated 42 unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in Piedmont (see Appendix A). The 2022 PIT Count relied on a variety of methodologies to estimate the homeless population in small jurisdictions, such as Piedmont. Homelessness is often an invisible crisis in affluent communities.

The estimation of 42 individuals in Piedmont is less than 1% of Piedmont’s population and less than 1% of the estimate of the entire homeless population in Alameda County. This estimation represents a reasonable target for Piedmont’s programs to address the homelessness crisis.

Conservatively assuming 250 gross square feet per bed (including space for offices, infrastructure, etc.), approximately 10,500 square feet of emergency shelter floor area would be necessary to accommodate the City’s unmet shelter need. Whether through a single larger shelter or several smaller ones, the 80 acres of land in Zone B will adequately accommodate this need. 1 The City’s first draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update was submitted to HCD on November 16, 2022. The provisions are AB 2339 are not applicable.

Agenda Report Page 330 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 13 Figure C-1: Parcels Allowing Emergency Shelters By-Right (Zone B) Source: City of Piedmont, LWC
Additionally, the City’s Zoning Code does not specifically address Low Barrier Navigation Centers pursuant to AB 101 (Government Code §65660 et seq.). Low Barrier Navigation Centers are Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Low Barrier Navigation Centers must be allowed by-right in all residential zones, areas zoned for mixed-uses, and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. The City includes Program

4.O (Allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by Right in Zones that Allow Residential Uses) to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers in all zones that allow residential and mixed-use.

Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing
In addition to emergency shelters, transitional housing is a type of housing used to further facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families to permanent housing. It can serve those who are transitioning from rehabilitation or other types of temporary living situations (e.g., domestic violence shelters, group homes, etc.). Transitional housing can take several forms, including Agenda Report Page 331 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-14 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints group quarters with beds, single-family homes, and multi-family apartments, and typically offers case management and support services to return people to independent living (usually between six and 24 months). Transitional housing is defined in Government Code §65582(j) as buildings configured as rental housing development but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months.

Supportive housing is defined in Government Code §65582(g) as housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.

Transitional and supportive housing must be allowed in all zones that allow residential uses and subject to the same development standards that apply to other residential uses of a similar type within these zones. Furthermore, AB 2162 (Government Code §65650-65656) requires supportive housing to be allowed by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed-uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones that allow multi-family uses, if the proposed development meets certain criteria (e.g., deed restricted for 55 years to lower income households, serving “target population” of homeless individuals, minimum area dedicated for supportive services, etc.).

The City currently allows transitional and supportive housing only in Zone B as part of a collective use designation that includes emergency shelters. The Housing Element includes Program 4.N (Allow Transitional and Supportive Housing by Right in Zones that Allow Residential Uses) to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit transitional and supportive housing uses by-right in all zones which allow residential uses, subject to the same standards of similar dwellings.

Employee Housing
The City does not currently allow employee housing (also called farmworker housing) in any zoning districts. Health and Safety Code §17021.5 requires that employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure and allowed by-right in residential zones which allow single-family uses.

The 5th Cycle Housing Element Update included Program 4H (Health and Safety Code §17021.5 Compliance) to amend the Municipal Code to ensure compliance with the employee housing provisions of California Health and Safety Code §17021.5. This program was not completed and will be carried forward as Program 4.I (Employee Housing).

Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units are one of the most traditional forms of affordable private housing for lower income individuals, including seniors, and persons with disabilities. An SRO unit is usually small, between 80 and 250 square feet. These units provide a valuable source of affordable housing and can serve as an entry point into the housing market for formerly homeless people.

Agenda Report Page 332 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 15 The 5th Cycle Housing Element Update included Program 5.I (Second Units for Extremely LowIncome Households) to explore ways to expand the City’s inventory of housing affordable to extremely low-income households, including SRO hotels. This program did not result in the addition of standards related to SROs in the Zoning Ordinance and will be carried forward and expanded to include analysis of micro-unit projects which may function similar to SROs. See Program 5.H (Housing for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and Households).

Manufactured and Mobile Homes
Though the City does not contain existing mobile home parks, mobile and manufactured homes can be an important source of housing choice and affordability. As manufactured homes that meet certain requirements must be permitted in mobile home parks and are frequently regulated by jurisdictions together, they are discussed here jointly.

Government Code §65852.3 requires cities to allow and permit manufactured and mobile homes on a permanent foundation in the same manner and in the same zone as a conventional stickbuilt structure, subject to the same development standards that a conventional single-family home on the same lot would be subject to. The sole reference to manufactured homes in the Zoning Ordinance is located in Chapter 17.38 (Accessory Dwelling Units), where manufactured homes are identified as being included in the definition of an ADU. Two manufactured housing units (Abodu ADUs) on permanent foundations were permitted and built in Piedmont during the 5th Cycle.

The 5
th Cycle Housing Element Update carried forward a 4th Cycle recommendation, Policy 1.8 (Mobile and Manufactured Housing), to allow mobile and manufactured housing on all lots in the City subject to design standards which ensure that such housing is compatible in character with the community. To ensure compliance with State law and allowance of manufactured homes in single-family zones as a primary structure, the Housing Element includes Program 1.M (Manufactured and Mobile Homes).

Residential Care Facilities
State law requires local governments to treat licensed residential care facilities (sometimes called group homes) with six or fewer residents as a residential use and subject to the same development standards as a single-family dwelling. Furthermore, no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of a residential facility that serves six or fewer persons that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. The residents and operators of a residential care facility shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance that relates to the residential use of property. However, “six or fewer persons” does not include the operator, operator’s family, or persons employed as staff.

The City does not define or allow residential care facilities in the Zoning Ordinance. To comply with State law, the City adds Program 4.P (Residential Care Facilities), to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit residential care facilities for six or fewer persons by-right in all zones which Agenda Report Page 333 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-16 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints allow residential uses and develop provisions for to allow care facilities for seven or more persons in Zone B and Zone D.

C.2.2.5 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities normally have certain housing needs that include accessibility of dwelling units; access to transportation, employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on-site or nearby supportive services. The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act of the California Welfare and Institutions Code (§5115 and §5116) declares that persons with mental and/or physical disabilities are entitled to live in conventional residential surroundings. This classification includes facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide permanent living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living. It also includes hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug addictions.

State law requires local governments to consider the residents and operators of housing for persons with disabilities as a “family” for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance that relates to the residential use of property. The City defines a “family” in Section 17.90.010 (Definitions) as follows:
“Family means the functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses. If the dwelling unit is rented, this means that all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single written lease for the entire dwelling, with joint use and responsibility of the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than by the landlord or property manager.”
Though this definition does not, on its face, unnecessarily constrain living configurations conducive to persons with disabilities, the use of certain terms could be interpreted as such (e.g., “traditional family,” “sharing household activities,” “under a single written lease”). To ensure no potential constraints to housing for persons with disabilities persist in the Zoning Ordinance, Program 5.L (Definition of Family) is proposed to revise the definition of “family” and remove any implicit requirements that members of a household be related by blood, marriage, or shared financial responsibility.

The City’s definition of family includes unrelated individuals living as a single unit and does not unnecessarily constrain living configurations conducive to persons with disabilities.

Agenda Report Page 334 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 17 The City ensures that new housing developments comply with California building standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)) and federal requirements for accessibility. The City’s definition of family includes unrelated individuals living as a single unit and does not unnecessarily constrain living configurations conducive to persons with disabilities. However, the Zoning Ordinance does not define or contain regulations for the provision of housing types designed for persons with disabilities (sSee Residential Care Facilities, above). Also, as noted above, there are no parking reductions for housing types for persons with disabilities. See Program 4.Q (Parking Reductions for Persons with Disabilities, Seniors, and Other Housing Types), which recommends amending the Zoning Ordinance to include parking reductions for housing for persons with disabilities, seniors, and other housing types which may not require the standard number of spaces.

Reasonable Accommodation
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances.

City Code Division 17.76 (Reasonable Accommodation) establishes a formal procedure for individuals with disabilities seeking equal access to housing to request a reasonable accommodation and criteria to be used when considering such requests. The Code allows a reasonable accommodation request to be made by any person with a disability (or their authorized representative) when the application of a zoning law or other land use regulation, policy, or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. Information regarding reasonable accommodation procedures is required to be available at public information counters in the Department of Public Works and is also available on the City’s website.1 Required findings for a reasonable accommodation, described in Code Section 17.76.050 (Findings; Other Requirements), include confirmation that the housing will be used by an individual with a disability, that the accommodation is necessary, that the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on the City, and that the accommodation would not fundamentally alter the nature of a City program or law.

The Planning Director has the authority to review and decide upon requests for reasonable accommodation, with review from the Planning Commission when an application involves a 1 City of Piedmont, Reasonable Accommodation webpage and Request for Reasonable Accommodation form.

Agenda Report Page 335 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-18 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints variance or other land use entitlement (or when referred by the Director). Appeals are made to the Planning Commission or City Council.

The application processing and Director review and approval criteria are standard and limited to ensuring the request is appropriate to accommodate the needs of the applicant. While the Director is allowed to impose conditions on the approval of the Reasonable Accommodation request, the conditions do not alter the nature of the request. The required findings which would allow the Director to deny of the request are not based on impacts to surrounding uses.

Overall, though the City’s reasonable accommodation procedures are adequate for addressing the needs of persons with disabilities, certain provisions may act as a constraint if certain Housing Element programs are not implemented in a timely manner. Specifically, Section 17.76.020 (Requesting Reasonable Accommodation), Subsection A includes the provisions that:
“A reasonable accommodation cannot waive a requirement for a conditional use permit when otherwise required or result in approval of uses otherwise prohibited by the city’s land use and zoning regulations.”
In order to ensure that the provision disallowing the waiving of conditional use permit requirements could not result in constraining the operation of residential care facilities which benefit persons with disabilities, the City will implement Program 4.P (Residential Care Facilities) to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit these uses by-right in the appropriate zones. The provision disallowing the waiving of conditional use permit requirements could result in constraining the operation of residential care facilities which benefit persons with disabilities.

C.2.2.6 Incentives for Affordable Housing
The City provides for incentives for the development of affordable housing for lower-income households by cross-referencing to the State’s density bonus law (Government Code §65915 et seq.) in Division 17.24 (Zone C: Multi-Family Residential). It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to grant density bonuses to projects that meet State requirements. With the passage of AB 2345 in 2020, the allowed density bonus for qualifying projects ranges from five to 50 percent. Other incentives include:
• A multi-family residential project that incorporates affordable units is eligible for a 20 percent reduction in planning application fees; and
• A multi-family residential project in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable will have its minimum landscaping requirement reduced to 20 percent (from the usual 30 percent).

Division 17.26 (Zone D: Commercial and Mixed-Use) also mentions affordable housing, providing a density bonus for mixed-use commercial/residential development when affordable housing is provided in required above-ground floor multi-family residences, once more cross-referencing the State’s density bonus provisions. To further facilitate affordable housing, the Housing Element Agenda Report Page 336 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 19 includes Program 1.Q, to study changes to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance that exceed State minimum requirements.

C.2.2.7 Other Local Ordinances
Replacement Policies
To prevent displacement and preserve the City’s limited supply of affordable rental housing, Chapter 19 (Subdivisions) Article VIII (Residential Condominiums) provides criteria for the conversion of existing multi-family rental housing to a condominium. These include procedures for notification of existing tenants and adequate time and assistance for relocation.

Specifically, the City requires in Section 19.63 (Condominium Conversions – Findings) that an equivalent number of very low-, low-, and moderate-income rental units are provided elsewhere in the City and that those units remain affordable for at least 55 years. This section also provides requirements for notifying tenants and offering them right of first refusal to purchase by crossreferencing to Government Code §66427.1.

Rezoning of Property
Piedmont’s City Charter is unique in requiring a majority of voters to approve the reduction, enlargement, or reclassification of zones in a general or special election as specified in Section

9.02 (Zoning System) of the Charter.

It is important to note that neither the City Charter, nor the City Code contains any restrictions on the authority of the Council to modify permitted and conditional uses within a zone. Additionally, the language in the Charter and the City Code do not preclude the Council from changing the densities allowed within each zone. In about 1961, the City of Piedmont Charter was amended to require a vote of the electorate to change the zoning boundaries, including changing of land, from one zone to another. Section 9.02 of the City’s Charter provides that “[t]he Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election.”
Section 9.02 does not apply to changes within existing zoning districts like those called for in Zone A, Zone B, Zone C, and Zone D in the 6th Cycle Housing Element. In fact, Section 17.02.010.C of the City Code make clear that “reclassify” as used in the City Charter means changing a property from one zone to another. The Code provides: “the prohibition not to reduce, enlarge, or reclassify a zone without a vote is understood to mean the city may not change the zone boundaries, or change (reclassify) a property from one zone to another.” Moreover, the legislative history demonstrates that “reclassification” or “reclassify” has always referred to changing property from one zone to another.

The City Council may modify the permitted or conditional uses or densities within an established zone without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election or amending the City Charter. In the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City of Piedmont commits to programs to Agenda Report Page 337 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-20 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints change zoning regulations to increase residential densities and modify land uses across and within existing zoning districts by more than 400 percent increased development potential.

Although the City can modify uses and densities within a zone, tThe possible cost, timing, and logistical constraints presented by an election could make any zoning reclassification changes consistent with the intent of the Housing Element, any future General Plan amendments, and City fair housing goals, including affirmatively furthering fair housing, difficult, and a possible constraint to housing production. This process could also influence the supply, cost, and timing of housing production in the future. Additionally, the limitations to reclassify single-family zoned property for multi-family has could have an impact on the City’s goals of affirmatively furthering fair housing (sSee Appendix F, Section F.2.7 Summary of Fair Housing Issues). To address these potential constraints, the City proposes Program 4.H. Modifying Charter Regarding Zoning Amendments.

Growth Control
Piedmont does not have City Code regulations which limit or control the growth of the City.

C.2.3 Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement
Piedmont has adopted the 2019 California Building Standards Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24), which sets minimum standards for residential development and all other structures. The standards may add material and labor costs but are necessary minimums for the safety of those occupying the structures. The City has also adopted the 2019 California Residential Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, Energy Code, Green Building Standards Code, Historical Building Code, Existing Building Code, and Fire Code.

In many cases, a number of amendments to the State code have been incorporated to reflect issues of local concern. For example, the City has amended Section 105.1 of the 2019 California Building Code to require a building permit for building alterations and property improvements which have received or require design review approval from the City. A complete list of adopted codes and amendments to them can be found in Division 8.02 (Adoption of California Buildings Standards Code and Amendments). These standards may increase initial construction costs, but over time will improve the safety of residents.

The City enforces the Piedmont City Code via various City Compliance Officers designated by the City Administrator. The City Council has also established the Bureau of Fire Prevention within the City’s Fire Department, empowering the Fire Marshall to oversee this Bureau and enforce the California Fire Code. The Chief Building Official is responsible for enforcing the City Code regarding the erection, construction, reconstruction, moving, conversion, alteration, or addition to a building or structure. The Director of Planning & Building enforces the terms of discretionary permits and their conditions.

Enforcement of the building code does not pose a constraint to the production or maintenance of housing in Piedmont. Buildings are typically inspected only when permits are obtained, or when complaints or suspected violations are reported. Given the residential character of the City and Agenda Report Page 338 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 21 its small size, the complaint-based system of code enforcement has been very effective in addressing violations. As noted in Appendix A, there are very few code enforcement complaints regarding housing violations. The City estimates one complaint per year, and complaints are not localized in any one part of the City.

C.2.4 Permits and Procedures
The time required to process a project varies greatly from one entitlement to another and is directly related to the size and complexity of the proposal, as well as the number of actions or approvals needed to complete the process. Table C-6 identifies approvals and/or permits that could be required for planning entitlements along with their corresponding approval body. It should be noted that each project would not have to obtain each permit/approval (e.g., small scale projects consistent with General Plan and zoning standards do not require General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, or Variances).

Table C-6: T Review Authority
Permit/Approval Type Review Authority
Conditional Use Permit City Council
Design Review Permit
Admin/Expedited Review Planning Director
Staff Review Planning Director
Planning Commission Review Planning Commission
Development Agreement City Council
Reasonable Accommodation Planning Director
Variance Planning Commission
Zoning Amendment City Council
Source: City of Piedmont City Code, Chapter 17 (Planning & Land Use) All planning applications are processed in accordance with the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), which allows 60 days between the submittal of a complete application and a formal action on that application. Most planning applications are processed in less than 40 days. Planning Commission applications require a 30-day lead time before the hearing, during which time a determination is made that the application is complete. Decisions made on discretionary permit applications can be appealed for up to 10 days after the decision date. Lengthy processing times are most likely to be associated with incomplete submittals.

However, lengthy approval times are likely due to the high level of citizen participation in the City.

The City notes that new construction sometimes requires multiple Planning Commission hearings before receiving approval. As described below, it is not uncommon for single-family projects to take a year or more from pre-application planning conferences to issuance of a building permit.

Lengthy review periods pose a constraint to development, particularly multi-family and/or Agenda Report Page 339 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-22 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints affordable development, as the uncertainty and time increase the cost to the developer which is often passed down to the renter or owner. As noted elsewhere, the City is developing recommendations for objective design standards for multi-family and mixed-use projects which can help streamline the Design Review process (see below). Additionally, SB 330 (Housing Accountability Act), sets a maximum number of five hearings for projects with complete applications which comply with the requirements and objective standards of a City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

The time lapse between project approval and building permit issuance varies and depends on both staff review times as well as when the applicant submits the permit application following entitlement. Staff notes that simple applications are typically reviewed within one to five days, and more complex applications may take several weeks. Staff does not control the timing of application submittal relative to project entitlement. The City issued building permits for 24 new housing units in 2020, including 21 for ADUs and JADUs of varying size and affordability level and three for single-family residences. In that time, the City has been observing a lapse of approximately nine months between project entitlement approval and building permit issuance.

For example, an ADU project on Oakland Avenue was approved on February 2, 2020, and received a building permit on November 10, 2020. However, a JADU project on Sandringham Road was approved in July 2020 and issued a building permit two weeks later in August 2020.

Building permits issued in 2020 for single-family residences show a longer gap between entitlement and permit issuance. For example, a single-family residence on Grand Avenue was approved on May 13, 2019, and received a building permit on July 29, 2020. There have been no multi-family, mixed-use, or apartment projects submitted in recent years. At 408 Linda Avenue, the City approved seven attached townhome condominiums which received final inspection approval in 2018.

Design Review
For new homes and major alterations, the City does not require any special permits above and beyond Design Review. However, the scope of Design Review in Piedmont is very broad, and most projects that affect the exterior of a structure (or that involve a new structure) other than repair, maintenance, or replacement-in-kind are included. The City’s design review process is outlined in Division 17.66 (Design Review Permit). The purpose of design review is to promote orderly development, uphold the aesthetic values of the community, and ensure excellence in architectural design.

The Director is responsible for preparing public lists for guidance to applicants, including direction as to what constitutes a small improvement (which does not require design review) and a minor modification (which qualify for expedited review). Otherwise, a design review permit is required for all improvements requiring a variance, conditional use permit, or building permit or involving built features located within a street yard setback, such as a fence, wall, retaining wall, or trash enclosure.

Agenda Report Page 340 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 23 • Expedited Design Review is an expedited process for minor projects that replace an existing feature with a new feature that is different in some way, including changes in materials, function, or design. Examples are window replacements (not involving a change in size or location) and new deck handrails. Expedited Design Review also covers new features that have no impact on neighbors or the public. • Design Review (Reviewed by Director) is a process for projects with exterior improvements valued at under $161,000 1that do not require a variance or involve construction of a front-yard fence. Examples are new decks, new porches, dormers, and small additions. Adjacent neighbors are notified of the application and are given a chance to comment on the plans.
• Design Review (Reviewed by Planning Commission) is a process for projects valued with exterior improvements valued at over $161,000 (adjusted for inflation), and projects which also require a variance, conditional use permit, or involve construction of features within side, rear, or street setbacks. Design Review applications eligible for Director review may also be referred to the Planning Commission in the event there are issues that cannot be easily resolved. If the project requires ultimate City Council approval, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council for final design review.

Examples of projects requiring review by the Planning Commission include new homes and large additions such as upper-level stories. A 100 to 300-foot notification radius applies to applications subject to review by the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the application. The Planning Commission must make specific findings before approving an application and may establish conditions of approval to protect the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood and mitigate adverse impacts on neighboring properties.

Approval of Design Review is subject to three required findings:

A. The proposed design is consistent with the City'’s General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines.

B. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties’ existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light.

C. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety.

As recommended in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, the City adopted updated Design Guidelines in 2019 which address design of single-family, multi-family, and commercial and mixed-use projects. The guidelines provide guidance to the Director and Planning Commission when performing Design Review, and the review body will need to find that the project is consistent with the City of Piedmont Design Guidelines and cite specific guidelines to which the project conforms 1 Thresholds are updated annually.

Agenda Report Page 341 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-24 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints (or does not conform). The subjectivity of design review criteria could lead to a protracted approval process and potentially a denial based on interpretation. Currently, Senate Bill 330 (Housing Accountability Act) precludes jurisdictions from applying subjective design standards to certain housing development projects. In order to facilitate housing approvals and maintain high quality projects consistent with the City’s character, the City is in the process of developing recommendations for objective design standards for multi-family and residential mixed-use projects (Program 4.M, Facilitate Multi-family and Residential Mixed-use Projects by Right Subject to Objective Standards). However, recent housing bills also point to the need to develop objective standards for single-family projects to help facilitate development without unnecessarily constraining development. The Housing Element includes Program 1.J to develop objective design standards to facilitate development of new residential units in single-family zones, pursuant to SB9.

Conditional Use Permit
The City’s conditional use permit process is described in Division 17.68 (Conditional Use Permit).

The Planning Commission is required to hold a hearing on applications for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) and make a recommendation to the City Council, whose decision on approval is final. Both bodies must make the following findings before recommendation or approval:
• The proposed use is compatible with the general plan and conforms to the zoning code; • The use is primarily intended to serve Piedmont residents (rather than the larger region); and
• The use will not have a material adverse effect on the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. Considerations for this finding include: no substantial increase in traffic, parking, or noise; no adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood; and no tendency to adversely affect surrounding property values.

City Council approval of CUPs is atypical compared to other cities in the region, and a potential constraint. While few residential uses require a CUP, mixed-use projects in Zone D (Commercial and Mixed-Use) require a CUP (see Table C-5). Additionally, though some transitional and supportive housing, SROs, co-housing, and micro-unit housing types can require CUPs under State law, these may still present a constraint to housing production. To eliminate this potential governmental constraint, the City of Piedmont proposes Program 4.U (Amend Conditional Use Permit Findings). In implementing this program, the City will issue develop a conditional use permit process that complies with State law and distinguishes between required findings for commercial uses and required findings for residential uses in a way that ensures the use is not unnecessarily constrained by the required findings while still maintaining the ability of the City to control for public health, safety, and welfare.

Agenda Report Page 342 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 25 Permit Streamlining
California Senate Bill 35 (“SB 35”), codified at Government Code Section 65913.41, became effective January 1, 2018.The intent of SB 35 is to expedite and facilitate construction of affordable housing. SB 35 requires cities and counties that have not made sufficient progress toward meeting their affordable housing goals for above-moderate and lower income levels to streamline the review and approval of certain qualifying affordable housing projects through a ministerial process. The City complies with state requirements of SB35 as part of project review as projects are proposed. The City will adopt local procedures consistent with SB35 (see Program 4.R) to ensure continued compliance and to facilitate the review process.

Permit and Development Fees
The City’s permit and development fees are available on the City’s website consistent with Government Code §65940.1(a)(1)(A). The City’s fees are designed to recover the cost of processing permit applications only and are not a source of City revenue. The City’s fees are updated annually effective July 1, see Table C-7.

The same fees apply regardless of the number of units. So, on a per unit basis, the cost is lower.

Building permit fees represent a larger share of application costs than planning fees. These fees are calculated on a sliding scale depending on the value of the project (value includes labor and overhead costs as well as material costs). The fees include Permit and Inspection fees, a Plan Check fee, a SMIP (Strong Motion Instrumentation Program) fee, and a Title 24 energy compliance fee, among others (not all are listed below). Piedmont’s planning and permit fees are in the middle when compared to those in other cities. Neighboring jurisdictions have both higher and lower fees than Piedmont across all categories.

Table C-7: Planning Fees Effective July 1, 2021
Building Division Fees
Building Permit & Inspection Fees
Job value of work being done: Fee based on value of work $1 to $500 Base Fee of $68
$501 to $2,000 Base Fee of $73 + ($3.88 for every $100) $2,001 to $25,000 Base Fee of $131 + ($18.72 for every $1,000) $25,001 to $50,000 Base Fee of $591 + ($13.48 for every $1,000) $50,001 to $100,000 Base Fee of $947 + ($9.30 for every $1,000) $100,001 to $500,000 Base Fee of $1,443 + ($7.48 for every $1,000) $500,001 to $1,000,000 Base Fee of $4,344 + ($6.32 for every $1,000) Over $1,000,000 Base Fee of $7,993 + ($4.03 for every $1,000) Plan Check Fee
Job value of work being done: Fee based on value of work $1 to $500 Base Fee of $22
$501 to $2,000 Base Fee of $27 + ($2.83 for every $100) $2,001 to $25,000 Base Fee of $63 + ($12.18 for every $1,000) Agenda Report Page 343 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-26 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints Table C-7: Planning Fees Effective July 1, 2021
$25,001 to $50,000 Base Fee of $361 + ($9.41 for every $1,000) $50,001 to $100,000 Base Fee of $596 + ($6.07 for every $1,000) $100,001 to $500,000 Base Fee of $915 + ($4.87 for every $1,000) $500,001 to $1,000,000 Base Fee of $2,807 + ($4.08 for every $1,000) Over $1,000,000 Base Fee of $5,175 + ($2.72 for every $1,000) General Plan Maintenance Fee Job value x $0.012
Records Management Fee 5% of Permit & Inspection Fee
Other Fees & Permits
Change in Approved Building Permit (CAP) $55
Solar Energy Related Permits $327
Encroachment Permit $806
New Sewer Connection $1,252
Penalty Fee -– Starting Construction without Permit 50% Residential Rental Safety Inspection $218
Sidewalk Inspection $38
Title 24 Plan Check
Perspective Compliance $63
No increase in conditioned floor area $124
Addition area only $156
Addition plus existing area combined $218
New home or structure $250
Planning Division Fees
Design Review Permit -– Expedited Review
General Applications $224
Windows & Doors $256
Changes to Previously Approved Permits $350
Design Review Permit -– Director Review
Construction <$5,696 $460
Construction is $5,697 - $51,281 $684
Construction is $51,282 - $96,865 $836
Construction is $96,866 - $142,445 $1,234
Sequential DRP-DRs referred to PC $136 surcharge
Design Review Permit -– Planning Commission Review
Construction is $142,446 - $199,422 $1,636
Construct cost is $199,423 or more $1,955
New House $4,804
Variance
One Variance with Design Review $952
One Variance without Design Review $1,296
Each Additional Variance $470
Conditional Use Permit
Agenda Report Page 344 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 27 Table C-7: Planning Fees Effective July 1, 2021
Conditional Use Permit $2,426
Conditional Use Permit (Minor Modification) $763
Other Review
Administrative Extension $366
Appeal $763
Encroachment Permit $977
ADU Permit (with or without Exception) $905
Modification to Approved ADU Permit $350
Fence, Retaining Wall, or Site Feature Design Review Permit $588 Sign Design Review Permit $977
Short-Term Rental Permit $356
AB 939 Information Report $136
Zoning Amendment $2,866
Subdivision/Map Act
Parcel Merger deposit/cost to process $1,665
Lot Line Adjustment $1,980
Parcel Map $4,170
Tentative Map $7,185
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Initial Study/Negative Declaration $50,000
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $100,000
CA Dept. of Fish & Game Fee Fee per CA DFG + $450 City processing fee Other Fees
Reasonable Accommodation No fee
Exemption from Curbside Placement of Solid Waste Carts No fee Zoning compliance Letter $84
Development Agreement $6,000 + 30% Admin. Fee
Applications and Review not listed above $3,265
Source: City of Piedmont City Code, 2021-22 Fee Schedule Fee Analysis
Table C-8 shows total estimated planning and development fees for single-family and multi-family units. The estimate for a single-family home assumes a project value of $2,369,680, the typical home value in Piedmont in December 2020 as shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-39). The estimate for a multi-family development assumes a project value of approximately $18,000,000 (not including developer profit) based off market trends for a 100% market rate two-story mixed-use development of 24 two-bedroom units. Both project types would require Planning Commission Design Review due to their high value.

Agenda Report Page 345 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-28 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints Table C-8: Building and Planning Fees for Single-Family and Multi-Family Single-Family Multi-Family (24 units, market rate)
Project value $2,369,680 $17,844,259
Building permit and inspection $7,993.00 $78,677
Plan check fee $5,175.00 $52,959
New sewer connection $1,252.00 $1,252
Design Review (Planning
Commission) $4,804.00 $4,804
CEQA
Initial Study/Negative Declaration n/a $50,000
EIR n/a $100,000
Total Fees $19,224.00 $181,636.26 – $231,636.26
Per Unit Fees $19,224.00 $7,568.18 – $9,651.51
Estimated proportion of fees to
project value per unit .81% .04% – .05%
Source: City of Piedmont, LWC
If a new single-family home with a project value of $2,369,680 were to be built in the City today, planning fees would be $5,175 if no variance were required. The building permit fee would depend on the number of fixtures, outlets, and plumbing connections, but would be approximately $7,993.

For a new home on a vacant lot, the City sewer connection fee would be $1,252. Additional fees associated with connecting to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EDMUD) water system may be required but are outside the City’s control. Such fees would not apply if the project involved demolishing and rebuilding an existing home. Total permitting fees would represent .81 percent of the total project value, a lower figure compared to those reported for other Alameda County communities.

The same fee schedule applies to multi-family and mixed-use developments, resulting in increased permitting and planning costs that scale with project value for every $1,000 over $1 million. Furthermore, larger multi-family projects would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and require either an initial study/negative declaration or a full environmental impact report (EIR). The City collects fees related to environmental assessment to recover the cost of consultants and administrative handling. However, even with these added costs, total permitting fees per unit would represent only .04 to .05 percent of a $18 million market rate project.

C.2.5 On and Off-site Improvements and Impact Fees
New development is required to provide public improvements to serve its new residents. Many development sites in Piedmont are individual vacant or underutilized lots with full utilities, street frontage, access, and services and require no site improvements other than construction of utility Agenda Report Page 346 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 29 laterals to connect a parcel with the electric, gas, sewer, water, drainage, and telecommunication facilities in the adjacent public right-of-way.

The City’s road network hierarchy is established in the City’s Transportation Element, with classifications based on average daily traffic volume and ranging from arterial (8,000+ vehicles per day) to local (<1,000 vehicles per day). Road standards are established to provide a range of possible configurations for each type of road. Roads in hilly neighborhoods are recommended to have a curb-to-curb width of 34 feet, with two travel lanes that are each 10 feet wide and two parking lines that are each 7 feet wide. In flatter areas, a curb-to-curb width of 38 feet, with 12- foot travel lanes and 7-foot parking lanes is recommended.

The Housing Element does identify larger sites that may require subdivision and new parcellation, and the additional need for new blocks, public or private streets, curb and gutter replacement, sidewalks, tree planting, and similar onsite amenities which contribute to public health and safety.

The City has adopted engineering and design standards to inform developers of how these improvements should be constructed in Public Works Standards Details and Chapter 19 (Subdivisions), Article VII (Design and Improvements; Dedication). Public improvement obligations include:
• Frontage improvement: street structural sections, curbs, sidewalks, drive approaches and transitions, and transit facilities when requested by the local transit authority; • Storm drainage;
• Sanitary sewers;
• Water supply; and
• Utilities: gas, electric, and telephone (to be placed underground if the adjacent property has underground facilities) [the City Council may waive the undergrounding requirement and require an in-lieu fee at its discretion).

The City has not adopted any requirements above and beyond those authorized by the Subdivision Map Act; however, other improvements may be required, as needed, to mitigate environmental impacts per the California Environmental Quality Act..

In addition to the above requirements, lots located on both public and private streets are required to have the frontage requirements of the Piedmont Zoning Code for the applicable zone. These include a minimum of 60 feet in Zones A and B, a minimum of 90 feet in Zone C, no minimum in Zone D, and a minimum of 120 feet in Zone E. While these types of requirements result in additional development costs, these improvements are uniform to all projects and provide the necessary facilities and services for a safe and quality living environment.

Other improvements such as streetlights, fire hydrants, signs, street trees, landscaping, or fees in-lieu of these improvements are required at the discretion of the City engineer and in accordance with Chapter 19 and City standards and specifications.

Agenda Report Page 347 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-30 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints The Housing Element does identify larger sites that may require subdivision and new parcellation, and the additional need for new blocks, public or private streets, curb and gutter replacement, stormwater pollution control, sidewalks, tree planting, and similar onsite amenities which contribute to public health and safety. These required improvements are not a constraint to development, as they represent standards improvements to ensure connectivity with the surrounding neighborhood. The majority of the sites in the sites inventory are already developed, and would not require any off-site improvements. The largest site identified in the Housing Element, described in Appendix B, Section B.3.1 (Moraga Canyon Specific Plan), is part of a Specific Plan with an active Request for Proposals. As a City led project, this will allow the City greater control over the parcellation process, the financing of required improvements, and developer negotiations.

Because Piedmont is generally built out and all development opportunities are on sites with a full complement of existing urban services, impact fees have not been required. Piedmont is one of the few cities in the East Bay that does not collect school or park impact fees. This represents a significant savings relative to the cost of development in nearby communities.

C.2.6 Other Potential Regulatory Constraints
Landlords in Piedmont, whether leasing out a room in a single-family residence or units in an apartment building, are required to pay business taxes on rental property of $200 per year or $13.95 per thousand dollars of gross rental receipts, whichever is greater. The City has reported that this tax has not been an impediment to the development of rental housing and has not been raised in the past two decades.

Division 17.40 (Residential Rentals) establishes regulations governing the rental of residential property in the City, including both short-term and long-term rentals. One general provision limits the owner of a single-family dwelling unit in any zoning district to rent to only a single lessee per dwelling unit. This regulation presents a potential constraint to housing, as it limits the practice of owners of larger single-family residences from leasing multiple rooms to several tenants in a way that increases rental housing availability without the need for new construction. Program 5.B (Shared Housing Matching Services) directs the City to promote shared housing opportunities through education, counseling, and relaxation of the limit on the number of leases per singlefamily residence (see also Programs 4.N, 4.P, and 5.H).

Section C.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
Market factors over which a local government has only limited ability to control can influence the jurisdiction’s capacity to develop more housing. These market-related constraints include land cost, construction cost, and the availability of financing. An assessment of these nongovernmental constraints can inform the development of potential actions that can ameliorate its impact.

Agenda Report Page 348 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 31 C.3.1 Housing Supply/Conditions
Market Overview: For-Sale
As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-39), the region’s home values have increased gradually since 2001, except for a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area increasing by 142 percent by 2020. The typical home value in Piedmont has increased even more sharply in this same time period, estimated at $2,369,688 in December 2020, a 668 percent increase from $308,475 in 2001.

Since the beginning of the recovery from the Great Recession in 2012, interest rates have been maintained at low levels of 3.5 to 4.5 percent. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, national 30-year mortgage rates have dropped to historically low levels, declining to 2.7 percent in late 2020. When interest rates are low, capital investment and housing production generally increase, and more people are likely to take out a mortgage than when interest rates are higher. In addition, consumers are able to borrow more money for the same monthly payment. Extremely low interest rates are one of the factors that has led to overall increased home values in Piedmont above what has been seen in the past several years. Coupled with the general desire during the pandemic to move from denser to more spacious neighborhoods, the housing market will likely continue to be competitive in the near future.

Market Overview: Rental
As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-40, and Figure A-41), Piedmont rents are much higher than rents in Alameda County and the Bay Area as a whole. According to U.S.

Census data, the median rent paid in Piedmont in 2019 was $3,133, increasing 70.4 percent in the past 10 years, while rents in Alameda County have increased 56.2 percent. Meanwhile, median rent in the Bay Area region has increased 54.6 percent in the same time period. The rate of rent increase in Piedmont has far outpaced both the County and the Bay Area.

Per the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-43), a greater percentage of renters are extremely cost-burdened, but the absolute number of cost-burdened owners is greater (i.e., a smaller percentage, but a much larger base). An estimated 9 percent of renters spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing, compared to 13 percent of those that own. Additionally, 12 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 8 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened. Of note, housing cost burden could not be determined for 17 percent of renter occupied housing units. In total, the data show that 21 percent of both owner and renter occupied units are cost-burdened.

Agenda Report Page 349 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-32 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints C.3.2 Development Costs
Land Costs
Due to the lack of vacant property in the City, a residual land value analysis was used to estimate the price of land in Piedmont. The analysis used comparables recently sold within the past two years (2020 through 2021). Due to a lack of recent sales within Piedmont City limits, several comparables were selected from neighboring Oakland, no more than several blocks from its border with Piedmont. Individual lots ranged from $148 to $1,170 per square foot, or about $6,455,320 to $50,955,846 per acre. Lot sizes ranged from approximately 3,750 to 25,628 square feet. Residential multi-family land in and near the City is estimated to cost an average of $399 per square foot, or about $17,395,689 per acre.

There we no recent raw land sales in Piedmont, and the City is generally built out. The lack of available land is considered a constraint to development, as housing production will most likely occur on more expensive opportunity sites for redevelopment. A developer will need to pay for the existing on-site improvement before demolishing it, resulting in a cost premium over vacant land. In addition, sites with existing uses will most likely incur more costs due to the removal of on-site structures.

Construction Costs
According to a March 2020 report published by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, construction costs for multi-family housing in California have climbed 25 percent between 2009 and 2018. This increase is in part due to the higher cost of building materials, such as wood, concrete, and steel, as well as prevailing wage requirements. According to RSMeans, construction costs (including materials and labor but excluding soft costs such as fees) for a small apartment complex in the Piedmont area ranged between $169 to $200 per square foot in 2021.

Construction costs can vary depending on the type of development, ranging from more expensive steel-frame Type I construction to more affordable wood-frame Type V. Due to the smaller scale, single-family homes tend to be more expensive to construct on a per square foot basis than multifamily. This cost can fluctuate depending on the type and quality of amenities to the property, such as expensive interior finishes, fireplaces, swimming pools, etc.

Soft costs are the costs that are not directly incurred by the physical construction of the development. These costs include services for architectural, consultant, and legal services, as well as permitting requirements and impact fees. They generally range from 15 to 30 percent of total development costs but can fluctuate depending on local fees and exactions. Please refer to the Permit and Development Fees section, above, for a discussion of the City’s required permit and development fees.

C.3.3 Availability of Financing
Agenda Report Page 350 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 33 The availability of financing can impact rates of homeownership. The ability to secure financing can be influenced by several factors, including creditworthiness, debt-to-income ratio, and the restrictiveness of mortgage lending standards. Reviewing data collected through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) can reveal the role the lending market has had on local home sales. Home purchase loans in 2020 are summarized in Table C-9 below.

All traditional home loan applications (between government-backed and conventional) in 2020 were for conventional loans, for a total of 141 conventional home loan applications. This disparity could be driven from high home values in Piedmont, as government-backed loan programs typically have a maximum loan amount. The approval rate for conventional loans was 78 percent.

In competitive housing environments, where purchasing a new home may be out of reach for some, home renovations can be a desirable and more affordable way to add value to property.

There were 62 loan applications for home improvement in 2020. The approval rate for these types of applications was 55 percent.

Table C-9: Total Home Loan Applications
Type Total Applications
Government-backed -
Conventional 141
Refinancing 927
Home Improvement 62
5+ Units -
Non-occupant 38
Source: HMDA, 2020
Figure C-12: Home Loan Application Disposition
Source: HMDA, 2020
0%
78%
67%
55%
0%
53%
0% 7% 11%
35%
0%
21%
0%
15% 23%
10%
0%
26%
Government-backed Conventional Refinancings Home Improvement 5+ Units Non-occupant % Approved % Denied % Withdrawn or Incomplete
Agenda Report Page 351 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-34 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints C.3.4 Local Opposition to New Housing Construction
In some cases, local community opposition can be a nongovernmental barrier to development.

Opposition is founded on general fears and misconceptions about change. The Housing Element includes new housing programs to inform and educate the Piedmont community about Housing Element program goals, opportunities, and benefits. Programs 7.A (Public Information), 7.B (Fair Housing Referrals), and 7.C (Housing Equity) describe how the City of Piedmont will continue to engage with residents and property owners, share information, and overcome misconceptions about affordable housing. The objectives of these programs are to promote the development of housing for all persons regardless of race, religion, ethnic background, or other arbitrary factor, as well as promote public education and awareness of fair housing requirements and reduce public misconceptions about low-income housing. Public engagement is proactive, and leads to development that is more welcomed and supported by community members.

C.3.4C.3.5 Summary
Economic conditions in Piedmont reflect a competitive housing market. Residential developments can garner higher home sale prices and rental rates than across the ABAG region. As such, Piedmont has market conditions that favor the development of both for-sale and for-rent housing.

Due to high housing demand, however, Piedmont is generally built out, so future housing development will be constrained by existing development or require demolishing existing structures, improvements, and uses. The lack of available vacant land may constrain housing production due to the increased costs associated with redevelopment.

Agenda Report Page 352 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 35 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
C.3.5C.3.6 Environmental Constraints
Piedmont is surrounded on all sides by the City of Oakland and has been built out since the 1960’s, with no potential for annexation. As the City is almost entirely zoned for single-family residential use, traditional redevelopment strategies that produce multi-family units are precluded without zoning amendments.

The City hosts several open spaces along Upper Moraga Canyon, including Blair Park, Piedmont Reservoir, and a portion of Mountain View Cemetery. An amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would be required to allow for higher density residential development on these sites. Furthermore, the sites north of Moraga Avenue (above Coaches Field) are steep and would require extensive regrading to be available for other purposes.

Wildfire is Piedmont’s most significant environmental hazard. Over a third of the City's residential area is located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with increased exposure in the southeast where over nine percent of the City is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Parts of Piedmont have similar landscape character as the area burned in the devastating 1991 Oakland Hills Fire, the southern extent of which nearly reached the City’s open spaces along Upper Moraga Canyon. The 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan summarizes multiple mitigation actions taken to prepare for the threat of wildfire, including improved hydrants, backup water sources, and the undergrounding of utilities in VHFHSZs. However, wildfire remains a highly likely occurrence, especially during summer months, and has significant implications for the City’s residential housing stock. The CEQA environmental document for the Housing Element discusses wildfire risk as it relates to sites in the sites inventory in greater detail. Development of sites within the sites inventory is not constrained by wildfire risk. For the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area, any wildfire issues would be addressed in the project design and CEQA environmental document relative to that project.

Piedmont is not affected by serious flooding, but the City is less than half a mile from the Hayward fault and would be subject to severe shaking in a major earthquake. However, the Statedesignated Special Study Zone associated with the Hayward Fault does not extend within Piedmont and ends just east of City limits. As with many Bay Area cities, higher construction costs may result from the need to design or retrofit projects to withstand seismic activity, but development of sites identified in the sites inventory is not constrained by seismic activity..

Piedmont does not have any hazardous material sites, and none of the properties identified in sites inventory analysis would require soil cleanup or remediation prior to development.

The City hosts several open spaces along Upper Moraga Canyon, including Blair Park. An amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would be required to allow for higher density residential development on these sites. To that end, the City has proposed (as part of Agenda Report Page 353 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-36 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints Program 1.L) a new specific plan to activate four City-owned parcels to provide a viable development opportunity for mixed-income residential development.

As detailed in Appendix B, Section B.3.1 (Moraga Canyon Specific Plan), the specific plan will be designed to utilize the parcels in question as efficiently as possible while anticipating environmental constraints. The two largest subareas, located and accessed from Moraga Avenue, are relatively flat and provide the greatest potential for affordable multi-family development. The development expected north of Coaches Field with steeper topography is anticipated to be lower density. Grading and access will be addressed during the specific plan process, but these sites are not otherwise exposed to greater environmental constraints or risks than development elsewhere in the City. The other sites identified for housing in Appendix B are not unnecessarily constrained by steep topography or other environmental constraints. There are two sites that would require an access easement as they are not located along a street frontage. However; these sites are owned by a single property owner and could be developed. Unique lot configuration or site size constraints may be impacted by the cumulative nature of zoning regulations and are addressed above in Section C.2 (Governmental Constraints) Furthermore, the sites north of Moraga Avenue (above Coaches Field) are steep and would require extensive regrading to be available for other purposes.

C.3.6C.3.7 Infrastructure Constraints
Piedmont does not experience issues with traffic congestion, emergency services, or school enrollment that could be considered a development constraint, as these services have been determined to be stable and adequate for the foreseeable future. Public facilities and infrastructure have a direct influence on a city’s ability to accommodate residential growth. As described in the Resources section, all sites in the inventory have access to public facilities and infrastructure, including dry utilities. To comply with SB 1087, the City will immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to EBMUD so they can grant priority for water and sewer service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households.

However, concerns regarding the City’s water and sewer infrastructure are described below.

Water
Like many cities in the Bay Area and across California, drought is a persistent, regional concern and jurisdictions must anticipate its wide-reaching economic, environmental, and societal impacts.

The City’s 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation plan indicates that the most significant impacts associated with drought in Piedmont relate to water intensive activities such as municipal usage, commerce, tourism, recreation, and wildfire protection.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) supplies water and provides wastewater treatment to areas of Alameda and Contra Costa counties, including Piedmont. EBMUD owns, operates, and maintains the water distribution system that brings Sierra Nevada snowmelt and seasonal runoff through a distribution and treatment system to Piedmont. Every 10 years, EBMUD Agenda Report Page 354 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix C: Housing Constraints City of Piedmont | C- 37 performs a comprehensive demand projections study to understand water demand and supply projections for a 30-year horizon. The most recent update was completed in 2020, and projected demand and required supply, through 2050.

As reported in EBMUD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the water demand forecasting methodology relied on long-term planning documents approved and adopted by the local and regional land use agencies. Specifically, “Growth projections in EBMUD’s future water demand is a reflection of planned land-use changes and redevelopment projects forecasted by the local and regional land use agencies” (EBMUD Urban Water Management Plan, 2020). As demonstrated in the Urban Water Management Plan, EBMUD shows adequate capacity to accommodate demand through 2050 through a diversified and resilient portfolio that includes recycled water and conservation programs.

EBMUD’s Board of Directors approved Policy 3.07, which ensures that priority for new water service connections during restrictive periods is given to proposed developments within EBMUD’s existing service area that include housing units affordable to lower-income households in accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.7. Policy 3.07 also states that EBMUD will not deny an application for services to a proposed development that includes affordable housing unless certain specific conditions are met, which could include a water shortage emergency condition, or if EBMUD is subject to a compliance order by the Department of Public Health that prohibits new water connections.

The City is served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EDMUD), which captures snowmelt from the watersheds of the Mokelumne River and collects it at the Pardee Reservoir 90 miles to the east of the Bay Area. EBMUD typically stores a six-month emergency supply in local reservoirs, but during a long-term drought, evaporation and competing water rights on the Mokelumne River’s supply would not be able to meet EBMUD’s projected customer demands, even with mandatory water use restrictions in place.

The City is coordinating with EBMUD to retrofit water lines to minimize the service disruption that could occur after an earthquake. EBMUD is upgrading its entire East Bay water storage and conveyance system, improving post-earthquake firefighting capacity, and ensuring the reliability of the drinking water supply.

Sewer and Stormwater
The City’s sewer and storm drainage system was designed and installed many years ago and, although it adequately discharges current day loads, there are hotspots where localized flooding does occur. Furthermore, water and sewer infrastructure are a primary impact during a large earthquake event. The City’s sanitary sewer replacement program, in concert with systemwide upgrades being conducted by EBMUD, will help reduce the risk of failure during a major earthquake. However, expansions and/or upsizing to the local sanitary sewer collection system may be required to support increased housing development.

Agenda Report Page 355 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
C-38 | City of Piedmont Appendix C: Housing Constraints As reported in EBMUD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, EBMUD’s wastewater service district (known as Special District No. 1, or SD-1) treats domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater for several East Bay cities, including Piedmont. Each of these communities operates sewer collection systems that discharge into one of five EBMUD sewer interceptors. The City operates a municipal sanitary sewer collection system that conveys wastewater from Piedmont and portions of Oakland.

The City of Piedmont’s collection system is generally a gravity-fed system consisting of over 48 miles of sanitary sewer mains ranging in size from 6 to 15-inches. Additionally, the City’s collection system carries wastewater from portions of the sanitary sewer collection system owned and maintained by the City of Oakland. Piedmont’s collection system is divided into 24 sanitary sewer subbasins. Effluent collected from both Oakland uphill to Piedmont and the sewer collection system within the City connects at 22 different locations to the City of Oakland’s sewer collection system and ultimately to EBMUD’s north sanitary sewer interceptor. The EBMUD interceptor carries sewer flows from the East Bay communities’ collection systems to EBMUD’s wastewater treatment plant. The plant provides secondary treatment for a maximum flow of 168 million gallons per day (mgd). Primary treatment can be provided for up to a peak flow of 320 mgd. The average dry weather flow from 2010 to 2019 was approximately 54 MGD.

The de-chlorinated wastewater is discharged through an outfall 1.2 miles off the East Bay shore into the San Francisco Bay. Solids are pumped to digesters for stabilization and are then dewatered and hauled offsite. Methane generated by the digesters is used to produce renewable energy. In addition to the main wastewater treatment plant, EBMUD operates three wet weather treatment facilities. These facilities were constructed in the late 1980s to handle all the wet weather flows generated from infiltration and inflow (I&I) into the satellite agencies’ collection systems. The volume of wet weather flow is generally as high as 15 times the average dry weather flow. During periods of wet weather, the wet weather facilities are designed to provide primary treatment to the wet weather sewage flow prior to discharge into San Francisco Bay.

SB 1087 requires local governments to submit their Housing Elements to local water and sewer service providers following adoption. This ensures that local utilities are made aware of each city’s housing plans and can conduct their service planning accordingly. The City will submit this Housing Element to EBMUD following its adoption so that EBMUD is apprised of local housing opportunities and plans.

Dry Utilities
Electricity in Piedmont is provided jointly by East Bay Community Energy, a Clean Choice Energy (CCE) program, and PG&E. Natural gas is provided solely by PG&E. Additional dry utilities include cable TV/internet (AT&T and Comcast) and solid waste (Republic Services). All dry utilities are available throughout the City for any future development or redevelopment.

Agenda Report Page 356 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-1 Appendix D:Evaluation of the 2015-2023
Housing Element
Contents
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element ................. D-1 Section D.1 Existing Housing Programs Review .................................................................. D-2 Agenda Report Page 357 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-2 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Section D.1 Existing Housing Programs Review
This Appendix documents the implementation status of the current Housing Element programs. The main purpose is to evaluate which programs were successful and should be continued, and which programs were ineffective and should be eliminated or modified.

During the 5th housing element cycle, the City permitted 73 total housing units, 11 of which were deed-restricted (four were deed-restricted to extremely low/very low income persons, two were deed-restricted to low income persons, and five were deed-restricted to moderate income persons). The City issued building permits for 21 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in 2020, 22 ADUs in 2021, and 26 ADUs so far in 2022.

Programs of note that the City was successful in implementing include:
• Redevelopment of the former PG&E substation site on Linda Avenue, which provided seven new townhomes.
• A 2017 comprehensive update to the zoning code that incentivized ADU production, relaxed parking, lot size and other requirements that have helped meet the special housing needs of large households, lower-income households (which includes seniors, femaleheaded households), persons with disabilities, and multi-generational families. • A 2017 comprehensive update to the City’s zoning ordinance (City Code Chapter 17), including modifications to regulations for mixed-use development that relaxed standards for parking, lot coverage, setbacks and building height. • Comprehensive update of design guidelines consistent with Action 28.E of the Piedmont General Plan in 2019.
• Adoption of Accessory Dwelling Unit standards consistent with State law in 2019-2020. • Assisting Habitat for Humanity to provide services to low-income residents. • Working with faith-based groups to serve residents in need in Piedmont and the greater East Bay.
• Establishment of a Reasonable Accommodation process that has met the special housing needs of elderly and disabled residents, enabling them to remain in place. • Implementing a media strategy that includes providing printed handouts to the public, as well as maintaining a webpage dedicated to information about housing (www.Piedmontishome.org).

The cumulative effect of the successful implementation of several 5th Cycle programs was to diversify the housing stock and expand housing opportunities for all types of Piedmont households.

Programs targeting smaller unit sizes (e.g. ADUs), multi-family housing, and housing affordability have a positive impact on special needs groups that traditionally have a more difficult time Agenda Report Page 358 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-3 securing housing. To increase the impact the City’s Housing Element has on supporting special needs groups, such as large families, female-headed single parent households, people experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, seniors, and households with extremely low incomes, the 6th Cycle Housing Element includes more programs targeting new construction of multi-family, missing middle and ADU product types, streamlined development review, and support in reducing costs.

Lastly, the City received an “A” letter grade from the Southern California News Group, who published a report card for California cities’ efforts to implement their housing strategies for the 5th cycle housing element update (from 2015-2023). Most cities received a letter grade of “C” or “D”. This recognition of the City’s efforts highlights the existing effective strategies and the need for new housing strategies, particularly for housing affordable to households earning lower incomes (the City did receive a “C” sub-score for housing affordable to households earning very low incomes).

Agenda Report Page 359 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-4 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank
Agenda Report Page 360 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-5 Table D-1: Existing Housing Element Programs Review
5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
Goal 1: New Housing Construction

1.A
Vacant Land
Inventory
A vacant land inventory has been prepared as part of this Housing Element update (see Table 4-2). This inventory should be updated regularly, with an indication of the ownership, availability for sale, and status of any pending construction projects. Information about potential new parcels should be added, in the event that lot standards or subdivision regulations change.

Prepare a regular update
of the City’s vacant land
inventory, indicating the
status and availability of
each site in Table 4-2 for
potential development.

City Planner;
Annually
City has an
inventory of vacant
land in GIS. Given
new development
proposals the
inventory needs to
be updated.

Inventory should
also be updated to
incorporate any
zoning
amendments as
proposed as part of
the 6th Cycle
Housing Element.

Continue.

1.B
Redevelopme
nt of the
former PG&E
Site
This 15,375 square feet site was entitled for seven townhomes in September 2011 and received a building permit at the end of 2013.

The seven units equate to a density of 20 units per acre, which is the maximum permitted by zoning. It is anticipated that the development will serve above moderate income households.

Support the
redevelopment of the
former PG&E site on
Linda Avenue with
housing developed at the
maximum density
permitted by zoning.

City Planner;
Ongoing
Permit issued in
2015 to construct 7
new townhomes;
construction
completed in 2018.

Program is
complete.

Delete.

1.C
Market-Rate
Second Units
This Housing Element includes program recommendations for two types of second units. The first recommendation, listed here, relates to market rate second units. These units have no limit on the rent that may be charged and no restrictions on the income of the occupants. The second set of recommendations, listed under Goal 3, addresses rent-restricted second units.

These units are subject to deed restrictions which limit the rent that may be charged and the income of the occupants. The rentrestricted units may only be occupied by qualifying low, very low, or extremely low income households.

Maintain zoning
regulations that support
the Development of
market rate second units
in Piedmont
neighborhoods.

City Planner
with direction
from the City
Council and
the City
Planning
Commission;
Ongoing
The City continues
to promote market
rate units as well
as affordable units.

The City maintains
zoning regulations
that allow second
units (Accessory
Dwelling Units).

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Agenda Report Page 361 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-6 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
Since 2005, the City of Piedmont allowed market-rate second units by right in all residential zones provided they meet certain criteria.

Such units are permitted through “ministerial review,” meaning they require no review by the Planning Commissioners or neighbors. As noted in Chapter 5, the criteria are:

The unit must be less than 700 square feet
Structures on the property must comply with zoning standards for floor area ratio, height, lot coverage, and setbacks
An off-street, covered, non-tandem parking space must be provided outside of the required front setback
The owner must live on the property
Prior to 2005, a conditional use permit (CUP) was required for second units. The removal of this requirement has increased the volume of applications and created important new housing opportunities. The City will continue to actively promote second unit construction in the coming years. To the extent the City budget will allow, this will include keeping second unit application fees at their current levels as a way to encourage second unit production.

1.D
Data on
Second Unit
Rents and
Occupancy
Although the City maintains a list of all licensed second units, it does not regularly survey these properties to determine if they are being rented. Rental data is summarized on an annual basis based on business license taxes. Based on this data, it appears that some units are only rented on an intermittent basis, some are not rented at all, and some are rented without reporting the income to the City.

In addition, some units are being occupied “rent free” by family members, house guests, and domestic employees. Better
documentation of second unit rents and occupancies would serve the following purposes:

A better understanding of market rents and the degree to which second units are meeting the needs of different income groups in the City
Use sources such as
business tax records,
reviews of locally
advertised rentals, and
direct surveys to track
the rents being charged
for local second units,
and gather other relevant
data on second unit
occupancy and use.

City Planner,
City Clerk; Biannually,
starting in
2016
Annual mailers are
sent to rentrestricted units to
track units being
rented and the
amount charged for
rent. Rentrestricted units are
being tracked in
APRs.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Agenda Report Page 362 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-7 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
Greater equity in tax collection (e.g., to make sure that all unit owners are paying the required business tax)
Assurance that rent-restricted units are charging rents that meet HUD guidelines for the income groups served, as defined by the deed restriction
An understanding of the extent to which second units are providing housing for different populations, such as elderly relatives, adult children, low income and very low income wage earners, and domestic employees
Identification of unlawful use of second units and the need for code enforcement activities (for example, the use of a rent-restricted second unit as a home office or vacation rental)
This program would produce a bi-annual report with data on median rents, number of units occupied (and vacant), characteristics of the households being served, and relevant conclusions about how registered second units are being used. It would not report data by address, but would focus instead on summary information. If feasible, the report could be supplemented with data provided from a survey of second unit owners.

1.E
Allowances
for Housing in
the
Commercial
Zone
The Piedmont Zoning Ordinance was amended in December 2013 (effective1/1/14) to allow multi-family housing in the Commercial zone when incorporated as a component of a mixed use project.

Densities may be up to one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area, or

21.78 units per acre. This amendment created an opportunity for second story residential additions above stores or offices on Grand Avenue and longer-term opportunities for mixed use projects in the event the City’s two service stations or two retail businesses (Mulberry Market and Ace Hardware) are ever redeveloped. It also creates an opportunity to convert the six single family homes in Zone D to mixed use structures, potentially including new rental housing units. The parking requirements for multi-family housing in Zone D are the same as those applying elsewhere in the city, with one space required for small units (less than 700 SF) and two spaces required for larger units. The City would consider requests for parking variances on a case by case basis, depending on the conditions at each site, the availability of on-street parking, and opportunities for “shared parking” agreements with adjacent Work with the owners of
properties in Zone "D" to
facilitate proposals for
mixed use development,
including new mixed use
projects on underutilized
commercial sites and the
addition of residential
units to existing
commercial structures.

City Planner,
with direction
from the City
Council and
Planning
Commission;
Ongoing
In 2017, the City
Council adopted
Zoning Code
amendments for
the commercial
zone on Grand
Avenue and
Highland Avenue.

Changes clarified
existing standards,
removed conflicting
standards, and
relaxed lot
coverage, parking,
and other
standards. City is
in process of
developing MultiModify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Agenda Report Page 363 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-8 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
commercial uses. As with second units, opportunities for parking exceptions could be considered for units with rent restrictions. As required by state law, density bonuses would be allowed for projects incorporating affordable units. The City has set a target of producing at least six multi-family or mixed use units by the close of the planning period (January 31, 2023).
family and mixed
use design
guidelines and
testing feasibility of
higher density
development on
underutilized
commercial
properties.

1.F
Facilitating
Multi-Family
Development
The City of Piedmont will continue to explore ways to encourage or incentivize multi-family development in Zoning Districts C and D.

The City already provides rapid processing of development applications and has modified the development standards (i.e., reducing parking requirements for units less than 700 square feet and allowing greater hardscape coverage) in Zone C to facilitate affordable housing development. Provisions for fee reductions for multi-family projects that incorporate affordable units should continue to be explicitly provided in the Zoning Regulations. As noted in Program 2.E, the City intends to update the Residential Design Guidelines following adoption of the Housing Element. The update will include new guidelines for multi-family and mixed use development. As part of preparing these guidelines, the City will consult with local architects on the need for revisions to the zoning standards. Reductions to front yard setbacks and increases in lot coverage allowances will be considered. As noted in Program 1.E, the City has set a target of producing six multi family or mixed use units by the close of the planning period.

Continue to develop and
implement incentives to
facilitate multi-family
development on land
zoned for multi- family or
commercial uses in
Piedmont. The City will
also implement recent
CEQA exemptions for
infill projects so that
environmental review
costs are reduced for
multifamily development.

City Planner
with direction
from the City
Council and
the City
Planning
Commission;
Ongoing
(revisit multifamily
standards in
2016)
No proposed multifamily projects in
2020. The City
hopes to
incorporate
guidelines for multifamily and mixeduse projects when Design Guidelines
are updated in
2021.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Goal 2: Housing Conservation

2.A
CDBG
Funding
The Alameda Urban County CDBG program provides funds to assist lower income households with home repair and maintenance projects. A limited amount of funds are provided to local cities, with disbursal to qualifying lower income households. The City of Piedmont has participated in this program in the past and will continue to participate in the future. During the 2014 Housing Element update, it was observed that many Piedmont households are unaware of this program. If the City is successful in obtaining funds, a public information campaign should be initiated to solicit Apply for Community
Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds for
housing maintenance
and production on an
annual basis, and
establish a process for
informing the public that
such funds are available.

City Planner/
Finance
Director;
Ongoing
These grants are
administered and
advertised by
Alameda County
HCD. Prior CDBGfunded projects
include the Dudley
Avenue Sidewalk,
the Japanese Teac
Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Agenda Report Page 364 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-9 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
applications for grants/loans by Piedmont households, with an emphasis on extremely low income households. This should include feature stories in the local news media as well as announcements on the City’s website. If sufficient funds are obtained to produce new affordable housing units, the City will work with non-profit developers to explore complementary measures to facilitate housing production, such as reduced permitting and environmental review costs. The City will also seek input from developers to research appropriate potential funding sources for affordable housing production. The City has set a target of assisting 10 households with home rehabilitation by the close of the planning period (January 31, 2023).

If and when such funds
are received, a priority
should be placed on their
use to assist households
with incomes less than
30 percent of area
median income.

House Accessibility
Project, the Exedra
Plaza Accessibility
Project, the
Dracena Park Tot
Lot and Restroom
Project, the Linda
Avenue Mid-block
Crossing, and
various pedestrian
crossings.

2.B
Preservation
of Small
Homes
The City’s existing supply of small homes is currently protected by:

Floor area ratio and lot coverage requirements which limit the square footage and coverage of structures.

Requirements to provide conforming off-street parking in the event that bedrooms are added (creating a disincentive to the expansion of two and three bedroom homes with one-car garages).

Design Review Guidelines which strive to maintain the scale and mass of existing homes.

All of these provisions should be retained. In addition, the City should continue to study measures that other cities are taking to retain smaller homes, and determine if any of these measures might be transferable to Piedmont. One concept to be explored is to include a category in the City’s annual design awards program in which outstanding remodeling projects for small homes and second units are specifically acknowledged.

Maintain zoning and
design review
regulations that protect
the existing supply of
small (less than 1,800
square feet) homes in
Piedmont. Explore other
incentives to protect
small homes, including
design awards for
exemplary small home
improvement projects.

City
Planner/City
Administrator;
Ongoing, with
identification
of other
incentives to
preserve
small homes
by 2017
The City continues
to promote
Municipal Code
section

17.02.010.B which
explicitly indicates
its intent to
preserve the
supply of small
homes of small
(less than 1,800
square feet) homes
in Piedmont.

However, the City
does not have
explicit standards
to ensure homes
are allowed or
encouraged. The
City should modify
its program to
develop standards
for small lot/infill
projects to facilitate
Modify (see
evaluation).

Agenda Report Page 365 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-10 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
small home
projects.

2.C
Use of
Original
Materials and
Construction
Methods
The City’s Design Review, Plan Checking, and Building Inspection processes currently allow the use of original materials and methods of construction when remodeling projects are proposed. These provisions can mean significant cost-savings for property owners, who might otherwise need to use more expensive materials. They also help support the City’s Climate Action Plan objectives, including increased use of recycled building materials and fixtures.

Additional measures could include the application of the State Historic Building Code to structures that qualify as “historic.” This Code allows the relaxation of certain UBC standards (such as staircase width) in order to preserve historic buildings.

Maintain Planning and
Building standards which
allow the use of original
materials and
construction methods in
home remodeling.

Building
Official;
Ongoing
Because of the
California Green
Building Code and
City's Construction
and Demolition
regulations,
property owners
are incentivized to
reuse or up-cycle
materials in order
to meet diversion
requirements.

Continue.

2.D
Condominium
Conversions
The City’s Subdivision Code includes a “no net loss” provision for apartment conversions. Section 19.63 (C) of the code states that any apartments converted to condominiums must be replaced in kind by an equivalent number of equivalently priced rental units. If the units currently rent for very low, low, or moderate income rents, the replacement units must remain rent restricted for at least 55 years. This requirement reduces the likelihood of condo conversions in the city and protects the multi-family rental housing supply.

Maintain the existing
requirement that the
removal of any multifamily rental apartment
must be matched by the
creation of a new rental
apartment elsewhere in
the city.

City Council;
Ongoing
PMC Section

19.63(C) covers
this.

Continue.

2.E
Update of
Design
Guidelines
Piedmont’s Residential Design Guidelines have not been
comprehensively updated in 26 years. The document should be given a more contemporary look and should be reformatted to reflect current graphic design standards. The content also should be assessed, and changes should be made to make the Guidelines more relevant and descriptive where necessary. In addition to the drawings in the Guidelines, photos should be incorporated to illustrate desired outcomes and provide greater certainty to applicants. Consistent with the General Plan, a specific section of the Guidelines should address development of small (less than 5,000 square foot) lots.

Also as noted in the General Plan, the scope of the City’s Design Guidelines should be expanded to address mixed use and multifamily residential development. This could expedite the processing Update the 1988 City of
Piedmont Residential
Design Guidelines,
consistent with Action

28.E of the Piedmont
General Plan. The
update process should
include public input,
which should be
facilitated by one or
more Planning
Commission study
sessions.

City Planner,
with direction
from the City
Council and
the City
Planning
Commission;
Complete by
2016
Guidelines were
comprehensively
updated in 2019.

City is in the
process up
developing Multifamily and mixeduse standards.

Delete.

Agenda Report Page 366 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-11 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
of such development if future proposals are received, and would ensure that multi-family development is not evaluated using standards intended for single family homes.

The process of updating the Design Guidelines should be transparent and inclusive. Piedmont residents should be encouraged to participate and share their thoughts about how requirements and procedures can be improved. One or more study sessions of the Planning Commission should be convened as the Guidelines are being updated. Among the specific proposals that could be considered by the Commission would be:

Additional categories of exemptions from design review, especially for small rear yard projects that are not visible to neighbors or from the street.

Changes to the notification requirements, and the extent to which comments from neighbors may change a project’s design and materials.

Clearer rules for decision making.

Potential modifications to the fee schedule, to further discount certain types of projects or raise the fees for other types of projects.

Potential changes to the mixed use standards in Chapter 17.

Goal 3: Affordable Housing Opportunities

3.A
Second Unit
Ordinance
Assessment
and Revisions
In 2004, the City of Piedmont undertook a year-long process to revise its Second Unit Ordinance. The process was guided by a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and focused on ways to more effectively use second units to meet the City’s affordable housing needs. In March 2005, the Municipal Code was revised to incorporate the CAC recommendations. As noted earlier in this Housing Element, the new Code created a new incentive-driven category of “rent-restricted” second units which may only be occupied by low or very low income households. As recommended by the 2011 Housing Element, an assessment of the second unit regulations was completed in 2011-2012. This led to additional changes to the second unit regulations, as documented in Chapters 2 and 5 of this Housing Element. Periodic assessments of the regulations are recommended to ensure that they are achieving their desired purpose and producing the number of units needed to Within three years of
Housing Element
adoption, complete an
assessment of
Piedmont’s Second Unit
regulations, with a focus
on the incentives that are
being used to promote
rent-restricted units and
the steps that can be
taken to increase second
unit production and
occupancy rates.

City
Planner/Cons
ultant, City
Council; 2017
The Second Unit
Ordinance was
amended and rewritten as a new
Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU)
Ordinance in 2017
and again in 2019-
2020. The ADU
Ordinance is
consistent with
State law. The City
is also in the
process of
developing
Delete.

Agenda Report Page 367 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-12 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
meet the RHNA, and to identify corrective measures in the event the targets are not being met.

Future changes could include:

Elimination of the variance requirement for the primary dwelling unit when a rent-restricted unit is provided without parking and conforming parking for the primary unit also does not exist. The current regulations allow the rent-restricted second unit to be approved with a parking exception (a simpler process than a variance), but still require a parking variance for the primary unit.

Section 17.40.6(e) of the Municipal Code should be amended to eliminate the variance requirement for the primary unit in such instances.

Additional tools to incentivize the use of existing legal second units as rentals, including graduated business tax rates. For example, a three tiered rate structure could be considered which includes higher tax rates when entire single family homes are rented out, more moderate rates for second units, and very low rates (or waivers) for rent-restricted second units.

Additional tools to encourage the conversion of “unintended” second units to active rental units. “Unintended” units are not considered legal second units, but have the physical characteristics to be easily converted. These spaces are particularly well suited for rent restricted units because the capital cost to create them is minimal. One possible incentive would be reductions of planning and building fees if the units are rent-restricted.

Additional steps to “match” rent-restricted second units with local employees, particularly low and very low income City and School District employees.

A zoning provision that would allow a second unit within an existing residence to be moved to a different location within the residence without obtaining a new second unit permit. This could be an incentive to retain existing second units in properties that are being remodeled.

The addition of a standard section in every staff report for a second unit permit indicating the City’s progress toward meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. By incorporating such data in the staff report, the Planning Commission and general public would incentives for
ADUs and draft
ADU plans, which
may include
amendments to the
ADU ordinance.

Agenda Report Page 368 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-13 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
be regularly reminded that the City has adopted quantified target sand is continually working to achieve those targets through the approval of rent-restricted and market rate second units.

Lengthening Administrative Extensions. Administrative extensions of Planning Commission approvals of rent-restricted second units are currently available if the applicant does not pull a building permit in the first year. The current allowance is for a six month extension, subject to a fee equal to half the initial fee paid by the applicant. The City should extend the administrative extension for rent-restricted units to one year, and should consider allowing the initial approval to remain valid for 18 months rather than 12 months. Fee waivers for administrative extensions for rent-restricted units also should be considered.

Additional incentives for new homes to include second units, including a waiver of second unit fees and reduced building permit fees for new homes that agree to include a rent-restricted unit.

3.B
Affordable
Second Unit
Public
Information
Campaign
This program would use a variety of media to inform the community about Piedmont’s second unit program. This would include a dedicated page on the City’s website informing residents of what second units are and why they are an essential part of the City’s housing stock. The website could describe the different types of second units in the City, the regulations that govern them, and the application process. Additionally, the City would continue to use FAQs, brochures, and other print media to explain the steps for applying for an second unit, with special attention given to the homeowner benefits of applying for a rent-restricted unit. The City’s local access cable station (KCOM) should also be used to convey this information.

Further positive news coverage about second units could be generated through press releases and articles in the Piedmonter and Piedmont Post. This should include human interest stories about second unit owners and tenants in the City. Second unit occupants should be contacted by the City and invited to tell their stories to local reporters in a way that illustrates the “real world” benefits of having second units in the community. In addition, the City should establish a category in its annual design awards for outstanding second units. The City should also seek input from Initiate a public
information and
education campaign
about second units,
including definitions,
regulations for their use,
opportunities for their
construction, and the
various incentives
offered by the City to
create rent- restricted
units. The campaign
should add a "human
interest dimension by
focusing on the stories of
actual second unit
owners and tenants in
Piedmont.

City
Planner/Cons
ultant; 2015
The City continues
to provide
information on
accessory dwelling
units (previously
called second unit
permits) to the
public. Information
about accessory
dwelling units,
including a FAQ
section has been
added to the City
Website. As
described above,
the City has
adopted an ADU
ordinance
consistent with
State law.

Continue/
modify second
unit language
to "accessory
dwelling
units".

Agenda Report Page 369 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-14 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
applicants who considered adding an second unit, but ultimately decided not to—and applicants who received approval for a unit but then opted not to rent it. Their perspectives would be informative and could lead to changes in the program which would encourage more households to participate.

An important part of the City’s outreach strategy should be to target owners of “unintended” second units, including single family homes that have been reported by Alameda County as having two on-site units despite City records indicating a single family home. The City already has a roster of such units (by address) and should contact owners with a letter informing them of the opportunity to apply for a market rate or rent-restricted rental unit. Efforts should also be made to contact the owners of suspected illegal second units, with a focus on legalizing these units as new rent-restricted units.

3.C
Monitoring
Affordable
Second Unit
Opportunities
As noted in Table 2.1 of the Housing Element, the City maintains an address data base of second units, noting the year they were created, the way they were permitted, and comments on their current status. The data base provides a mechanism for monitoring second unit development opportunities, and the supply and status of legal and illegal second units. As noted in Program 1.D, the City is currently monitoring data on second unit rents, providing an additional source of information on this component of the housing supply.

Program 3.A describes the City’s intent to pursue additional development opportunities in “unintended” second units. These are spaces that are not used for habitation as separate living quarters, but have the potential for conversion to second units based on their physical characteristics. Examples include pool houses with indoor cooking facilities; basements with kitchens, bathrooms, and separate entrances; and finished rooms over garages. There were 134 unintended second units counted in the city in 2014. As noted in Program 3.B, the City intends to remind owners of these units of the opportunity to apply for legal second unit status. The City has set a target of converting at least five unintended second units into registered second units during the planning period. These units are included in the totals shown in Table 7-1 and could include both market rate and rent-restricted units.

Monitor the supply of
unintended second units,
illegal or suspected
second units, and vacant
second units. A
confidential data base
listing the addresses of
such units shall be
maintained for
administrative purposes.

Recognize the potential
for such properties to
help meet the City's
affordable housing
needs, and take
proactive steps to realize
this potential in the
coming years
City Planner,
City Clerk,
Building
Official;
Ongoing
The City
implements this
program on an ongoing basis, and
continues to review
all planning and
building proposals
to determine the
presence of
"unintended" units
on Piedmont
properties. Staff
talks to property
owners about
registering these
as accessory
dwelling units, so
that they are
rentable, rather
than keeping them
as only personal or
guest quarters.

Continue/
modify
language to
"Monitoring
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Missed
Opportunities"
.

Agenda Report Page 370 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-15 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
The address data base of “suspected” second units is an important resource. The potentially illegal status of such units provides leverage to convert them into rent-restricted units. The City will work with the owners of such units into convert them into legal apartments, on the condition that they either provide conforming parking or be rent-restricted to a low or very low income household.

The latter option provides a “win-win” for all parties, since it provides the owner with a legal second unit and legitimate source of rental income, the City with an affordable unit, and a low income tenant with a secure place to live.

As noted in Program 1.D, the City also collects annual business license taxes (generally around $200 annually) from second unit rentals. The owners of many legal units are not paying these taxes, suggesting that the units are vacant or are being used for guest quarters, family members, home offices, etc. These legal units are a housing resource for the City, and steps should be taken to incentivize their use as rental apartments. Even though they are not rent-restricted, such units are affordable to most moderate income and some low income households.

Finally, it is acknowledged that the City’s data base of “unintended units” represents only a portion of the potential for second units in the city. There are many other homes in Piedmont that contain physical features conducive to second unit creation. This includes homes on down sloping lots with built out lower levels. The City will make an ongoing effort to expand its database of such spaces in the future as planning and building permit applications are received and as plans are reviewed. Part of the plan checking process should include an evaluation of whether the property contains an unintended second unit (i.e., does it have two kitchens? is there habitable space over the garage or in the basement or attic?) Properties should be added to the unintended unit data base over time, so that when the City does periodic mailings on second unit opportunities, these addresses are included.

Agenda Report Page 371 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-16 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

3.D
Monitoring
Additional
Second Unit
Development
Opportunities
While Program 3.C addresses opportunities for second units through the conversion of existing floor space, Program 3.D focuses on lots which are conducive to second unit creation due to their large size, location, or ability to accommodate additions or new structures. This includes vacant lots, lots in the Estate Zone, and lots in Zone A that are larger than 20,000 square feet. These lots are more likely to have space for a new second unit, as well as room to meet the off-street parking requirements for market-rate units. As development applications for new homes or major home additions are received on these properties, the City will advise applicants of the opportunity to add an second unit. The City has set a target of accommodating 5 second units in new homes or homes that are expanded with major additions during the planning period.

These would generally be market-rate (rather than rent-restricted) second units.

Monitor potential
opportunities for second
units within new homes
and on existing homes
located on larger lots
that are conducive to
second unit creation.

City Planner;
Ongoing
On-going, the City
promotes the
creation of
accessory dwelling
units at the counter
when we recognize
an opportunity.

Piedmont's floor
area limits for new
residences are
relaxed when the
construction of a
new residence
includes a new
accessory dwelling
unit or when
required by state
law. Also, per SB
9, under certain
circumstances,
residents will be
able to apply for a
second unit
ministerially, as
well as ministerial
lot splits.

Modify second
unit language
to "accessory
dwelling
units".

3.E
Incentives for
Renewal of
Expiring Rent
Restrictions
Because the affordability terms on rent-restricted second units expire after 10 years, the City could potentially lose units even as it is adding units to the rent-restricted inventory through new applications. The first rent-restricted unit will reach the end of its affordability term in 2018. By the end of 2017, the City will develop a strategy for conserving these units and reducing potential impacts on tenants who may be affected by sudden rent increases.

Opportunities for long-term tax abatements should be explored, if the City can identify a grant funding source or other non-local funding source to cover the loss in property tax revenue. Such abatements could also provide an incentive to keep the units occupied, since they would be contingent on proof of occupancy by Develop incentives for
the owners of rentrestricted second units to
renew the affordability
restrictions for their units
upon expiration of the
10-year deed restriction.

City Planner;
2017
The City has had
success in
producing
affordable units
through deed
restricted ADUs,
discuss cost
benefit of funding
continuation of
units.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Agenda Report Page 372 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-17 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
a low income tenant. Local funding sources also could be considered, depending on fiscal impacts. One possible funding source could be an increase in the rental tax on single family homes.

Goal 4: Elimination of Housing Constraints

4.A
Media
Strategy
Several pamphlets and printed handouts have been prepared to explain Piedmont’s design review, planning, and permitting requirements. Overtime, the City has improved and updated these materials to make them more readable and incorporate
contemporary graphic design conventions. The City’s website also continues to expand and improve. During the last 15 years, the website has become a more important information resource and has overtaken printed pamphlets as the preferred means of obtaining information by most customers. Many application materials are now downloadable from the web. Continued efforts should be made to improve the content and usability of information on the “Planning” homepage, and to use the web to assist residents and reduce permitting delays. New tools such as YouTube video tutorials could be considered to inform applicants of permitting procedures and requirements.

Prepare printed
brochures and webbased materials which
inform residents about
the planning and building
processes in Piedmont.

City
Planner/Cons
ultant;
Ongoing
City regularly
updates and
improves its paper
handouts and
website to describe
current
requirements and
respond to "FAQs".

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Agenda Report Page 373 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-18 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

4.B
Home
Improvement
Seminars
In the past, the City Planning Commission has held special sessions on topics such as window replacement and upper story additions. Additional Planning Commission special sessions on bayfriendly landscaping, solar panel installation, energy conservation, and other home improvements would be helpful and could
ultimately make home maintenance and improvement projects more affordable for Piedmont households. Such seminars should be aired on KCOM (local access cable) to reach as broad an audience as possible.

The City has set a target of providing at least two seminars during the planning period.

Conduct city-sponsored
meetings, programs, and
seminars which inform
residents on home
improvement and
maintenance practices in
Piedmont.

City Planner;
Ongoing
In 2020, the City
launched a web
page dedicated to
housing programs
in the City of
Piedmont. This
approach was
chosen due to
COVID-19
precautions and as
a way to distribute
information about
fair housing in
Piedmont.

Modify to
encourage
more frequent
check
ins/meetings.

4.C
Building Code
Updates and
Ongoing
Enforcement
This is an ongoing program. The City should amend Chapter 5 of the City Code (the Building Code) as updates to the California Building Code of Regulations are published. Amendments reflecting local concerns may be made as needed. Particular attention should be given to standards which would encourage creation of second units in the City. There may be instances where exceptions to the Code could be considered (for instance, lower ceiling heights) to make it easier for property owners to convert unintended units into rental properties. The current second unit regulations provide such flexibility as an incentive to create rent-restricted units.

Continue to implement
the California Building
Code of regulations, as
locally amended. Update
or amend the codes as
state requirements
change, and as
conditions in Piedmont
warrant.

Building
Official;
Ongoing
This action is
implemented on an
ongoing basis and
continues to be
relevant.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

4.D
Fee Review
Fees should be reviewed annually to ensure that they cover operating costs only. Planning and building fees should not be used to subsidize other City departments and services. The City should continue efforts to use a “sliding scale” for planning and building fees based on project value to reduce the cost burden on applicants for minor home improvements. Fees should also be structured to provide incentives for rent-restricted second units and other projects which provide opportunities for lower income households.

Review all planning and
building fees to be sure
that they cover required
costs but are not more
than is necessary to
provide the required City
services.

Finance
Director/City
Planner;
Ongoing
Planning
Department fees
are addressed,
increased, and go
into effect on July
1 st annually.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Agenda Report Page 374 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-19 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

4.E
Temporary
Staff
Additions
As a small city, Piedmont is susceptible to fluctuations in the volume of planning and building applications. With only one building inspector, one plan checker, and a small planning staff, processing of all applications at the same speed throughout the year can be a challenge. Vacation schedules, staff absences, and staff turnover add to this challenge. Because the City is committed to customer service in its Planning and Building functions, contract staff may be hired to provide building inspection, plan checking, and planning services during peak periods or prolonged staff absences. This will continue in the future.

Add contract staff as
needed to ensure prompt
processing of all
applications.

Public Work
Director;
Ongoing
This action is
implemented on
an ongoing basis
and continues to
be relevant.

Continue.

4.F
Capital
Improvement
Plan Updates
The CIP update provides assurance that City-maintained facilities such as streets, sidewalks, and storm drains are kept in excellent condition, thereby avoiding deferred maintenance expenses for Piedmont residents. The City has created a CIP Committee to provide citizen input in this process. At least once a year, the CIP Committee should be briefed on the Piedmont General Plan and the requirement that CIP decisions be consistent with Plan policies and priorities. Funding for the maintenance and replacement of City facilities also occurs through the Facilities Maintenance Fund. The Fund was established per City Council directive in FY 2007-08. It identifies annual maintenance needs for all buildings owned by the City as well as parks and recreational facilities.

Annually update the
Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP) and Facilities
Maintenance Fund to
ensure that municipal
systems are kept in good
condition.

Public Works
Director;
Ongoing
The City has a CIP
committee that
advises on priority
projects.

Continue.

4.G
Monitoring the
Effects of the
City Charter
City Planning and Building Staff will continue to track annual housing production and permit activity as they have in the past, and will prepare annual reports to the Council evaluating housing and building permitting trends and the effects of the Charter as described above. These reports will specifically evaluate the Charter for impacts on multi-family housing production and costs based on various criteria such as:
the failure of a citywide ballot measure associated with a proposed Zoning Map change to multi-family housing.
a multi-family development proposal which has been endorsed or approved by the Planning Commission or City Council but does not Piedmont’s rentrestricted second unit
program has been
successful in
accommodating and
achieving the City’s
share of the regional
housing need, including
producing housing for
very low income
households. However,
the Charter requires a
City Planner;
Annually
While the City has
updated the zoning
code to allow multifamily housing in
the commercial
zone (now mixeduse zone), the
geographic limits to
where these zones
are applied
constrains
opportunities for
Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Agenda Report Page 375 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-20 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
proceed because a citywide ballot measure to change the zoning would be required.
conclusions of research done by a third party finding that the City Charter constrains the ability to do multi-family housing. lack of multi-family development proposals.
input from the development community, including non-profits, property owners, stakeholders and advocates on behalf of lower income households such as the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH), EBHO and the League of Women Voters.

Based on the outcomes of the evaluation, the City will implement program and zoning changes within 12 months including, if necessary, a Charter amendment or other appropriate remedies not requiring voter approval. These remedies could include streamlining multifamily permit procedures and identifying and designating, additional sites for multifamily development within 12 months. citywide vote for zoning
map changes, which
constrains the
development of a variety
of housing types,
particularly high-density
multi-family housing. To
address this constraint,
the City has allowed
multi-family density
housing in the
commercial zone and
created new incentives
for multi-family uses.

This Program
supplements these two
programs by monitoring
and annually evaluating
and reporting on the
effects of the City
Charter on: (a) the cost
and supply of housing,
particularly multifamily
housing and (b) the
effectiveness of City
strategies to mitigate
related impacts. Based
on the outcome of the
evaluation, the City will
adopt strategies to
address and mitigate
identified constraints.
new housing.

Housing Element
includes a rezoning
program.

Agenda Report Page 376 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-21 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

4.H
Health and
Safety Code
17021.5
Compliance
The California Legislature has established that cities must allow the development of employee housing commensurate with local needs.

State Health and Safety Code (Section 17021.5) requires that cities treat employee housing for six or fewer employees as single family residential uses. Employee housing may not be defined as “a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, (or) dormitory.” This action would amend Piedmont’s Municipal Code to ensure compliance with this statute.

Amend the Municipal
Code to ensure
compliance with the
employee housing
provisions of California
Health and Safety Code
17021.5.

City Planner;
2016
Not complete.

Amend the
Municipal Code to
ensure compliance
with the employee
housing provisions
of California Health
and Safety Code
17021.5.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Goal 5: Special Needs Populations

5.A
Shared
Housing
Publicity and
Media
Initiative
In 2012, the City adopted Municipal Code amendments that clarified the rules for renting rooms in Piedmont homes. There had previously been a lack of clarity between the rules for “rooming or boarding houses,” which were prohibited, and “rented rooms,” which were neither expressly allowed nor prohibited by Code. The new rules allow a householder to rent out multiple rooms, as long as they are covered by a single lease. Thus, a senior homeowner (or any homeowner) may rent part of their house to a low income family, a single parent with child, or another household comprised of multiple persons (as well as to a single person).

Renting of rooms is subject to a business license tax. As of 2012, only nine Piedmont homeowners were reporting rental income from rented rooms, suggesting the practice is limited and potentially not widely known. A public information campaign, including web-based information and news articles, is recommended to encourage additional room rentals during the planning period. The target audience for such a campaign would be persons living alone in large single family homes—as of 2010, 16% of the City’s households consisted of one person only. Roughly 315 households in the City consist of seniors living alone. Home sharing can enable a live-in caregiver, or simply provide for added security and assistance for a senior householder. It also provides potential affordable housing opportunities for very low and extremely income households.

Increase awareness of
Piedmont’s newly
modified shared housing
regulations, and
encourage single seniors
and other small
households in the City to
participate in the
program.

City
Planner/City
Administrator;
2016
The City continues
to inform residents
of the regulations
for renting rooms.

Specifically,
Piedmont
Municipal Code
Section 17.40.020
authorizes
homeowners to
rent a room or
multiple rooms to
one tenant. While
the code allows
this, there are no
handouts or FAQs
available to this
effect.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Agenda Report Page 377 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-22 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

5.B
Shared
Housing
Matching
Services
Some of Piedmont’s “empty nesters” or other residents who have surplus space in their homes may wish to rent that space in return for income or care, but may be reluctant to rent to strangers. The non-profit Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO Housing), which serves residents throughout Alameda County, operates a shared housing program which could potentially benefit these residents. The program matches persons needing housing with homeowners who have available space.

Shared housing programs can also provide a resource for extremely low income households, including families as well as seniors. The ECHO program includes counseling on shared living, supportive services, and informational and referral, as well as educational workshops on home sharing. Any shared housing program in Piedmont should be designed to include extremely low income families, as well as empty nesters and other seniors.

The City has set a target of achieving shared housing arrangements for at least 10 persons during the planning period. In the event the City determines that participating in the ECHO Housing program is feasible, this target will be communicated to them.

Consider participating in
ECHO Housing's shared
housing program as a
way to improve housing
opportunities for lower
income seniors and
extremely low income
households.

City
Planner/City
Administrator;
2016
The City refers
residents to
ECHO's services
when requested or
the opportunity is
brought to our
attention.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

5.C
Allowances
for Temporary
Home
Improvements
Section 17.20.5(a)(vii) of the Piedmont Code creates exemptions for temporary home improvements such as wheelchair ramps. Other exemptions could be explored in the future. For example, the City could permit the addition of a first floor bathroom or bedroom without conforming parking—or the addition of a temporary second unit for a nurse or live-in aide. The construction might be permitted with the condition it be removed (or approved with a variance or CUP) when the occupancy of the home changes.

Allow Planning and
Building Code
exceptions for certain
temporary home
improvements which
help Piedmont seniors
remain in their homes as
their physical capabilities
change.

City Planner;
Ongoing
Program is
Complete. City
Code Division

17.76 allows for
reasonable
accommodation to
provide individuals
with disabilities
accommodation in
regulations and
procedures.

Delete.

Agenda Report Page 378 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-23 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

5.D
Assistance to
Nonprofit
Developers
There are several nonprofit entities in the East Bay who are actively engaged in developing housing for low and moderate income households. These builders make an important contribution to the region’s housing market and have been the largest producers of affordable housing units in the area during the past decade.

Although there are very few vacant or redevelopable sites in Piedmont, the City is committed to working collaboratively with the nonprofit sector in the event a viable development proposal is made. The City could also be a potential partner in the event such housing is proposed in a nearby community.

Program 5.D will be implemented on an on-going basis. As development opportunities arise, the City will provide technical assistance to nonprofits in the completion and/or co-sponsoring of applications for state and federal housing funds and other grants.

The City will also work with nonprofit applicants to identify and proactively address issues of concern in the community, such as traffic, parking, and design compatibility. Finally, the City will consider regulatory concessions, incentives, and other methods which reduce project costs and make the project more viable.

Provide assistance to
non-profit entities
interested in developing
housing for low and
moderate income
Piedmont residents,
including the elderly and
others with special
needs.

City
Administrator
and City
Planner;
Ongoing
The City has begun
assisting Habitat
for Humanity in
their plans to
provide services to
low-income
residents.

Modify. Modify
the program to
have biannual
check ins
and/or
dedication to
help pursue
grant funding.

5.E
Accommodati
ons for
Disabled
Persons
The City will work with local advocates and service providers (such as the Center for Independent Living) to provide an explanation of the process to retrofit a home to meet the needs of persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. Links to the websites of key service providers and advocacy organizations should be provided on the City’s website. Printed information (such as brochures or FAQ handouts) produced by these organizations should be available at City Hall. This information should identify the range of features that might be incorporated in a barrier-free home, and the steps an applicant would need to take to add these features to a residence.

Provide access to
printed and web- based
information which
describe the procedures
for making a Piedmont
home "barrier free"
City Planner;
2015
The City has not
yet had any
requests for this
information but is
willing to provide
resources when
needed
Modify. Modify
the program to
have
information
available on an
"as requested"
basis.

Agenda Report Page 379 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-24 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

5.F
Housing
Support for
Families in
Crisis
Despite the absence of a visible homeless population in Piedmont, the City is located in an urban area where homelessness is a serious issue. Piedmont currently provides financial assistance to Alameda County to fund countywide programs which meet the needs of homeless persons and persons at risk of becoming homeless. The beneficiaries of these programs may include Piedmont residents as well as those in other cities. On an ongoing basis, the City will stay apprised of homelessness issues, work with homeless service providers, and offer referrals for any Piedmont resident faced with the risk of homelessness.

Support public and nonprofit agencies in
Alameda County which
provide food and shelter
for families in crisis.

City
Administrator/
City Council;
Ongoing
Piedmont
continues to
provide financial
assistance to
Alameda County to
fund countywide
programs. The City
stays apprised of
homelessness
issues, works with
homeless service
providers, and will
offer referrals for
any Piedmont
resident faced with
the risk of
homelessness.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

5.G
EveryOne
Home
In October 2009 the City of Piedmont joined 13 other cities in committing to work with Alameda County to alleviate homelessness.

The Countywide Plan has been prepared in response to federal requirements that mandate the development of subregional plans to end homelessness. It recognizes the regional nature of the problem and the need for regional solutions. The Plan was designed to end chronic homelessness and provide more secure and permanent housing for low-income people with mental illness, HIV/AIDS, and other disabilities or high risk of homelessness. It includes a 10-year action plan, within a broader 15-year implementation plan.

Participating in EveryOne Home is an important part of Piedmont’s efforts to meet the housing needs of extremely low income households, as required by state law. Endorsement of the Plan by the City establishes general agreement with its strategies and provides a guide to address homelessness in a way that is consistent with other communities in Alameda County. It also represents a funding commitment by the City to countywide homeless services.

Participate in the
Alameda County
EveryOne Home
Program, a Countywide
planning effort to
increase housing
opportunities for
extremely low income
and disabled persons
and strengthen the
services the County
provides to the homeless
City
Planner/City
Council;
Ongoing
A count of
sheltered and unsheltered
homelessness
individuals was
conducted in
January 2017.

Piedmont City
planning staff
participated in the
survey of unsheltered homeless
individuals. The
City of Piedmont
contributes a prorata share of the
funds used for
operation and
administration of
the program.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Agenda Report Page 380 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-25 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

5.H
Faith
Community
Participation
Piedmont’s churches and synagogue are potential partners in efforts to address the housing needs of extremely low income residents in Piedmont and nearby cities. Additional efforts should be made to coordinate local housing programs with the faith community. The City should continue to work with its congregations to promote charitable contributions and develop proactive solutions to avoid homelessness and help those at risk of becoming homeless. This includes not only housing-related programs, but those which help extremely low income persons with other needs, such as food, medical assistance, and access to supportive services.

Work with the local faith
community to serve
residents in need within
Piedmont and the
greater East Bay, and to
identify potential partners
for meeting local
extremely low income
housing needs.

City Council;
Ongoing
Implemented on an
on-going basis.

Local houses of
worship continue to
provide volunteerrun services (food
drives, etc.) for
lower income
persons.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

5.I
Second Units
for Extremely
Low Income
Households
The City of Piedmont has identified the need to assist eight extremely low income households during the 2015-2023 Housing Element period, based on its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2634, local governments are required to assist in the development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of these households. In larger communities, this is usually done by accommodating single room occupancy hotels (SROs), providing multi-family developments with units set aside for extremely low income households, and facilitating supportive and transitional housing. In smaller communities, provisions for shelters and supportive and transitional housing are required by state law, but additional steps must still be taken to meet the diverse housing needs of extremely low income residents.

Based on data from the 2010 Census, 81 percent of Piedmont’s households with incomes of $35,000 or less are headed by seniors (78 of 96 households). Programs 2.A, 5.A, and 5.B focus on these residents. As these programs are administered, the City will place apriority on serving extremely low income senior applicants.

For extremely low income residents in Piedmont who are not seniors, second units and shared housing are the best prospects for meeting housing needs. Data collected by the City of Piedmont indicates there were several second units in the city in 2014 with monthly rents of less than $483. Such units meet affordability criteria for extremely low income households and demonstrate that the City is already meeting a portion of its extremely low income housing needs with no public subsidy. Anecdotally, an unknown Maintain an inventory of
second units that are
available at rents that
are affordable to
extremely low income
households. Explore
ways to expand this
inventory and encourage
the development of
additional extremely low
income second units
through the City's
affordable second unit
program and other
means.

City Planner,
City Clerk;
Ongoing
The City's
Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU)
ordinance is
consistent with
state laws that took
effect in 2017-
2019. The City will
need to address
new incentives in
2021. This is more
difficult with
changes to
Government Code
Section 65852.2 as
a result of AB2299
and SB1069. The
City can no longer
use exceptions to
the parking
requirements for
accessory dwelling
units as incentives
for rent restrictions.

The City continues
to use exceptions
Modify. The
City will
consider other
incentives to
encourage the
development of
ADUs for
extremely low
income
households.

Agenda Report Page 381 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-26 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
number of the city’s second units appear to be occupied by extremely low income households who live rent-free in second units in exchange for assistance with home repair and other household chores. Such units are an important resource for extremely low income households and should be sustained.

In the future, the City will explore options to increase the inventory of extremely low income housing. This is already being done through allowances for such units to be created without off-street parking if they are 300 square feet or less. It could also be done through a waiver of the business license tax, fee reductions or other incentives so that some of the very low income units produced through the affordable second unit program are suitable for extremely low income households, including seniors and persons with disabilities. Other programs in this Housing Element, including the monitoring of second unit rents (see Program 1.D), will enable the City to gauge the extent to which second units are already serving extremely low income households.
to the floor area
limits for ADUs as
an incentive for
rent restrictions
(affordable to
households
earning low and
very low incomes).

5.J
Housing for
Extremely
Low Income
Families
Piedmont presently allows second units to be as large as 1,000 square feet if the units are rent restricted to very low income households, including extremely low income households. The allowance for larger units if the unit is rented to a very low income household provides a strong incentive that benefits extremely low income families. A unit of this size would typically be associated with a two-bedroom apartment or carriage house, which could accommodate a three or four person extremely low income family.

The City will pursue additional incentives to encourage the inclusion of units that are affordable to extremely low income households in new multi-family development. These incentives could include allowances for higher lot coverage and floor area ratios in Zone C for buildings that dedicate one or more units for extremely low income families.

Develop incentives to
meet the needs of
Piedmont's extremely
low income households
potentially including
modified development
standards for new multifamily buildings that
include units for
extremely low income
families
City Planner,
Building
Official; 2016
The City currently
does not have
clear incentives for
extremely low
income units. The
City will consider
incentives (like
reduced parking).

Modify. Modify
the program to
outline
suggested
incentives.

Agenda Report Page 382 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-27 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

5.K
Developmenta
lly Disabled
Residents
Developmentally disabled residents include those with cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, and other conditions that typically appear before an individual reaches 18. Supportive housing is often required for such individuals to lead independent lives upon adulthood. As required by state law, the City will continue to work with social service providers to explore opportunities for such housing within Piedmont. The City will also maintain communication with the Regional Center of the East Bay to identify service needs within the City and to identify available resources for local residents.

The City participates in this program on an ongoing nature.

Coordinate with the
Regional Center for the
East Bay, the East Bay
Housing Consortium,
and other organizations
to better respond to the
housing needs of
developmentally
disabled Piedmont
residents and ensure
that sufficient resources
exist within and around
the community to meet
these needs.

City Planner,
Building
Official;
Ongoing
City participates in
an ongoing nature.

Modify (see
Section IV of
HEU).

Goal 6: Sustainability and Energy

6.A
Title 24
The City will continue to require compliance with the Title 24 energy efficiency standards established by the California Energy Commission. Adhering to these standards can reduce energy costs in new construction by as much as 50 %.

Continue to enforce Title
24 requirements for
energy conservation.

Plan Checker
(Public
Works);
Ongoing
Compliance with
Title 24 is standard
practice in the City
Continue/Modi
fy. This
program now
acknowledges
Reach codes.

Agenda Report Page 383 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-28 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

6.B
Green
Housing
“Green” construction has the potential to reduce home utility costs and produce healthier living environments. The City should use tools such as the “Build it Green” checklist to encourage greener housing construction. The City will also monitor proposed changes to the building code at the state level and amend its ordinances accordingly.

Explore ways to
encourage and
incentivize greener
residential construction.

California and PACE
programs.

Building
Official/City
Planner;
Ongoing
The City recently
adopted REACH
Codes to
encourage
sustainable design
and retrofits. The
City follows the
California Green
Building Code.

Building Permits for
residential solar
energy systems
are expedited with
a flat fee. City
participates in
Energy Upgrade
California and
PACE programs.

Continue.

6.C
Renewable
Energy
Funding
Assistance
In 2009, the City of Piedmont developed a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to help achieve local greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Because it is a city of older single family homes, Piedmont must find ways to improve the energy efficiency of its existing housing stock in order to meet these goals. In December 2009, the City voted to join the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) and the California FIRST Program.

More recently, the City has been participating in Energy Upgrade California, a statewide program that provides financial assistance for homeowners for select energy-saving home improvements. The program includes energy assessments and physical improvements that reduce energy loss and improve energy efficiency. It encompasses rebates and incentives, income-qualified assistance for energy bills, and financing assistance to households seeking to install renewable energy systems and similar improvements.

Piedmont will continue to participate in such programs in the future, reducing the burden of utility costs on homeowners and renters, while advancing its climate action and sustainability objectives.

Participate in Energy
Upgrade California or
equivalent programs
which assist
homeowners with
renewable energy and
energy efficiency
improvements on their
property.

City Planner;
Ongoing
City continues to
participate in
Energy Upgrade
California, Bay
Area SunShares
and PACE
programs. Building
Permits for
residential solar
energy systems
are expedited with
a flat fee.

Continue.

Agenda Report Page 384 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City of Piedmont | D-29 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue

6.D
Financial
Assistance
These programs include:

Energy audits, which may be provided by PG&E or private vendors.

Rebates (sponsored by non-City entities) for the use of energy efficient appliances, and for the recycling of less efficient appliances.

The federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance program
(LIHEAP), which offers qualifying low income households financial assistance to offset energy costs (through weatherization or assistance in paying energy bills).
“REACH” (Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help), which is a PG&E program administered by the Salvation Army that provides energy assistance to low-income customers in the form of onetime payments for energy costs.

CARE (California Alternate Rates for Energy) and FERA (Family Electric Rate Assistance), both programs which provide rate discounts for lower income households.

A Medical Baseline Allowance for persons with high medically related electric bills.

Information on these programs should be kept at the Planning and Building counter for interested residents, and should be accessible via links on the City’s website.

Promote the use of
programs which reduce
residential energy costs.

Building
Official/City
Planner;
Ongoing
City promotes
REACH Codes and
energy reduction
programs as a part
of the Climate
Action Plan.

Building Permits for
residential solar
energy systems
are expedited with
a flat fee. City
participates in
Energy Upgrade
California and
PACE programs.

Continue.

Goal 7: Equal Access to Housing

7.A
Public
Information
This is an ongoing program that will be continued in the future.

Pamphlets on fair housing laws and procedures are kept at the Planning and Building Counter. Materials should be provided in English, Spanish and Chinese to ensure that those in need are made aware of their fair housing rights. This information, including links to ECHO housing’s website, should also be posted on the City’s website. In 2020, the City updated its website and created a fair housing programs webpage with information for residents.

Provide printed
information on fair
housing laws at city Hall
and web based
information on the City's
website.

City Clerk;
Ongoing
On-going program.

In 2020, the City
updated its website
and created a fair
housing programs
webpage with
information for
residents.

Continue.

7.B
Fair Housing
Referrals
The City presently refers discrimination complaints to the ECHO Housing, a Countywide non-profit agency. If mediation fails and enforcement is necessary, tenants may be referred to the State Continue the City's
referral arrangement with
ECHO Housing on fair
City
Clerk/City
On-going program. Continue.

Agenda Report Page 385 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
D-30 | City of Piedmont Appendix D: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 5th Cycle HEU
Program
Name and
Number
Program
Description
Objectives
Responsible
Party;
Timeline
Evaluation
Modify/Delete/
Continue
Department of Fair Employment and Housing or HUD, depending on the complaint.
housing issues and
discrimination
complaints.

Planner;
Ongoing
Agenda Report Page 386 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix E: Meeting Summaries
Contents
Appendix E: Meeting Summaries
Section E.1 Focus Group Meeting Summary
Section E.2 Joint PC/HAC Meeting Summary
Section E.3 Workshop #1 Summary
Section E.4 Workshop #2 Summary
Section E.5 HAC #2 Summary
Section E.6 Park Commission Summary
Section E.7 Planning Commission #1 Summary
Section E.8 Recreation Commission Summary
Section E.9 Town Hall Meeting Summary
Section E.10 City Council #1 Summary
Section E.11 City Council #2 Summary
Section E.12 Planning Commission #2 Summary
Section E.13 Outreach Materials
Agenda Report Page 387 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
This page is intentionally blank
Agenda Report Page 388 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
6th Cycle Housing Element Update
City of Piedmont
Focus Group Meeting Summary
Overview
The Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) with its Consultant Team, including Plan to Place, conducted five stakeholder focus group meetings as the kick-off of a comprehensive public engagement process for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The 60-minute meetings were held over 3 days via Zoom, on Monday, July 19th, Thursday, July 22nd, and Friday, July 23rd. The Consultant Team met with representatives of local businesses, civic institutions, property owners, business owners/operators, housing advocacy and special interest groups, developers, residents, realtors, civic leaders, and former and current elected and appointed officials. The objectives of the meetings were threefold: 1) provide the community with an overview of the process and purpose of the Housing Element Update; 2) solicit feedback on housing related issues, constraints, and opportunities; and to 3) inform future policy and program recommendations.

LWC began the meetings with a PowerPoint-supported presentation on the purpose, mandates, and components of the Housing Element and the update process, followed by a facilitated discussion on questions about fair housing, how to engage a range of demographics and special needs groups, housing development opportunities and constraints, impacts on local businesses and organizations, and housing policy and program recommendations to consider.

Participants were encouraged to respond using their microphones, and the chat function was also available to capture written input. The meetings were held without City staff present, to encourage open dialogue. Participants were informed their participation was voluntary and confidential, with all notes being reported out in aggregate, and not tied to any one individual.

See Attachment 1 for the presentation and Attachment 2 for the list of questions discussed.

The Consultant Team invited 64 individuals to the focus groups via email on July 8, 2021 and the City and Consultant Team followed up with reminder emails the week of July 12th and July 19th. A total of 27 individuals RSVP’d and 23 individuals participated in the scheduled meetings.

Two participants that were unable to attend the scheduled meetings were able to provide written feedback, which has been incorporated into the notes below. Given the City’s goal of engaging all economic segments of the community, the following individuals and groups were invited to participate in the focus group meetings:

Community Organizations and Housing Advocates
• Piedmont Anti-racism & Diversity Committee (PADC)
• Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign
• Piedmont Unified School District
• Piedmont Education Foundation
• Corpus Christi School
• Piedmont Community Church
• Zion Lutheran Church
• Plymouth Church
• Piedmont Connect
• Piedmont Historical Society
Section E.1
Agenda Report Page 389 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Businesses
• Mulberry’s Grocery
• Kehilla Synagogue
• Ace Hardware
• Graff Architects
• Jarvis Architects
• John Malick & Associates
Realtors
• Compass Real Estate
• Ellwood Commercial Real Estate
• Pacific Union Real Estate
• Heafey Commercial
• Highland Partners Real Estate
• The Grubb Co. Real Estate Agency
Civic Leaders, Elected and Appointed Officials
Various
Property Owners
Various
Summary and Feedback
The following is a summary of input received from the five focus group meeting participants, as well as written feedback. Comments are listed in no particular order and, unless otherwise noted, being listed below not indicate group consensus on any topic or recommendation. The responses are organized by topic: Housing Needs, Fair Housing, Housing and Development Constraints, Site Inventory, Policy and Program Suggestions, and Other Topics which captures important comments that don’t fall under any of the categories.

Housing Needs
• Housing in Piedmont is very expensive, this impacts the population by limiting who can live in Piedmont. Many people cannot afford to live in Piedmont, such as young adults who grew up in Piedmont, people who work in Piedmont, and families who have children that attend school in Piedmont.
• There is an interest/need in housing including:
• housing for employees that work in Piedmont (City staff, teachers, education administrators, teachers, police, firefighters, etc.) and others that serve the community • more affordable and mixed-use housing development
• more housing for seniors
• smaller homes (less than 2,000 sq. ft.)
• apartments attractive to families
• small units (400 sq. ft.) to accommodate students, single parents, and young professionals
Fair Housing
• Housing Element should consider multiple sites to promote mixing types of housing and avoiding housing segregation.

Agenda Report Page 390 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
• Concern that development is disproportionately ‘packed’ into certain areas of Piedmont rather than being spread across neighborhoods (e.g. Housing is located on Grand Avenue corridor rather than in upper Piedmont where there are larger properties and more space). • Need to change negative perceptions and assumptions about affordable housing, low-income residents, density, neighborhood change, etc.
• Desire of some residents for more political will and to promote more progressive housing policy.

Housing and Development Constraints
• Developing apartments with uncoupled parking (consensus that these apartments will rent/sell; as did the Irving-Gil apartments).
• The cost of land and housing is a significant constraint to housing access and future development.
• Limited properties available to accommodate multi-family housing units under current zoning. • Current zoning at 20 du/acre is specifically designed to maintain low density and prohibits development of affordable and moderate units.
• 408 Linda Townhomes (for-sale product) sold for over $2 million each because there is so much demand and the current zoning only permitted 7 units on site. • Currently, the only viable multi-family zoning areas are along Grand Avenue and Highland Avenue.
• Housing stock has low turn-over, (25% of the population is not moving); partially due to rising housing costs and an aging population living in houses with multiple bedrooms. • For-sale properties are affordable to only a very affluent demographic and are going for much more than asking price.
• However, some market trends are showing many large homes and estates in Piedmont are vacant and selling for less than the expected price per s.f, indicating these homes may be too large
Site Inventory
• Geographic opportunities to be considered for multi-family housing include:
• Blair Park
• Dog Park on Linda Avenue
• East Bay MUD (EBMUD) Reservoir
• Coaches Field on Moraga Avenue
• Upper Piedmont
• City Center
Policy and Program Suggestions
• Partner with neighboring and regional organizations (land trusts, non-profit housing developers, and others).
• Include voices outside of Piedmont, as historically excluded voices that represent population in need of housing should be included.
• Add a parcel tax on top of the property tax to fund affordable housing. • Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). • JADUs could potentially satisfy RHNA low-income requirements. • Incentivize multi-family construction through the following policy changes:
• Modify or eliminate parking requirements, particularly off-street, covered parking.

Agenda Report Page 391 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
• Revise the review process (no longer requiring oversight from the Planning Commission).
• Remove minimum lot and frontage size requirements.
• Re-evaluate zoning to match that of surrounding neighborhoods, with a minimum of 35-40 du/acre
• Reduce minimum buildable lot size to 4,000 sq. ft.
• Reevaluate the minimum lot size required for lot splits. • Currently 10,000 sq. ft. is minimum lot split, but average lot size is 4,00 sq. ft, and median is 3500 sq. ft.
• Promote an increase in housing/ density by describing the benefits can bring, e.g. more vitality and street life.
• In order to accommodate ground floor uses, commercial code in Piedmont would need revision
• Follow the Portland, Oregon model and incentivize the renovation of large estates and singlefamily homes into multi-unit apartment buildings or condos with ADUs. • Develop City buildings in Piedmont Center to accommodate housing. • Consider donating/subsidizing land for multi-family development. • Adopt Objective Design and Development Standards to remove personal bias and interpretation from design and development process, and provide more predictability in the design review process.
• Engage real estate firms and developers that have DEI training. • Provide public outreach and education to message:
• Benefits that come from density
• What is affordable housing and who does it serve
• Diversity is a community benefit
• Climate-responsible development (re-evaluate parking, electric charging stations, walkability, etc.)
• The importance of sharing community resources
Impacts on School Systems
• Schools may have limited capacity to accommodate more students. • What is the potential impact of additional housing units on (schools) capacity? Benefits? • Current Piedmont student population is in decline.
• PUSD has shifted from a closed school district to an open enrollment district. • Most of the students and staff at private schools in Piedmont live in Oakland.

Conclusion
All comments received are a useful and key component to understanding needs, opportunities, and constraints to housing development in Piedmont. The City and Consultant Team will refer to this input when drafting the Housing Element, although not all recommendations may be incorporated into the Housing Element due to a variety of factors including logistics, conflicts with other City policies or priorities, not consistent with State law, or budget constraints for implementation. There will be additional opportunities for participation, including meetings and digital engagement tools, throughout the Housing Element Update process. Please visit Piedmontishome.org to subscribe to news updates and access meeting materials and documents as they are available.

Agenda Report Page 392 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
City of Piedmont
6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Joint Planning Commission/Housing Advisory Committee Public Hearing #1 Wednesday, September 29, 2021, at 5:30 pm
Zoom Webinar
Introduction
On September 29, 2021, the City of Piedmont hosted a virtual joint Planning Commission and Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) meeting, the first of a series of public meetings for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update project. The meeting was opened by Rani Batra, Chair of the Planning Commission, who explained the process for members of the public to provide their comments during the hearing. Chair Batra introduced City staff and David Bergman, Director, and Kathryn Slama, Senior Associate, at Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC), who presented on the following topics:

1. Housing Element Basics

2. Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

3. Public Engagement Process

4. Next Steps for the Piedmont Housing Element Update
The presentation included the purpose of the Housing Element, components of a Housing Element, and the project timeline. The presentation also provided discussion of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for Piedmont broken down by income group, as set by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

The Planning Commission and HAC had open discussion on each segment (1 through 3, above). At the end of the meeting there was time for public comment and questions about the Housing Element update process. The City encouraged attendees to remain active in the update process, including attending future public workshops and hearings and visiting the City’s Housing Element Update website, Piedmontishome.org.

Format
The joint study session was facilitated by City staff, with a presentation from LWC. Due to COVID19 conditions, the meeting was held virtually via Zoom. Public participants were able to access the meeting by computer or by phone. Participants were encouraged to provide feedback on the presentation and Housing Element document verbally at the meeting or by sending written comments. There were four community members who provided verbal comment during the hearing and three community members who submitted written comment in advance of the hearing.

The City prepared a public meeting notice that was published on the City’s website, sent through the City’s email newsletter, as well as on Piedmontishome.org (see below).

Section E.2
Agenda Report Page 393 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
The meeting was recorded and posted on the City’s Housing Element Update webpage so it may be viewed at any time. The staff report and presentation were posted on the same webpage prior to the meeting. The City’s project contact information was included in the presentation to facilitate additional comments or questions being provided at any time via phone or email.

Summary of Comments
The following is a summary of questions and discussion during the public meeting. This includes questions generated both from Planning Commission and Housing Advisory Committee members, as well as questions from members of the public. • How do the new housing laws affect this housing element update process? The new housing laws recently signed into law impact the timeframes that apply to the City’s Housing Element update, although the impact of some laws on housing production assumptions is not yet known. Cities are now required to circulate a draft Housing Element for public comment before the document is sent to HCD. The City already accounted for this in the schedule, so there is no impact. HCD now has 90 days to review the first draft, so the City will adjust the timeline to account for the additional time. • Does the fact that recent housing legislation impacts timeframes necessitate that Piedmont reconsider its originally proposed timeframes? No, the City has been proactive and started the Housing Element update process early, so staff does not see issues with the City’s ability to complete the Housing Element update process within all State-mandated deadlines.

Agenda Report Page 394 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
• Are there other impacts from the new legislation that will impact Piedmont? This is not known at this time. New laws do not mandate lot splits or building additional units, although that is an option under certain circumstances. Because these laws are new, there is no precedent to how the legislation may or may not increase the numbers of these types of requests. HCD does provide official guidance regarding the implementation of new housing laws from time to time, so the Team will be alerted to any new guidance provided by the State, and will inform legislative and appointed bodies, and the public, accordingly.

In addition, some of the new housing laws may be litigated, and so could change. • Does the State allow timeline extensions for the housing element update? Not technically, but the State does allow for a 120-day grace period. The City’s deadline is January 31, 2021, but if the City were to adopt its housing element within 120 days from that date, the City would still be in compliance (although recent legislation sets stricter criteria for adoption).
• Can the City include sites that were identified in previous housing element updates but were never built out in its current sites inventory? There is some allowance, under various criteria, to use previously identified sites. The City must show that reused sites don’t have unnecessary constraints and can realistically develop. For example, vacant lots can be used. For nonvacant sites, the City must demonstrate that market pressure and trends are such that the site may redevelop with residential, develop additional units, or an accessory dwelling unit.
• How does the City make room for housing for families in its site analysis, given the lack of vacant land in Piedmont? The City will conduct a screening process to analyze sites that may be underutilized, given possible entitlements that may be allowed by the zoning code. It is likely that the City will require a nuanced, parcel-by-parcel approach to find realistic opportunities. The housing element update will include additional programs to provide incentives to help meet stated housing goals. • When can the public expect to participate in further engagement activities? The City plans to release videos toward the end of October with information regarding housing element basics, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and Housing Element components. The PiedmontIsHome.org website is the central platform for information for this project and interested persons can sign up for email updates. Interested persons can also email Planning Division staff with questions. Lastly, the City will host a virtual community website on December 2, 2021, in which the team will provide information on analyses on housing constraints and needs assessment.
• When must the City have the zoning capacity to support its housing plan? The City has three years from the date of adoption to modify zoning regulations (if needed) to ensure adequate capacity for the RHNA. The sites must have already been identified by the time of adoption. (note: recent legislation may impact deadline for rezoning, if needed) • How will SB 9 impact our student-to-teacher ratio in our public schools? This is something that will be considered, but the State does not allow cities to disapprove Agenda Report Page 395 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
housing projects or to decide not to allow for additional housing capacity through zoning because of concerns to school classroom sizes.
• What are we going to do to engage people that want to live here but can’t afford to? The City has plans to identify nonprofits or others that can give feedback. This includes real estate professionals, who are in contact with people both looking to buy and rent in Piedmont. Also, the City sent out a fair-housing survey targeted to employers and urged them to distribute them amongst employees, especially employees who may not live in Piedmont.
• Will Measure A-1 be addressed in the implementation plan? The City is looking at many different funding streams through its Housing Element update efforts.

Screenshots
Screenshots from the Public Meeting are included below:

Agenda Report Page 396 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Agenda Report Page 397 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
This page is intentionally blank
Agenda Report Page 398 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 1
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY
Format: Zoom Virtual Meeting  |  December 2nd, 2021, 5:30‐7:00pm The purpose of the Housing Element Update Community Workshop #1 was to provide an overview of the Housing Element process and the components of a Housing Element, share background information and preliminary findings from housing needs and constraints assessments, and gather questions/comments from meeting participants about critical housing issues, and needs and goals for housing in the City of Piedmont. Feedback received will inform the content of future outreach events and will guide the preparation of the Housing Element Update.

The community meeting was held virtually via Zoom on Thursday, December 2nd, 2021 from 5:30‐7:00 pm and was facilitated by City staff and the consultant team (Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. and Plan to Place).

All materials were made available and posted on the project website prior to the meeting. Approximately 55 members of the public attended. The meeting agenda is outlined below:

1. Welcome & Introductions

2. Housing Element Overview

3. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

4. Community Engagement Overview

5. Summary of Initial Findings

6. Participant Q&A

7. Small Group Discussion + Report Back

8. Closing and Next Steps
Following the Community Workshop, an online Feedback Form was available for members of the community who could not attend the workshop to provide feedback on issues discussed in the meeting.

This online feedback form was made available until January 15, 2022 and results are incorporated in this summary.  The slides from the December 2 workshop presentation are included as an appendix to this summary. This summary is organized by the feedback from each of the agenda items listed above.

ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: approximately 55 attendees
City Staff
● Kevin Jackson – Planning and Building Director
● Pierce Macdonald– Senior Planner
Consultant Team
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. – David Bergman, Kathryn Slama, Stefano Richichi ● Plan to Place – Dave Javid, Paul Kronser
Section E.3
Agenda Report Page 399 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 2
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Dave Javid from Plan to Place, Kevin Jackson, and Planning Commission Chair Rani Batra opened the meeting by welcoming attendees, introducing the team, giving an agenda overview, and opening the demographic live poll (results provided below). After the poll closed, Kathryn Slama from Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) gave a presentation on the Housing Element process which included the purpose and history, state requirements for Housing Elements, and an introduction to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). After the presentation, Kevin Jackson addressed several frequently asked questions regarding the RHNA appeals update, barriers to housing development, and City Council authority. The following is a summary of the live demographic poll that was administered at the beginning of the meeting and responses from the online Feedback Form made available after the meeting:

Demographic Poll (full results in the appendix)

1. Where do you live? (select one)
● 97% live in Piedmont
● 2% live in Alameda County but not Piedmont
● 2% live outside of Alameda County

2. Where do you work? (select one)
● 32% work In Piedmont (including remote work)
● 10% do not work Piedmont, but in Alameda County
● 24% work outside Alameda County
● 27% are retired
● 2% do not work or are looking for work
● 6% do not work and are not looking for work

3. Which of the following describes why you decided to attend tonight’s workshop? (select all that apply)?
● 37% want to know more about the Housing Element update process. ● 2% want to know more about obtaining housing in Piedmont ● 37% want to support more housing development in Piedmont ● 24% are concerned about more housing development in Piedmont

4. Have you participated in other Housing Element events? ● 48% yes
● 52% no
Agenda Report Page 400 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 3
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

5. What is your current housing situation?
● 93% own a home
● 3% rent a home
● 3% live with family/friends
● 1% other

6. What type of housing do you live in?
● 98% live in a house
● 2% live in an apartment

7. Please indicate which of the following do you identify with (select all that apply). ● 5% Hispanic or LatinX
● 9% Black, Indigenous, or Person of Color
● 5% Single‐parent household
● 5% Household with 5+ persons
● 29% Person of age 62 or older
● 3% Veteran
● 34% Don’t identify with any of these categories
● 10% Prefer not to answer

8. Which bracket best describes your household income?
● 3% Less than $41,000
● 1% $41,101 to $68,500
● 6% $68,501 to $109,600
● 10% $109,601 to $150,700
● 79% $150,701 or more
Dave Javid then gave a brief presentation on the community engagement process and strategy, which included community input to date and upcoming activities for the public to participate in. Next, Kathryn provided a summary of initial findings of analysis of housing needs and housing constraints, followed by an opportunity for any clarifying questions from the meeting participants.

Following the presentation portion of the workshop, Dave Javid guided workshop participants through an online live poll to gather feedback on housing in Piedmont. This provided attendees a preview of the topics to be covered in the small breakout rooms (see the Appendix for the poll results).

Prior to breaking into small groups, Dave Javid gave an overview of the Zoom software’s meeting room logistics and then opened the rooms into which participants were randomly assigned. A facilitator and note taker from the project team were assigned to each breakout room.

Agenda Report Page 401 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 4
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to gathering input from meeting participants through facilitated small group discussions. Feedback was recorded in three breakout rooms on a virtual whiteboard (see snapshot below) in response to the discussion prompts, provided below. The summary below provides a high‐level overview of themes that emerged from the small group discussions and open‐ended responses submitted through the online Feedback Form. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of times the referenced comment was expressed in the small groups and through the online feedback form.

Example of notes taken on virtual whiteboard during the small group discussion. Results from the Menti poll (shown as blue dots, above) are provided in the bar graphs in the Appendix, starting on page 7.

Example of notes taken on virtual whiteboard during the small group discussion. Results from the Menti poll (shown as blue dots, above) are provided in the bar graphs in the Appendix, starting on page 7 Agenda Report Page 402 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 5
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Example of notes taken on virtual whiteboard during the small group discussion. Results from the Menti poll (shown as blue dots, above) are provided in the bar graphs in the Appendix, starting on page 7 Small Group Discussion Prompts
The following discussion prompts were used to facilitate the discussion with meeting participants in the small groups.

1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Piedmont?

2. What do you think are the housing types most needed in Piedmont?

3. When assessing new housing development that might be built in Piedmont in the next 8 to 10 years, what should be the City’s most important considerations?

4. Is there anything else that you would like to share about why you are here this evening? Any questions, comments, or additional housing opportunities we should be aware of?

5. Do you have any suggestions for how Piedmont might solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update and encourage participation?
Main Takeaways
What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Piedmont?  School enrollments continue to decline due to lack of affordable housing. (7)  Concerns that there isn’t enough affordable housing for seniors, schoolteachers and people that serve the community. (3)
 A current limitation in Piedmont is the lack of variety of housing types and price points. (2)  The housing element should address more than just the housing crisis, including homelessness, racial segregation, and wealth inequality. (2)
 Lack of new housing being built due to physical constraints including lot size and availability. (2) What do you think are the housing types most needed in Piedmont? Agenda Report Page 403 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 6
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
 Desire for dense housing other than single‐family units, including apartments, condos, duplexes, triplexes, and accessory dwelling units. (7)
 Affordable housing located close to transit opportunities is highly desirable and will create more opportunities where daily car use isn’t necessary. (3)
 Allow more density throughout the single‐family zones. (1)  Senior housing is needed as the population moves into those categories. (1)  Housing location and access to amenities and services is an important consideration. (1) When assessing new housing development that might be built in Piedmont in the next 8 to 10 years, what should be the City’s most important considerations?
 Provide affordable housing for those in the service industries including firefighters, City staff, and teachers. (5)
 Prioritize a housing stock that brings diversity to Piedmont including young families attracted by the schools. (3)
 With limited available space, there is an interest in redeveloping and rezoning existing, under‐used retail/commercial areas to be residential mixed use (2)  Think outside the box and evaluate how the existing built space can be used differently to increase the housing stock by converting large single‐family homes into multiple units. (1) Is there anything else that you would like to share about why you are here this evening? Any questions, comments, or additional housing opportunities we should be aware of?  Leave existing open spaces as they are, and prioritize housing in areas already designated for housing. (3)  When planning for family housing, consider the different types and needs. (1)  There are many mixed‐use opportunity sites throughout the city that could be utilized for workforce housing, reducing the need to commute from surrounding Cities. (1) Do you have any suggestions for how Piedmont might solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element update and encourage participation?
 Consider reaching out to the youth, middle and high school students through classroom discussions, programs, and clubs. (1)
 Find ways to reach out to surrounding areas where people don’t live in Piedmont but would like to. (1)  Establish a group of Housing Element ambassadors to provide outreach in neighborhoods. (1)  Mail letters to all homeowners in Piedmont. (1)
Agenda Report Page 404 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 7
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Appendix

DEMOGRAPHIC LIVE POLL RESULTS

1. Where do you live?

2. Where do you work?
Agenda Report Page 405 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 8
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

3. Which of the following describes why you decided to attend tonight’s workshop? (select all that apply)

4. Have you participated in other Housing Element events? Agenda Report Page 406 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 9
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

5. What is your current housing situation?

6. What type of housing do you live in?
Agenda Report Page 407 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 10
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

7. Please indicate one or more of the following categories with which you identify.

8. Which bracket best describes your household income?
Agenda Report Page 408 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 11
HOUSING IN PIEDMONT LIVE POLL RESULTS1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Piedmont? Agenda Report Page 409
Attachment 2
Exhibit
A
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 12

2. What do you think are the housing types most needed in Piedmont? Agenda Report Page 410
Attachment 2
Exhibit
A
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 13

3. When assessing new housing that might be built in Piedmont in the next 8‐10 years, what should be the City’s most important consideration? Agenda Report Page 411
Attachment 2
Exhibit
A
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 14

MIRO BOARDS
Agenda Report Page 412
Attachment 2
Exhibit
A
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 15
Agenda Report Page 413
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 16
Agenda Report Page 414
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 17
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
MIRO ROOM 1 VERBAL AND CHAT COMMENTS
Agenda Report Page 415 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 18
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Agenda Report Page 416 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 19
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Agenda Report Page 417 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 20
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Agenda Report Page 418 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 21
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
MIRO ROOM 2 VERBAL AND CHAT COMMENTS
Agenda Report Page 419 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 22
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Agenda Report Page 420 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 23
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Agenda Report Page 421 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 24
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Agenda Report Page 422 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 25
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

Agenda Report Page 423 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 26
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
MIRO ROOM 3 VERBAL AND CHAT COMMENTS
Agenda Report Page 424 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 27
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Agenda Report Page 425 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 28
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Agenda Report Page 426 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 29
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
Agenda Report Page 427 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 30
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
IN‐MEETING CHAT COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
 Can the public engagement include open‐ended questions to capture input from people who do not have a position on housing issues?
 Can the City, LWC and Plan to Place share the link to the article on the Bay Area's scorecard for housing? o Response: Chair Batra provided in chat: https://www‐presstelegram‐ com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.presstelegram.com/2021/11/28/report‐card‐shows‐how‐ badly‐california‐is‐failing‐on‐affordable‐housing/amp/
 Can one of the team members explain how “income” is evaluated and whether it recognizes household assets (including real estate) and savings?
o Response: The income data that is used in the housing element is sourced from the US Census, American Community Survey or ACS.  These figures are derived from an annual survey and averaged over a five year period.  The data reported comes from the 2019 ACS data release which is the most currently available data.   Income in the ACS is defined as being made up of the following components:
 1. Wages salaries, bonuses, and tips from all sources  2. Self‐employment income form both farm and non‐farm sources.  This also includes income from partnerships
 3. Interest income, dividends, rents, and royalties
 4. Social Security or railroad pensions
 5. Supplemental security income (SSI)
 6. Cash public assistance
 7. Retirement income, pensions, or disability survivor income  8. Unemployment, child support or VA payments
 How does affordability look when evaluating based on median income given likely extremes in income difference may make the average pretty meaningless?
 Given most people are older / retired and own home outright, how does the income / affordability picture look if exclude income from homeowners who own outright their residence? o Response: Net assets are not used in calculation of area median income.

TRANSCTIPT OF ONLINE FEEDBACK FORM RESPONSES
The following is a transcript of the responses received when the online feedback form was made available on the ‘Piedmont is Home’ website. This feedback form was intended to take participants 7‐10 minutes and provide the project team with insight into key housing issues in Piedmont. Followed by each question in parenthesis, is the number of responses received for each question. In addition, electronic correspondence received via the project email address was included.

What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Piedmont? (20) Cost
Affordability. Lack of diversity.

There are many secondary units in Piedmont that are rented out but not recorded with the city and not counted in the low-income housing count. These units provide housing to low- income people, but also cause parking and Agenda Report Page 428 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 31
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
congestion issues. How about a moratorium on listing these with the city, like bringing back overdue books to the library without a fine. We all would benefit from the city taxes that are not being paid on these units.

Overcrowding, existing housing is sufficient
Housing for people who serve the community.

More housing of all types, easier ability to do infill housing through lot splits and duplexes None
Affordable housing close to transit
How to provide more entry-level housing opportunities for the community Integration of housing into a City " Master Plan" that includes parks, transportation, , "downtown, parking and traffic flow, especially the build-out of the new Pool Complex and completion of the new School Theater.

None it has always been an affluent area and unfortunately is just not affordable for a lot of people including a lot of our loved ones who have chosen to live outside of Piedmont #1 - (mis)perception. The issues are global, national, state and county, but I would not say there is an "issue" in Piedmont except in perception
Don't believe they're critical
Affordability
Affordability and diversity
Building more affordable housing and making good use of underused spaces.

Equity! Our family has lived in Piedmont since the late 1960s. The population of Piedmont peaked in 2017 at 11,400 and is now down to 10,900. IN 1960 the population of Piedmont was 11,100. Our racial demographics when compared to other cities in Alameda county and the state of California is appalling because it is so high in white residents when compared to other races.. Why is our town so segregated? This needs to be addressed immediately.

Diversity of citizens and diversity of housing types.

What do you think are the housing types most needed in Piedmont? (20) Apartments
Smaller homes for small families or seniors.

We need dense housing near transportation hubs, to discourage reliance on cars. Piedmont is not a transportation hub.

NONE
Single family homes
Multifamily housing, denser housing of any type
None.

Townhouses, condos, small multi-family buildings (8 units or less) More apartment style housing located in areas that have a good public transit access, for example the center of town, Grand Avenue
Density in certain areas, including Blair Park.

Agenda Report Page 429 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 32
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
None
Exactly what is already here. Piedmont does not 'need' high-rise or other high-density units that are better off in dense urban areas close to the job (please, this is covered in urban planning 101) No low cost housing!! Piedmont is an old, fully developed community!! Multi-units, townhomes, homed
Subsidized affordable multi-unit housing
Multi-family, middle income housing. Duplexes, triplexes, quads, etc.

Multi-family housing. Demographically, Piedmont needs more families. Our population pyramid shows that we have many adults over 65 in comparison to young people under 18. We need families because our schools need more students and when we don't have enough students, Piedmont loses funding. We are under enrolled and losing money. In addition, there is a missing middle in terms of population in Piedmont, there is hardly any residents who are in their 20s and 30s in comparison to other age groups. We need young families in Piedmont to create a healthy and diverse community in our city.

Smaller, less expensive options.

When assessing new housing development that might be built in Piedmont in the next 8 to 10 years, what should be the City’s most important considerations? (20) More housing
Look at Blair Park. If it is only the occasional dog walker who uses the “park”, as access is poor, build housing. But improve access too, so the new residents can walk.

There seems to be very little focus on bigger picture of what a change in housing code in Piedmont would mean in terms of the traffic, parking, and demand for services, like schools. The surveys ask specifics about what new housing might look like, but do not ask us to think about how many extra cars there will be or young children needing schools.

NOT OVERCROWDING!
Impact on neighborhood - people who have to live near it.

Maximizing how much housing can be built
We shouldn't have any new housing at the expense of eliminating open park space.

Affordability, but we should not forget the aesthetic. I heard one person say that the housing should not be too “cute.” I believe that is a condescending attitude. People of all incomes wants to leave in attractive, safe environments. We shouldn’t warehouse people.

Make sure to build on piedmont high Loveland planning and design excellence Use to integrate parks, Blair Park, density in certain areas, development of the Grand Avenue corridor.

Not losing the character of a small-town, great community Land use - do not give up the few open spaces in Piedmont to accommodate a perceived need for affordable or high-density housing that actually does not existing Piedmont.

Not degrading the value of existing housing
Affordable. Middle class can’t buy in Piedmont
The city should ONLY allow affordable housing to be built at this point because it's so built out.

Utilizing under-used properties such as Blair Park, the city center, the reservoir, etc.

Agenda Report Page 430 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 33
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
We need young families who may not have the resources to buy a home in Piedmont. Our schools are good, but they are suffering because they need more students and a more racially and ethnically diverse student body. All Bay Area private schools work hard to build a diverse student body because they are selling a good education and that is one of the components.

Smaller, less expensive options...and the related urban design considerations.

Is there anything else that you would like to share about why you are here this evening? Any questions, comments, or additional housing opportunities we should be aware of? (17) I would like more retail besides a bunch of banks
I support ADU’s, but they should be small with height and dimension limits. They should not impact the homeowner, not the neighbors. Build close to the house not the back property line. Go below ground to keep height low on inclines. Make sure drainage issues are addressed during building and once built.

Better public transportation and bike accessibility should come before an increase in housing, not the other way around. Piedmont is still very car dependent. If there were a grocery store bigger and more general than Mulberry's in the center of town that would be a step to less reliance on cars. Bring back the Key line streetcars so we could take a trolley to Berkeley or Oakland. The added cars from a lot more housing would be detrimental to everyone living in Piedmont.

Leave existing open spaces alone.

I am very concerned that planners, architects and the like who stand to benefit from these changes are moving the conversation forward rather than non-planning/non-housing professionals that will have to live near any new development.

Please don't prioritize protection of rich people's views and 'architectural features', it’s racist.

Please don't dump new housing in Blair Park (on Moraga). We need open space. Let's find other options for additional housing. The state requirements for Piedmont are absolutely ridiculous.

I am concerned about the possible development of housing in Blair Park or the reservoir location on Scenic Avenue. The additional traffic and parking issues seem insurmountable.

I care deeply for our community. I come from a diverse background and believe I have a good understanding of what people are looking for in affordable housing. I am realistic.

Use this to complete a meaningful City Master Plan. Use the Housing Demand to build a sense of place that enhances Piedmont.

There is no space unfortunately for low-income housing
As much as I am a proponent of ADUs, I would strongly fight (NEPA and CEQA on my side) the real impact of increase density development on Piedmont.

There should be far more existing community input.

I think adding more affordable housing could be one way to increase diversity in Piedmont. I support changes to our zoning and building code that will bring more affordable housing to Piedmont, and urge that action be taken soon. I also urge that the city think creatively about how they foster affordable housing on their own publicly owned property.

I would like to see the City use the Housing Element as an opportunity to create opportunities for families of diverse backgrounds to live in our community. The high cost of housing and limited range of housing types is a major barrier to our city becoming more diverse and equitable. I support changes to our zoning and building code that will bring more affordable housing to Piedmont.

Housing is a social determinant of health. Resources need to be more equitably distributed from high resource areas to low resource areas.

Agenda Report Page 431 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 34
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
I believe housing cannot be resolved independently of other planning issues: surrounding commercial, retail, & public uses. The (welcome & necessary) major housing changes require a model and vision for each neighborhood, and in fact the entire city.

Do you have any suggestions for how Piedmont might solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update and encourage participation? (7)
Make sure all citizens are informed what new "affordable Go door-to-door, schedule meetings during times that work for the most impacted. Respect family time, meal times, and holidays when scheduling meetings.

Continue to do what you are doing and encourage neighbors to bring in other neighbors.

Create an open book, competition of ideas from planners, architects and private developers (under planning supervision, fast)
Mail letters to all of the homeowners of Piedmont
Piedmont has generally an older generational makeup. Don't put their property values at risk More outdoor distanced events.

Dear Kevin,

I want to congratulate you and Pierce on Thursday's Virtual Workshop. It was well planned, well executed and very informative. I would congratulate Rani Batra as well but do not have her email. Of the public zoom meetings about housing that I have attended, this meeting was by far the best. You should also be commended by your public outreach prior to the meeting. I have been to most of the meetings including City Council sessions and see mostly the same people at each event. Thursday, I saw neighbors that I had not seen before. Along the same lines, Claire Parisa's suggestion of holding a charrette planning meeting is an interesting one, particularly if it would attract a larger, more diverse audience. As Rani Batra, said at the beginning of the meeting, these are not going to be easy discussions. We should expect differences of opinion. Since the decisions made in the next year or so will effect Piedmonter's for decades, they should not be taken lightly and not without the widest range of community participation.

With respect to the use of ADUs, I think they can play an important part of Piedmont's housing strategy. The City has done a good job in encouraging both rent restricted and non rent restricted units. Unfortunately, the State removed one of the most powerful incentives for rent restricted units by eliminating the need for parking. Without the City's use of this incentive, I feel it will be much harder to convince homeowners to build low income units with a ten year deed restriction. I agree with PREC's Andy Madeira's opinion that it is more efficient to build a low income apartment probably on rezoned City land. At the end of the day, I suspect that the site will be Blair Park. There are access issues. As I recall, neighbors also filed a law suit about it's use several years ago.

The State is forcing Piedmont to plan for 587 units in a city that is virtually build out with the exception of parks and City buildings. Presuming that a low income apartment will be built somewhere, either Blair Park or other City land, there are still a lot of units to plan for including 92 moderate and 238 above moderate. It is with these units that I feel ADUs can play a large part. The City already has what I consider very attractive ADU sample design plans. In looking at my meeting notes, I wrote that the City has 30 ADU applications which would total 300 over the ten year projection. . If this is the case (my notes may be wrong), it is a strong indication that they will be built and should be used to meet part of the above moderate component. The Piedmont community seems to be accepting ADUs as part of the housing mix, probably more than a new proliferation of fourplexes and duplexes throughout the City. Historically, Piedmont has always had ADUs, they just haven't used that term. As one drives through the City there are a number of units built above garages or attached to the main house as part of the original construction. Actually, some of these units could be included in the plan if they were identified and owners contacted to rent them. We need to think outside the box in order to meet the State mandates.

Agenda Report Page 432 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 35
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
My opinion is that Piedmont should fulfill the RENA requirement with the least disruption to the City's existing housing stock while building community support. Using an accepted housing type that has been part of the City for one hundred years is one way of approaching this goal. Again, thank you for presenting such a well run and informative workshop. Sorry I didn't win the raffle.

Best,
Here are a couple of concerns I would like to see considered:
1) Will ADUs and JADUs add affordable housing to the city? How will this be ensured, to avoid them becoming simply Airbnb's or granny flats? How will building requirements take this into account (eg. high cost of new building vs manufactured units)?
2) What about parking? There are already neighborhoods grappling with parking congestion and overflows from nearby districts. Is the plan considering the parking needs generated by a) ADUs, b) changing a SF lot into a 2 plex or 4 plex, or c) building larger apartment buildings in our more commercial areas. It would be nice for the neighborhoods to know these things are being taken into consideration. That doesn't mean every ADU needs a garage, but what about ensuring the lot has enough parking area in a driveway before allowing still more driving adults to be added? Will approaches to parking requirements depend on proximity to transit, so we don't assume just because Piedmont is seen as a transit accessible high opportunity area that transit is a realistic option in all parts of the city.
3) I would like to see as much new housing as possible added to the Grand Ave area and the Highland commercial area, so that we are not accommodating all of our RHNA through ADUs and JADUs.

Thanks,
Can this affordable housing be restricted to Piedmont teachers and Piedmont City employees? A 2-bedroom apartment cannot accommodate a family. Currently, Piedmonters pay high taxes to support our own Police, Fire, other city services, etc. and, particularly, our excellent schools. How will these renters pay their fair share for these services?
I live on Moraga Ave. It already has buildings two deep.

Why not build in the land near the corporation yard, where the goats cleared the grass? I just lost two oak trees- one 150 years old because of building over roots. Once you start housing in the old trees you are setting up either direct or indirect deforestation.

Street parking is impossible on Moraga and there really is no good public transit for Piedmont, especially for the elderly.

At this time in my life , I vote for the trees and high rises in the center of Piedmont so all Piedmont shares the consequences.

Mary Louise Morrison
PREC responded via the project email address and the full PREC document is included below:

Agenda Report Page 433 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Policy Recommendations for
Furthering Fair Housing in Piedmont
I. Executive Summary
The City of Piedmont should take bold, creative action to enable a diverse population to call the city home. In order to affirmatively further fair housing and remedy our past and present exclusionary policies, the City’s housing and zoning policies should be changed to further racial and socio-economic diversity. The City should encourage the construction of a variety of housing types, accessible to families of varying socioeconomic backgrounds and individuals at different stages of their lives.

Our zoning proposals can be summed up in three main concepts: more density, more affordability, and everywhere. In other words, Piedmont needs to change its zoning laws to make room for more housing, and to make affordable housing viable in all the different zones. ● Regarding density changes: the City should change its zoning regulations to create incentives and enable more housing, at a higher density - encouraging “missing middle” or “gentle density” in the residential zones (A and E) and higher densities in the multifamily, commercial/mixed-use, and public zones (C, D and B, respectively). ● Regarding affordability, the City should promote housing affordability and diversity by allowing multifamily affordable housing throughout the different zones, and in private and publicly-owned land. This goal can be accomplished by tailoring the policy to the different zones.
● In the residential zones (A and E), the City can create incentives such as granting small-scale density bonuses or relaxing parking requirements to achieve units that are smaller, simpler (therefore “affordable by design”), or restricted to moderate income families.
● In the multifamily, commercial/mixed-use and public zones (C, D, and B, respectively), a similar goal could be accomplished by creating inclusionary housing requirements, or facilitating the construction of affordable housing developments, particularly in Zone B.

II. Introduction
The PREC Housing Committee is a group of Piedmonters working with the wider community to embrace more inclusive housing in Piedmont. We believe that more housing can bring positive change to our city while contributing to alleviating the Bay Area’s housing shortage.

We believe the City needs to reform its zoning regulations to create more housing opportunities, in general, and more affordable housing opportunities, in particular, throughout the City. This urgency stems from the need to meet our obligations under state law to Agenda Report Page 434 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) and adopt a Housing Element that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certifies as compliant with state law. AFFH is a duty that:
“must be taken with the utmost diligence and cannot be ignored by any of us if it is to be successful. Together, we must ameliorate past actions that led to inequity. As decision-makers we must create land-use and funding policies to increase affordable housing in high-resource neighborhoods that have often been exclusionary and bring additional resources to traditionally under-resourced neighborhoods.”1 In order to have a Housing Element that complies with state law and meets our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City needs to create the conditions to produce substantially higher amounts of housing than in past cycles. Specifically, under its new RHNA, the City needs to identify sites where a total of 587 new housing units can be built - of which 163 need to be targeted to very low income households, 94 to low income households, 92 to moderate income households, and 238 to above moderate income households. Failure to do 2 so could subject the City to significant penalties and liability.

Beyond our obligations as a City under state law, zoning reform is also a moral obligation that stems directly from the city’s past actions that enshrined and perpetuated racial segregation:
“Housing policy, program guidelines, and regulations were essential in creating current inequities, and they are equally important in both preventing further segregation and concentration of poverty, as well as increasing access to opportunity. In order to 3 ameliorate past actions that led to inequity, decision-makers must create land-use and funding policies to increase affordable housing in high resource neighborhoods that have often been exclusionary (explicitly or in effect of costs and zoning policies)....”4 Piedmont has acknowledged this obligation, in Resolution No. 60-2020, approved on August 3, 2020, in which it pledged to address “historical racism in Piedmont and to examine existing systems through an anti-racist lens,” including a commitment to “review and revise its 4 California HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance, p. 6. 3 Numerous studies have shown how restrictive and exclusionary housing policies have led to residential segregation and increased inequality, at the national, regional, and local levels. For example, see Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (2017); University of California Othering and Belonging Institute, Single-Family Zoning in the San Francisco Bay Area: Characteristics of Exclusionary Communities (2020) https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-san-francisco-bay-area and Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area (2020) at
https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-5 ; Nick Levinson and Marta Symkowick, After Dearing: Residential Segregation and the Ongoing Effects on Piedmont, at https://piedmontexedra.com/2020/10/after-dearing-residential-segregation-and-the-ongoing-effects-on-pie dmont
2 See https://www.piedmontishome.org
1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance, p. 2.
2 Agenda Report Page 435 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
policies, procedures, ordinances, values, goals, and missions through an anti-racism lens to foster an unbiased and inclusive environment.”5
We offer these policy recommendations to help the City meet our RHNA, to advance fair housing, and, in the spirit of Resolution No. 60-2020, to make Piedmont’s policies and regulations more inclusive.

In a nutshell, we believe the City needs to embrace more housing, and make affordable housing viable, everywhere. We need bold and creative action and a multi-pronged approach to housing in Piedmont, to allow a diverse population to call Piedmont home. Specifically, to affirmatively further fair housing, remedy our past and present exclusionary policies, and meet the spirit of Resolution No. 60-2020, City policies should, first and foremost, further racial and socio-economic diversity. In addition, the City should encourage the construction of a variety of housing types, accessible to families and individuals at different stages of their lives – such as youth, single adults, young couples, families, the elderly, the disabled, etc.

At the same time, we believe that this is possible while preserving the character of our community, its amenities and quality of life. We can do this through thoughtful, context-appropriate and nuanced zoning reform, and the use of objective standards and regulations to foster housing development that, while denser, is still compatible with the surrounding area, and maintains design quality.

III. Proposed Zoning Changes
A. General goals: Enact changes to the Planning Code to enable the construction of more housing, and specifically, more diverse and affordable housing, throughout the City. The City should promote housing affordability by allowing multifamily affordable housing developments both on privately owned and city land, by encouraging “missing middle” or “gentle density” housing types on residentially zoned lots and housing that is affordable by design. In addition, the City should use policy tools to promote diversity and affordability, including exploring the creation of an inclusionary housing requirement for larger multifamily projects.

From HCD’s AFFH Guidance, “Examples of AFFH Actions”: “New Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity means promoting housing supply, choices and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside of areas of concentrated poverty. Examples include: Zoning, permit streamlining, fees, incentives and other approaches to increase housing choices and affordability (e.g., duplex, triplex, multifamily, accessory dwelling units, transitional and supportive housing, group homes) in high opportunity areas….[and] Inclusionary requirements.” (p. 72).

B. General vision / strategy: Assuming the City chooses to keep its current zones, we think it should consider changes to permitted and conditional uses within all of the existing zones, amend the zoning controls throughout the City to permit higher density, and craft 5 https://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16929873 3 Agenda Report Page 436 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
nuanced zoning controls, to incentivize more housing to be developed, and especially more affordable housing. Specifically: 6

1. Allow for “gentle density” in Zones A and E, by changing the minimum lot sizes in these zones to ~4,000 sf and ~10,000 sf, respectively, and by allowing ~2–6 and ~4–8 dwelling units per lot ;7

2. Permit affordable multifamily residential uses in Zone B;

3. Increase the allowed density of multifamily residential uses in Zones C and D to make building multifamily housing financially feasible, and remove the conditional use requirement for multifamily housing in Zone D;

4. Explore adopting inclusionary requirements for multifamily housing developments in Zones C and D;

5. Explore incentives to create housing that is “affordable by design” or restricted to very low, low and moderate income households in Zones A and E.

C. Proposed Zoning Amendments, by Zone:

1. Zone A – Single Family Residential (Division 17.20). ● Change the name from "Single Family Residential” to “Residential”; ● Reduce minimum lot sizes from 8,000 to ~4,000 sf, or less ;8 ● Allow ~2–6 units as principally permitted uses, depending on:
o Lot size and characteristics (for example, corner lots or “through” lots have more street frontage and access, and therefore may be more suitable for more units), and depending on incentives to achieve desired results, such as:
● The creation of smaller, “affordable by design” units:
implement a sliding scale floor area ratio (FAR), or allow 8 Given that 78% of lots in Zone A already are less than the minimum lot size, a change to this requirement would in practice serve to “clean up” the Code to better reflect current conditions, and effectuate a moderate change on physical development on the ground. 7 Please note that all numeric standards proposed in this document are necessarily approximations, since we have not had the time or resources to do exhaustive research on this. However, they are informed suggestions, based on comparable uses in neighboring jurisdictions. 6 This proposal focuses on amending the zoning controls in all the different zones, to achieve these goals.

An alternative approach would be to create an Affordable Housing Overlay, to create incentives for affordable housing throughout the City, and pair it with other amendments to increase density. For an example of a recent affordable housing overlay, see Harvard University, Joint Center for Housing Studies, What Can We Expect From Cambridge’s New Affordable Housing Overlay?, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/what-can-we-expect-cambridges-new-affordable-housing-overlay 4 Agenda Report Page 437 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
increased heights, to achieve creation of smaller units (as in Portland and Cambridge) ;9
● Make sure that objective design standards do not impose excessive costs on homeowners, and instead facilitate
housing production and affordability;
● The creation of permanently-restricted affordable units:
include incentives for affordable housing such as increased height allowances and density bonuses. For example,
allow up to 6 units if a certain percentage of the units are affordable (as in Portland and Cambridge).
● Allow subdivisions of current single family homes to multi-unit buildings consistent with the number of units permitted by the zoning (~2–6, per the bullet point above);
● Consider enabling lot mergers to allow small multifamily developments (~12 units) in some sites. Consider conditioning the mergers on the incorporation of affordability parameters in the development – either “affordable by design” units or inclusionary housing; see below. ● Increase maximum allowable height from 35 to ~40-45 feet, to provide flexibility to build new multi-unit buildings.

2. Zone B – Public Facilities (Division 17.22).
● Change name from “Public Facilities” to “Civic Facilities” ; 10 ● Allow affordable multi-family residential uses. Note that single-family residential uses are already allowed (see section 17.22.020.A) and that emergency shelters, supportive housing or transitional housing are already allowed (see section 17.22.020.F), so this is just an intensification of currently permitted uses;
● Adopt density and building limits sufficient to facilitate the development of affordable multifamily housing projects.
10 The State has enacted a series of laws to encourage local jurisdictions to consider affordable housing uses in public sites. See, for example, California Department of Housing and Community Development, Public Lands for Affordable Housing Development, at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/public-lands-for-affordable-housing-development.shtml ; Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Affordable Housing Opportunities on Public Lands, https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/housing/affordable-housing-opportunities-public-lands 9 See The Terner Center, Past Webinar, The -Plex Paradox: Writing the Code to Undo Single-Family Zoning, at
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/upcoming-webinar-the-plex-paradox-writing-the-code-to-undo-singl e-family-zoning/; see
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/what-can-we-expect-cambridges-new-affordable-housing-overlay 5 Agenda Report Page 438 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

3. Zone C – Multi-Family Residential (Division 17.24).
● Reduce the minimum lot size to ~5,000 sf.11
● Increase the height to ~65 ft.
● Permit lot mergers to enable bigger developments, considering:
o Whether the project includes a diversity of units and units that are “affordable by design” and
o Whether the project includes affordable units.
● Increase density from 12–21 units / acre to ~54–72 units / acre, at a minimum.12
● Explore including a requirement that developments over a certain size include a certain percentage of permanently restricted affordable units. (See below, Inclusionary Requirements).

4. Zone D – Commercial and Mixed Use (Division 17.26).
● Currently the controls for Zone D that are applicable to residential uses are more restrictive than Zone C. Only single-family residences are principally permitted, and all other residential uses are subject to a conditional use (CU) requirement, and at a very low density. ● These controls should be substantially amended to reflect current best practices in mixed use, infill development.
● At a minimum, we should remove the CU for multifamily housing in these districts, and change the density controls to permit as much density as in Zone C, with a proposed height of 65 feet and a proposed density of ~52–74 units / acre, at a minimum, as described above.
o Permit lot mergers to enable bigger developments, considering:
12 12-21 units / acre is the density currently permitted in Zone C. It is the equivalent to minimum density of “1 unit per each 3,600 sf of lot area and not to exceed one unit per 2,000 sf of floor area.” (See Section

17.24.020.B). The proposed density of 54-72 units / acre is the equivalent of a density of 1 unit for every 800 sf of lot area to 1 unit for every 600 sf of lot area. This recommendation was derived from low and moderate density multifamily residential units in San Francisco. (See San Francisco Planning Code, Section 209.2, especially RM1 (Residential, Mixed Districts, Low Density) and RM1 (Residential, Mixed Districts, Moderate Density)). It is also similar to well-accepted density estimates used by regional agencies when they research housing reform, for example MTC, in Affordable Housing Opportunities at p.

2. However, we note that Piedmont’s Draft Multifamily Standards and ADU Incentives has tested a density of 80 du/acre, which is slightly higher. PREC supports a higher number, and believes the City should embrace a figure that makes projects financially feasible, including evaluating the feasibility of adding an inclusionary fee to multi-family housing in zones C and D. 11 For comparison, consider that in San Francisco lot mergers resulting in lots greater than 5,000 sf require a CU.
6 Agenda Report Page 439 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
o Whether the project includes a diversity of units and units that are “affordable by design” and
o Whether the project includes affordable units.
● Explore adding a requirement that developments over a certain size include a certain percentage of permanently restricted affordable units. (See below, Inclusionary Requirements).

5. Zone E – Estate Residential (Division 17.28)
● Consider changing the name and intent.
● Change the minimum lot size from 20,000 to ~10,000 sf. ● Allow ~4–8 units as principally permitted uses, depending on:
o Lot size and characteristics (for example, corner lots or “through” lots have more street frontage and access, and therefore may be more suitable for more units), and depending on incentives to achieve desired results, such as:
▪ The creation of smaller, “affordable by design” units:
implement a sliding scale floor area ratio (FAR), or allow increased heights, to achieve creation of smaller units (as in Portland);
▪ Make sure that objective design standards do not impose excessive costs on homeowners, and instead facilitate
housing production and affordability;
▪ The creation of permanently-restricted affordable units:
include incentives for affordable housing such as increased height allowances and density bonuses. For example,
allow up to 6 units if X% of the units are affordable (as in Portland).
● Consider enabling lot mergers to allow small multifamily developments (~16 units) in some sites. Consider conditioning the mergers on the incorporation of affordability parameters in the development – either “affordable by design” units or inclusionary housing; see below. ● Increase height from 35 to ~40–45 feet, to provide flexibility to build new units.

IV. Other Legislative and Policy Changes
A. Identify, make available, and entitle a municipally-owned site for the development of a multifamily 100% affordable housing development using Measure A1 funds. See 7 Agenda Report Page 440 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
our article, “Piedmont Should Tap Its $2.2 Million Allocation of County Bonds for Multifamily Affordable Housing” in the Piedmont Exedra. 13 From HCD’s AFFH Guidance, “Examples of AFFH Actions”: “Developing multifamily housing opportunities.” (p. 72)
B. Consider adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. ● The ordinance would apply to multifamily housing developments over a certain size threshold (~15 units?) and would require that a certain percentage of the units be affordable. Ordinances of this kind are used throughout California and there are many models to draw from, and many years of experience to learn from.
● These units would be restricted under a long-termNotice of Special Restrictions recorded against title.
● The City would have to create mechanisms to administer the units created by this ordinance – establish affordability thresholds, application processes, etc. ● Owners would have the ability to pay a fee instead of building the units on site – this “affordable housing fee” would be paid to the City and maintained by the City in a separate account, for the purposes of creating more affordable housing units in the City.

C. Form a Piedmont Community Land Trust or partner with an existing local land trust.
● Using funds from the inclusionary housing program, work with a community land trust to acquire and redevelop ~10 homes into -plexes or homes + ADUs to create permanently (deed-restricted) affordable rental and homeownership opportunities, with the goal of converting a certain percentage of Piedmont’s 3900 units to 2-4 affordable units.

From HCD’s AFFH Guidance, “Examples of AFFH Actions”: “Encouraging collaboration between local governments and community land trusts as a mechanism to develop affordable housing in higher-opportunity areas” (p. 72-73).

D. Create a Piedmont Housing Trust Fund that is funded through the affordable housing fees and private and public contributions to support the development and operation of affordable housing.

From HCD’s AFFH Guidance, “Examples of AFFH Actions” in High-Opportunity Areas: “Target housing creation or mixed income strategies (e.g., funding, incentives, policies and programs, density bonuses, land banks, housing trust funds).” (p. 72)
13https://piedmontexedra.com/2021/08/commentary-piedmont-should-tap-its-2-2-million-allocation-of-coun ty-bonds-for-multifamily-affordable-housing
8 Agenda Report Page 441 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
From California HCD: “A Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund is required to be a public, joint public and private, or charitable nonprofit organization organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which was established by legislation, ordinance, resolution (including nonprofit articles of incorporation), or a public-private partnership organized to receive specific public, or public and private, revenue to address local housing needs. The key characteristic of a Local Housing Trust Fund is that it receives Ongoing Revenues from Dedicated Sources of funding sufficient to permit the Local Housing Trust Fund to comply with the requirements of the Program. Local and Regional Housing Trust Funds must comply with requirements set forth in the regulations and guidelines in order to be eligible to submit an application.”
See also: https://housingtrustfundproject.org/
E. Enact housing preservation measures to deter the conversion of multi-family housing to single-family housing. For example, this could entail requiring a conditional use permit to merge units or requiring a significant fee to merge units.

F. Change Parking Requirements in all the zones, from requiring a minimum amount of parking per development, to requiring maximum parking ratios. This would lower the costs to develop housing, and help create units that are more affordable, or “affordable by design.” Many jurisdictions have transitioned to parking maximum requirements, thus gradually shifting towards less parking, and a more efficient use of the public right of way. Furthermore, this aligns with the state’s and the City’s climate goals, as expressed in the Climate Action Plan, and helps promote safe use of the city’s streets for all modes of transportation.
9 Agenda Report Page 442 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
V. References
California Department of Housing and Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (published April 2021) California Department of Housing and Community Development, Public Lands for Affordable Housing Development, at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/public-lands-for-affordable-housing-developme nt.shtml
City of Piedmont, Piedmont is Home, https://www.piedmontishome.org Harvard University, Joint Center for Housing Studies, What Can We Expect From Cambridge’s New Affordable Housing Overlay?,
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/what-can-we-expect-cambridges-new-affordable-housing-ove rlay
Levinson, Nick, and Symkowick, Marta, After Dearing: Residential Segregation and the Ongoing Effects on Piedmont, at
https://piedmontexedra.com/2020/10/after-dearing-residential-segregation-and-the-ongoing-effe cts-on-piedmont
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Affordable Housing Opportunities on Public Lands, https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/housing/affordable-housing-opportunities-public-lands Rothstein, Richard, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (2017)
University of California, Othering and Belonging Institute, Single-Family Zoning in the San Francisco Bay Area: Characteristics of Exclusionary Communities (2020) https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-san-francisco-bay-area and Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area (2020) at
https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-5 The Terner Center, Past Webinar, The -Plex Paradox: Writing the Code to Undo Single-Family Zoning, at
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/upcoming-webinar-the-plex-paradox-writing-the-code-to-u ndo-single-family-zoning/
10 Agenda Report Page 443 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
This page is intentionally blank
Agenda Report Page 444 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY
Format: Zoom Virtual Meeting | March 24, 5:30-7:00pm
The purpose of the Housing Element Update Community Workshop #2 was to provide an update on the Housing Element process and next steps, introduce the Balancing Act tool, and provide a forum for community participants to ask questions and give feedback on user experience and functionality of Balancing Act. The main meeting focus was a hands-on interactive experience for the public and an overview of the general considerations and trade-offs associated with creating a balanced housing plan.

Feedback received will inform the further development of the tool and help guide the preparation of the Housing Element Update.

The community workshop was held virtually via Zoom on Thursday, March 24, 2022, from 5:30-7:00 p.m. and was facilitated by City staff and the consultant team (Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. and Plan to Place). The meeting agenda and presentation were posted prior to the meeting. Approximately 75 members of the public attended. The meeting agenda is outlined below:

1. Welcome & Introductions

2. Recap of Community Workshop #1

3. Housing Element Progress Updates

4. Balancing Act Overview and Activity

5. Conclusion and Next Steps
The slides from the March 24th workshop presentation are posted to the project website:
piedmontishome.org.

ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: approximately 75 attendees
City Staff
● Kevin Jackson – Planning and Building Director
● Pierce Macdonald– Senior Planner
City Officials
● Teddy Gray King – Mayor
● Rani Batra – Chair of Planning Commission, and Chair of Housing Advisory Committee Consultant Team
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. – David Bergman, Kathryn Slama, Stefano Richichi ● Plan to Place – Dave Javid, Paul Kronser, Rachael Sharkland Balancing Act
● Chris Adams
Section E.4
Agenda Report Page 445 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Dave Javid from Plan to Place, Planning Director Kevin Jackson, and Mayor Teddy Gray King opened the meeting by welcoming attendees, introducing the City and Consultant Team, giving an overview of the agenda, and opening the demographic live poll (results provided below). The following is a summary of the live demographic poll that was administered at the beginning of the meeting.

Demographic Poll (Results based on participants at the meeting. Full results can be found in Appendix 1)

1. Where do you live?
● 87% live in Piedmont
● 11% live in Alameda County but not Piedmont
● 3% live outside of Alameda County

2. Where do you work?
● 44% work In Piedmont (including remote work)
● 13% do not work Piedmont, but in Alameda County
● 16% work outside Alameda County
● 27% are retired

3. Which of the following describes why you decided to attend tonight’s workshop? ● 40% want to know more about the Housing Element update process ● 2% want to know more about obtaining housing in Piedmont ● 37% want to support more housing development in Piedmont ● 22% are concerned about more housing development in Piedmont

4. Have you participated in other Housing Element events? ● 85% yes
● 15% no

5. What is your current housing situation?
● 91% own a home
● 7% rent a home
● 2% live with family/friends

6. What type of housing do you live in?
● 96% live in a house
● 4% live in an apartment

7. Please indicate which of the following do you identify with (select all that apply). ● 6% Hispanic or LatinX
● 12% Black, Indigenous, or Person of Color
● 6% Household with 5+ persons
● 44% Person of age 62 or older
● 2% Veteran
● 28% Don’t identify with any of these categories
● 2% Prefer not to answer

8. Which bracket best describes your household income?
● 2% Less than $41,000
Agenda Report Page 446 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
● 7% $68,501 to $109,600
● 11% $109,601 to $150,700
● 80% $150,701 or more
After the poll closed, Dave Javid gave a recap of the December 2, 2021 workshop, including a summary of the December demographic polling results. Kathryn Slama from Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) gave a brief presentation on Housing Element updates including a review of Housing Element components, schedule, and next steps. After the presentation, Kevin Jackson reiterated the intention of the workshop to explore community preferences and the functionality of the Balancing Act tool, and introduced Balancing Act Founder and President, Chris Adams. Chris gave a brief presentation on the background and purpose of the Balancing Act tool and then guided workshop participants through an interactive demonstration. The chat feature was open for the duration of the meeting. During the Balancing Act overview and activity, verbal and chat questions/ comments were encouraged. Notetakers from the project team recorded the verbal questions, comments and answers from the project team when provided.

Balancing Act Landing Page for the Piedmont Housing Puzzle Agenda Report Page 447 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION SUMMARY
This summary below paraphrases chat comments and questions into major themes. City and consultant team responses provided during the meeting are in italics. A full transcript of the chat comments is included in Appendix 2.

CHAT COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
Balancing Act Functionality
● Does the tool differentiate between affordable and market-rate sites? ● How do you submit a plan?
○ In order to submit, a user must reach 587 housing units. You can share and save your work and come back to it.

Meeting format and feedback
● Desire for greater community engagement and participation. ● Desire for two-way communication between City staff and community. ● Will there be a later meeting at which results will be shared and discussed? o Yes, the results will be shared at the Planning Commission meeting in May.

Strategy and approach to site selection
● How is this not redlining?
● What is the unit size that was used in the unit/acre density examples? ● The residents of Piedmont with resources are pushing housing development into less resourced areas.
● How can a parking lot for a church and school be an eligible site? ○ The Housing Element would establish policies that, for example, would enable Zion Church or other religious institution to design a housing development that meets their needs.

VERBAL COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
Balancing Act Tool Functionality
● This is an extensive exercise, are we just learning about the tool at tonight’s meeting? ○ Yes, you are just learning about the tool. The plan can be saved and completed after tonight’s meeting.
● Is there a place to add comments in the tool?
○ Yes, and just a reminder this is not the only way to submit comments; the primary way is to leave comments on the draft Housing Element, once the draft is released in early April. ● How realistic are the unit numbers that the tool is assuming sites can accommodate? ○ If they are already built with a use that is a constraint, so in this exercise the City is looking at what could be accomplished with increased density. But the City recognizes that with this tool there is excess capacity, and you can add more units than what is needed for the Housing Element. The exercise is more about providing the user with an understanding of the challenges, trade-offs, and constraints.
● Can the Draft Housing Element be incorporated into this tool so we can have a realistic starting point?
Agenda Report Page 448 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
○ In terms of the tool’s functionality, the City will determine if that’s possible. The draft Housing Element Site Inventory incorporates considerations that aren't linked to the Balancing Act tool (such as income classification). Balancing act is intended to be a generalized simulation of the possible array of sites that have been considered. The City did not use Balancing Act to create the site inventory. The draft Housing Element will be ready for public review and comment in April
Rezoning
● Why aren’t we considering rezoning?
o The City Charter requires a ballot measure and vote to change zoning boundaries, although Balancing Act simulates unit counts that would require changes to development standards.
● Why aren’t we considering more density in single-family (A&E) zones? o Rezoning means reclassification, which requires voter approval in Piedmont. It is possible to keep the boundaries the same, but increase density for residential areas, if consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, state law allows for the production of housing units on single-family properties without any rezoning. The sites shown in the Balancing Act tool were crowd-sourced and then “reality-checked” to reflect plausible alternatives. ● Is the City considering increasing allowable densities beyond SB 9? o In terms of increased density, the City is considering a variety of tactics. The City is rethinking how to accommodate the units and requirements in terms of what is realistic for specific sites.

Site Selection
● How can a parking lot associated with a school be used for housing? ○ The constraints of reusing a school parking lot would need to be considered and addressed with programs before a site was included in the sites inventory in the Draft Housing Element. City will be discussing the sites, and community identified constraints, more directly during the site inventory review, which is part of the housing element update (coming out in early April).
● Why isn’t EBMUD being considered?
○ The City has been in conversation with the utility, and EBMUD will not make their sites available for reuse as housing during the 6th Cycle.
● Is it realistic to develop the proposed sites?
○ HCD feasibility determination isn't straightforward, and relies on regional trends in redevelopment into residential uses. HCD is not requiring a proforma to determine financial feasibility of redevelopment for site eligibility.

RHNA
● Does putting RHNA units in highly impacted areas comply with AFFH, especially regarding high opportunity sites?
○ The Draft Housing Element will include a section describing how the plan meets the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). Note that all of Piedmont is considered a High Opportunity area, and any housing in Piedmont would be placing households in areas of high opportunity.

Agenda Report Page 449 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Housing Element Process and Implications
● What are the tax ramifications of this process?
○ The City is not required to build housing, it is the City's obligation to put policies in place that facilitate the development of housing through the Housing Element. In general, the housing element anticipates that the private sector will provide the housing indicated in the plan. What is the fiscal impact on the General fund accounts? This will be part of future analysis. Keep in mind that whether it is a deficit or surplus depends on what type of units are produced. The break-even point in a typical California city is estimated to be $450k per unit, but Piedmont is a high service city so the cost is likely more than that. ● When will we get a chance to talk about tangible results and outcomes of the Housing Element and if we'll be able to come together as a community?
○ The City has designed the next three months to be an iterative process; the draft Housing Element is coming out in April to keep things moving and so we can assess how realistic development is, considering all of the constraints. The April draft is preliminary, and it will be up for public review. Feedback from this Balancing Act tool will be analyzed concurrently with comments on the Housing Element Draft. We encourage comments on the draft itself, and there are 3 upcoming community events. Make your voice heard at Housing Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings. All comments will be collected and considered in the City’s revisions, which will then sent to the HCD for review.

Planning & Building Director Kevin Jackson and Kathryn Slama of LWC noted next steps and upcoming meetings including release of the draft Housing Element in April, the Housing Advisory Committee meeting on April 19, the Planning Commission meeting on May 12, and a City Council meeting in June 2022. All information received through Balancing Act will be compiled and provided in the Planning Commission staff report for the meeting scheduled for May 12, 2022.

Chair Batra gave closing remarks, noting that Housing Element discussions can seem abstract and technical, but interactive tools like Balancing Act can help community members break down complex issues. She noted, “…these visual and interactive tools are helping us understand what growth might look like in reality. I think the draft Housing Element update will bring this further into focus. We can all look forward to seeing the public review draft of the Housing Element and then being able to engage together on it at three different public forums.” Chair Batra closed the meeting by thanking participants and urging them to help spread the word, stating, “It is going to take all of us to make room for more housing in Piedmont.”
Agenda Report Page 450 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Piedmont Housing Puzzle Interactive Interface
Agenda Report Page 451 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix 1

DEMOGRAPHIC LIVE POLL RESULTS

1. Where do you live?

2. Where do you work?
Agenda Report Page 452 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

3. Which of the following describes why you decided to attend tonight’s workshop? (select all that apply)

4. Have you participated in other Housing Element events? Agenda Report Page 453 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

5. What is your current housing situation?

6. What type of housing do you live in?
Agenda Report Page 454 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

7. Please indicate one or more of the following categories with which you identify.

8. Which bracket best describes your household income?
Agenda Report Page 455 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix 2

CHAT TRANSCRIPTION
City staff chat comments and City staff responses to participants’ questions are italicized. Spelling/ grammar errors were corrected.

Dave Javid: Hi all, we'll get to verbal comments after the demo, if you have any questions now please feel free to use this CHAT function.

Can you explain how to access the tool? Also, does the tool differentiate between affordable housing development sites and market rate sites?
Pierce Macdonald: They will give the link soon.

Hi! Why aren’t we considering rezoning other areas?
Is there a maximum # at each location?
Doesn't seem active on my phone
Thanks for setting up this tool and meeting. I have to leave but have the link and will explore the tool over the weekend (I believe it says it’s open until May 1?) Does it block placement of puzzle pieces based on current density or is not capped? Could you show the “i” icon for Corpus Christi please?
Will there be a later meeting at which results will be shared and discussed? Est unit size to be considered a unit?
Pierce Macdonald: We don't have an estimated unit size yet. Are you referring to the photos of the building examples?
What is the smallest unit allowed to be considered a unit? What is the unit size that was used in the unit/acre density examples you provided for illustrations? Pierce Macdonald: It is a range of unit sizes. This is an important discussion point for the objective design standards.

Pierce Macdonald: Yes, the results will be shared at the Planning Commission meeting in May.

Zion Lutheran Church comprises a church a school and a parking lot that is used as the school playground. Where does the housing plan expect to build housing on that site? Pierce Macdonald: The photos of the different building densities use a variety of unit sizes and number of bedrooms.

Pierce Macdonald: There are approximately 50 people using the app - that is great news! Pierce Macdonald: If anyone is having trouble accessing the Piedmont Housing Puzzle, please let me know and we can provide assistance.

Agenda Report Page 456 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Pierce Macdonald: In order to submit, a user must reach 587 housing units. You can share and save your work and come back to it. Save and share your work button is just below the "Submit" button.

Pierce Macdonald: Please take the opportunity to use the Piedmont Housing Puzzle and submit your housing plan and comments by May 1, 2022!
What document from HCD specifically prohibits counting future SB9 and ADUS from counting toward the RHNA? I have contacted HCD and was told that they're working on that question, also two other jurisdictions were contacted, and they did not know either.

Pierce Macdonald: Information about the HCD requirements for projecting future growth based on the average rate of production in the past will be discussed in the draft Housing Element later in April 2022.

Sorry, but I am looking for a document from HCD as the authority. Not from a local opinion.

Pierce Macdonald: The Housing Element would establish policies that would enable Zion Church to design a housing development that meets their needs.

BTW, there's no sb9 history
Agenda Report Page 457 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix 3
Community Feedback
Dear Pierce and Kevin,
Thank you for hosting the Housing Element workshop last evening. I'm writing to request that future community engagement sessions on the Housing Element allow greater opportunity for community dialogue and input. While last night's event was very informative, by the time we heard the various introductions, did the online polling, and were introduced to the Piedmont Puzzle, there was about 15 minutes left for a handful of questions and comments from the audience--not enough time to allow for any meaningful exchanges among participants. I hope that future Housing Element workshops will allow significantly more time for open and robust community dialogue, even if it requires the events to be longer.

Additionally, I would like to add my support to one of the comments last night: I hope that the City's draft Housing Element will include a recommendation to increase allowable density in Zones A to 2-6 units per lot (depending on the size of the lot) and in Zone B to 4-8 units per lot (depending on the size of the lot). This does not seem to be a strategy contemplated in the PIedmont Puzzle assumptions, but it is among the key policy changes that PREC's Housing Committee presented in the Housing policy recommendations that we sent to you in November 2021.

Thank you for accepting this feedback, and for all your work related to the Housing Element.

Agenda Report Page 458 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
1 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE #2 SUMMARY
Format: Zoom Virtual Webinar | April 19, 5:30-8:00pm
The purpose of the Piedmont Housing Element Update community event at the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) meeting on April 19, 2022, was to present key findings and recommendations of the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element and provide a forum for feedback and discussion from the members of the HAC and the general public. Feedback received will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in making their recommendation to submit the Draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in this summer of 2022.

The HAC meeting was held virtually via Zoom Webinar on Tuesday, April 19, 2022, from 5:30-8:00pm. City staff and the consultant team (Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. and Plan to Place) facilitated the meeting. The agenda was posted April 14, and the staff report was posted April 15, 2022, prior to the meeting. The presentation slides are posted to the project website: piedmontishome.org. Approximately 30 members of the public attended. The meeting agenda is outlined below:

1. Welcome, Introductions, & Housing Element Overview

2. Findings: Constraints Assessment

3. Overview of Available Sites Inventory

4. Fair Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs

5. Public Comment

6. Wrap Up and Next Steps

ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: approximately 30 attendees
City Staff
● Kevin Jackson – Planning and Building Director
● Pierce Macdonald– Senior Planner
● Mark Enea - Administrative Assistant
Housing Advisory Committee
● Rani Batra - Chair
● June Catalano
● Jane Lin
● Claire Parisa
● Justin Osler (not present)
Consultant Team
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) – David Bergman, Kathryn Slama, Stefano Richichi ● Plan to Place – Paul Kronser, Rachael Sharkland
Section E.5
Agenda Report Page 459 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
2 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Chair Rani Batra brought the meeting to order, welcomed public attendees, and explained the purpose of the meeting. The City moderator, Administrative Assistant Mark Enea, then gave an overview of the format of the meeting, including the protocol for the public comment section. Kathryn Slama (LWC) and David Bergman (LWC) began the presentation with a high-level review of the Housing Element, including background, components, document organization, a summary of public outreach to date, and project FAQs. Following the overview, the presentation was organized into three sections: 1) findings from the Constraints Assessment; 2) overview of Available Sites Inventory; and 3) Fair Housing goals, policies, and programs. After each section concluded, time was given to the HAC members to offer comments and ask clarifying questions. City staff and the consultant team responded to HAC questions. After the presentation, HAC accepted public comment. Speakers were allowed up to two minutes of comments, and there was not cut off on the number of speakers. Following the public comment period, members of the HAC were invited to make concluding remarks.

HAC COMMENTS AND CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
The table below includes the HAC comments organized according to each section with responses to select questions from City Staff and the consultant team in italics.

CONSTRAINTS
Commentor Comment Responder/ Response
Claire Parisa
In regard to section 1F, What type of housing is allowed on public facilities sites in Zone B. To increase
allowances, what is currently allowed and what is being proposed?
Kevin Jackson: In Zone B single
family (SF) residential is permitted
as well as emergency shelters and
supportive housing as defined in
state code; SF residential is
permitted in every zone in
Piedmont.

Claire Parisa Can supportive housing be permanent? This could be a good opportunity.

Kevin: Yes, I believe supportive
housing can be permanent.

Rani Batra
Regarding the constraints section, it strikes me over and over that prop.13 is a significant constraint. We see this dramatically in Piedmont with our uneven distribution of property taxes. It certainly is a limitation to production of affordable housing. How can we share the burden more
proportionately across the population?
David B: Parcel tax would be an
option.

Agenda Report Page 460 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
3 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

SITES INVENTORY
Commentor Comment
June Catalano
I am concerned about the concentration of affordable housing around the Corp Yard with all its noise and traffic. HCD wants affordable housing distributed throughout the City. I would request that the consultants take another look at that.

Also, if Redrock Rd. can't be developed, we would go to Blair Park, and that would be 200 affordable units concentrated there. It appears that no other City has given up parkland to build housing. Is this setting up a concerning precedent that Piedmont, as well as other cities, would be expected to give up parkland? Claire Parisa
Thank you to the team, it is not easy to find a place for this many units. Kudos for creativity and detailed analysis. 1) While there are margins for all of the income levels, the margin is very thin for extremely low and low income. If we were to theoretically hit our targets, we would have to build out all sites, with the exception of 3 units. So I would encourage the City to take a look and have a bigger margin. 2) City Hall and Piedmont Center for the Arts are cherished sites that don't seem likely to be built on. I believe we should be looking more closely at Blair Park. I don’t think we should build on the entire site, but rather would propose improving some of the park areas, especially where it is an undeveloped field, and adding housing.

There is an opportunity to do both. I would prefer that Blair Park is not a back-up, but is considered as a primary site. I understand this would require community input. 3) In the site inventory, the map is very hard to read. Can it be made larger and can there be zoom in on frames where there are clusters of sites? Rani Batra
I echo the discussion on Blair Park, I do think it's a site that we should look at within scope, because there are fewer feasibility constraints to developing here. I also share concern that we shouldn't pack in affordable housing on one site. I ask the team to look at what are the levers the community would have if we were to decide to develop Blair Park. It is on a high traffic thoroughfare, and we would like to have some say in how the development would occur, in order to mitigate impact on the broader community.

Claire Parisa
In response to the comments so far, I know it is hard to have affordable housing spread out because you usually need 40-,50-,60- units before you can put the financing together. The two sites where this could happen are the Corp Yard and Blair Park.

Rani Batra There is a tension and lots of trade-offs that need to be made. We don't want to over-rely on ADUs, but this may be the best way to get affordable housing.

Agenda Report Page 461 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
4 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

GOALS, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS
Commentor Comment
June Catalano I do think the City should develop more detailed ways for ADUs to be affordable and incentivized and be tracked for how they are being used.

Claire Parisa
I want to express gratitude again. Such a robust set of programs and policies to tackle the housing issues from increasing supply to educating residents. I have a few specific comments: 1) The creation of an affordable housing fund (3E). This suggests that a fund could provide financial support for ADUs. Could we instead use this fund for the development of 100% affordable multifamily housing? BAHFA could administer, if we don't have capacity as a City. In order to build affordable housing, most of the funding is public and comes from a locality, and so this fund could be a source. 2) Regarding rent-restricted ADUs, Linda Loper made a comment, I don't know how closely we monitor these rent-restricted ADUs. It shouldn't be overly onerous for owners, but the City could ask owners to self-report once a year what it is being used for and how much rent is. Also the City could make an effort to educate tenants, make sure they understand what rents are eligible for ADUs that are rent-restricted. 3) I would encourage the City to commit to some type of realtor education or a set of best practices that could be posted on the website about implicit bias, and how practices that we take for granted are contributing to an exclusive community. 4) Regarding 1L: I am hoping we will get affordable multifamily housing built. I would also love to see more specifics here on using the Measure A1 funding we have as a City to build low-income multifamily housing, please link this to 1L. It would be interesting to think about the possibility of creating ownership opportunities for moderate income and below moderate income. I would encourage the creation of some units, perhaps as part of the specific plan, for home-ownership for folks of moderate income. I wouldn't want this to be at the expense of affordable housing.

Rani Batra
I commend the team and the breadth and depth and
variety of policies and programs. Can you clarify the
provision of 2D to condo-ize apartments? Is this stating a preference for apartments over condos? Would this limit the ability to turn a large single-family home into multiple units?
Kathryn: 2D is intended to mitigate
a loss of affordable units for
existing tenants in rental units; we
are not eliminating the opportunity
to condo-ize an apartment
building, but rather are trying to
have some measures to safeguard
against losing affordable
apartments. Kevin: It's a
continuing policy from the past
and current HEU - if we do lose a
rental unit it needs to be made up
for elsewhere.

Agenda Report Page 462 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
5 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Rani Batra Regarding Program 1N, what was the thinking behind a potential municipal tax increase for ADUs?
Kathryn: the intent of the program
is to get an understanding of the
relationship between increasing
ADU production and maintaining
the high quality of City services.

This would be done in the context
of not wanting to add additional
constraints to housing
development.

June Catalano
Re: Site map of the City-owned sites in appendix B, it
would be helpful to show specific densities that are
included in addition to the cross-hatch.

Kevin: City-owned facilities in the
civic center area have been
identified by the City by virtue of
their size and terrain and whether
the existing use could continue
with additional housing
development. The City isn't
interested in giving up services.

We also looked at where the City
itself has needs to improve
facilities, for example the corp
yard could use a facelift and so
this could be done in conjunction
with developing housing. Similarly
we are in desperate need of
improvements for fire and police,
similar to 801 Magnolia. These
sites could possibly be developed
with housing as well. Another
example would be relocating the
Tennis Courts to a roof.

Agenda Report Page 463 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
6 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

PUBLIC COMMENT
The table below includes public comments in the order they were received.

Ellen Greenberg
Thank you to the Committee, the consulting team, and staff. The draft represents a commitment to looking at solutions that we haven't considered before. I would request more information on the quantified objectives. The RHNA number is enormous, and the quantified objectives table represents 235 units, how was this number derived? I am focused on getting housing produced in the near-term. Is the quantified objective a number that represents sites and projects we can deliver on? I also want to support what Kevin mentioned about the Civic Center, and the Corp Yard might just need some skilled site planners.

Sarah Karlinsky
I would like to compliment the staff, the draft is excellent. I would like to praise putting public sites up for consideration. Regarding the issue of the City charter, I am pleased to see it's addressed, we will need to take decisive steps for future cycles. Our charter which requires that any rezoning must go to City-wide vote is very unusual.

Elise Marie
Thank you. I wanted to talk about ADUs. David B talked about their importance given we don't have a lot of sites, how will these be rented to protected classes such as seniors etc? I am a caregiver here in Piedmont. How can we track and get aggregate data on who is renting these ADUs? How do ABAG numbers relate to the context of Piedmont? For example, our median income is twice that of Alameda County. So I worry that 70 ADU units built in the next few years won't be affordable.

Susie S
I live in Piedmont and thank you for a fantastic presentation. Regarding Zone C & D I am excited to see these listed. These are occupied by businesses, and many have buildings on them. Would these sites yield the units for these areas? Has the City contacted owners to see if they'd be interested in developing? Andy Madeira
I am a long time Piedmont resident; I want to commend everybody's participation on this council, and the staff/consultant team. HEU work has gotten more complex, and hence has gotten more scrutiny. David noted that we don't need to build 587 units, but we want to see 587 units built, and I hope this HEU will be drafted realistically with programs that will make these do-able. Blair Park was not included, and I am surprised it was taken off the sites inventory. I would encourage it to be put back on. I support everything that Claire said, and we are trying to use A-1 funds.

Rob Lautt
I would like to see a vision-driven housing element, one that inspires the community; we should be more inviting for more folks of mixed backgrounds. We owe our privilege to historically racist laws and practices. I would like to see substantive anti-racist progress; there should be a greater proposal for affordable housing across zones A&E, and please consider policy K for small site affordable housing, so we can have smaller units, duplexes, and triplexes for affordable housing. I would like to give my email so folks can get together and discuss more, email me at: [email protected].

Agenda Report Page 464 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
7 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Randy Wu
This has been a really good dialogue. As housing experts, you know there are many obstacles for housing projects to overcome and only a fraction of what is planned will be built. Please offer your best advice to the Planning Commission and City Council. Do not leave the City's best player on the bench: Blair Park should be in the site inventory and developers should be offered to submit proposals. Strength in numbers.

Irene Cheng
Hi, I am calling in from PREC, thank you, we will be submitting feedback in writing.

Strategy seems to be to select publicly-owned and church and temple sites. I would like the HEU to incrementally alter zoning in A& E to allow duplexes and triplexes.

A&E constitutes most of the land in Piedmont, and to increase zoning allows gentle and equitable density throughout the City. Single-family housing is now wellrecognized as borne of racism to maintain exclusion. We shouldn't have these laws on our books. Oakland and Berkley are eliminating SFH, we should follow suit and the state has taken us half-way with SB9, etc.

Alice Talcott
Thanks for the opportunity to provide some comments, I'm pleased with the direction of development. Our RHNA goals will only be met if creative methods are used. As an affordable housing developer, the City will need to use public land. A lot of these sites in the end may not be feasible. I would propose that the plan take a more expansive view of public sites and the Corporation Yard, and shouldn't exclude anything at this point. Put everything on the table, including Blair Park.

Encourage a process that will allow us to take advantage of A1 funding.

Jill Lindenbaum
I am running a program for home-sharing, and am excited by the commitment in the current HEU to promote this. Very low-income housing needs are in tension if you are focusing on landlords that are also themselves low-income, as they are likely to ask for higher rents. Would like to see an expansion of the housing fund, so could for example fund home-sharing opportunities. Rental assistance needs and housing trust programs could be funded by grants and a city-fund. I would like also to see more studies of small sites.

Liz
I live in the neighborhood that surrounds the Corporation Yard, and I am concerned about all the new units in that place. I hope the Committee will look into spreading affordable units throughout the City. Will there be a sound study or study that looks at environmental impacts? How do we get informed about upcoming meetings? Vincient Fisher
There is a disproportionate number of low-income units that are proposed on large sites (100+ units); I agree that we should distribute low-income units. Moraga traffic will be exacerbated. Make new members of the community integrated with the larger community.

Garrett Keating
Questions about ADU's incentives: every 2 feet you go up you get 2 feet back. With a 12' setback on a carriage house, what is the height limit? Is there a number of housing units converted - I wouldn't change the charter and don't encourage densities in Blair Park. I would go back to the drawing board on equitable distributions. There should be more private land to develop than public land. I advocate to staff to pose an idea and push the RHNA envelope.

Agenda Report Page 465 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
8 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Deepti Sethi
Looking at the map there seems aggregation of units and a direct impact on a small swath of the community. This doesn't reflect an equitable distribution. Look at what the City Council in 2021 encouraged, which was to equitably distribute low-income housing, what is the impact on residents? I agree that A&E zones should be considered. Please think critically that you are asking a few residents to bear the burden.

Eric Loucks
Thanks for all your efforts, I hope it comes to a greater good. I am concerned about putting low-income housing in one corner, the furthest from the schools where there is no transportation and it's not a safe walkable area and people are going to have to drive their kids to school. In addition, there are no sidewalks or curbs, and no way to get a firetruck in there without blocking one-way roads. Hope that it is looked at.

HAC CONCLUDING REMARKS
Jane Lin
The consultants have done a great job, I am very appreciative. I acknowledge all the speakers today and their visionary comments, this town has some very caring folks. I advocate for more bravery and to think about more options. I agree that we should support more thinking about where residential is allowed. East Bay cities are looking at the missing middle and looking at 2-4 units by right. Could some development look like SFH and fit into the existing fabric? I support more master plan studies that looks at the civic center as a whole and thinks about how this space works, also Coach's field and Blair Park. The housing that is being proposed feels at the edges and is in places that aren't residential now. We may lose these spaces as assets, so it is important to protect some of the commercial and civic lands. Can we make more efficient use of land in conjunction with housing? Can we consider densifying carefully? This would require revisiting the charter. I would like to see all zones considered eligible for more housing. I appreciate the public outreach, especially the banners! Visibility of the banners are effective without needing to do mailers. They are a great tool that inspires dialogue.

Rani Batra
We heard a lot of helpful comments, I would like to highlight a few: can we find ways to spread development throughout the community so that folks are integrated? How do we balance this with cost implications? A number of people flagged Blair Park as a site that should be in scope. We will consider all comments as we refine and update the element. I thank the community. We have such a wealth of talent and passion. Also, the Housing Element is only one tool, and we have other tools at our disposal including state legislation, which we will continue to parse as we move forward.

Clair Parisa
I am concerned about building affordable housing in certain areas of Piedmont and want to point us to the site inventory analysis. 211 units are outside of the ADU scope, 70 would be at the center of town and there are some sprinkled throughout town. We can't build small amounts of units due to finances. I heard concerns about having housing in one place, we should reframe housing as a benefit rather than a burden and consider that new housing might go to folks that already work in our communities (fire, police, teachers, etc.). I would encourage folks to put aside their preconceived notions about who is applying for affordable housing. Diversity of our community-- income, race, gender-- benefits our community.

Agenda Report Page 466 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
9 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Jane Catalano
In response to Parisa, we do want to see diversity, but equity requires that housing be spread throughout the community because that is the only way to achieve diversity. I think we can do better.

Agenda Report Page 467 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
This page is intentionally blank
Agenda Report Page 468 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATEPARK COMMISSION SUMMARY
Format: Zoom Virtual Webinar | May 4, 5:30pm
The purpose of the Piedmont Housing Element Update presentation at the Park Commission meeting on May 4, 2022, was to:
• Communicate with Piedmont’s civic leaders
• Provide sources for Housing Element information
• Provide an additional forum for public comment
• Highlight the opportunities and tradeoffs of new draft housing programs and sites inventory Feedback received will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in making their recommendation to submit the Draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in this summer of 2022.

The Park Commission meeting was held virtually via Zoom Webinar on Wednesday, May 4, 2022, beginning at 5:30pm. City staff and Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. facilitated the meeting. The agenda and the staff report were posted on April 29, 2022. The presentation slides are posted to the project website:
piedmontishome.org. The presentation outline is provided below:

1. Introduction, RHNA, and 5th Cycle Housing Element

2. New 6th Cycle Housing Element Requirements

3. Overview of Available Sites Inventory and Housing Plan

4. Fair Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs

5. Next Steps and How to Find More Information

6. Public Comment

ATTENDANCE
City Staff
● Pierce Macdonald– Senior Planner
● Mark Enea - Administrative Assistant
Park Commission
● Amber Brumfiel - Chair
● Patty Dunlap
● David Johnson
● Kimberly Moses
● Eileen Ruby (not in attendance)
● Tom Smegal
● Robin Wu
Section E.6
Agenda Report Page 469 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Consultant Team
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) – David Bergman, Kathryn Slama, Stefano Richichi

MEETING SUMMARY
Chair Amber Brumfiel brought the meeting to order, welcomed public attendees, and explained the purpose of the meeting. The City moderator, Administrative Assistant Mark Enea, then gave an overview of the format of the meeting, including the protocol for public comment. Kathryn Slama (LWC) and David Bergman (LWC) presented the topics as outlined above. At the end of the presentation, time was given to the Park Commission members to offer comments and ask clarifying questions. City staff and the consultant team responded to Park Commissioner questions. After the presentation, the Park Commission accepted public comment. Speakers were allowed up to three minutes of comments, and there was no cut off on the number of speakers. Following the public comment period, members of the Park Commission were invited to make concluding remarks.

PARK COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
The bullets below include Park Commissioner comments and questions. City staff and consultant responses are provided in italics:
• Blair Park is included as an alternate site. What does that mean? o The Specific Plan section of the Sites Inventory in the draft Housing Element describe potential capacity at the Corporation Yard. The State recognizes a deference towards parks and open space, whereas the Corporation Yard is an asset where a public-private partnership could develop.
• Please clarify the goal of energy and sustainability. o This means that development must comply with Title 24 and any City-specific policies, such as the reach codes and the Climate Action Plan, and also refers to jobs/housing balance and greenhouse gas reduction goals of AB 32, SB 375.
• How do the plans take into account the expansion of Coaches’ Field? Also, there is a reservoir in that area that isn’t being used by EBMUD that could be used for housing. o The City met with EBMUD and they were clear that that reservoir is important for our water infrastructure, and it is not included as a viable site. We are aware of plans to expand Coaches’ Field. There has been a lot of thought that has gone into putting this into a specific plan (e.g., reconfiguration of Corporation Yard facilities, infrastructure, grading, etc.). • If someone builds an ADU, is it ok for a family to live there? o Yes, this would count as a unit needed under RHNA.
• Why are there only 30 units in the mid-slope location at the Corporation Yard? o The steepness of the slope would require a lot of grading; that’s why there would be fewer units there. Sites closer to Moraga Avenue are flatter and could accommodate more housing. But this would be figured out through the specific plan process subsequent to the Housing Element Update.
• Is that blue area on the map Zion Lutheran Church?
o Yes, they’re willing to consider housing there.

Agenda Report Page 470 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
• Will the City have to develop below-market-rate units at City-owned sites? Would the City have to sell its land for that purpose?
o Those details have not been worked out yet, but the Surplus Land Act sets the parameters by which public agencies sell land to the private sector. The specific plan would proceed under the Surplus Land Act.
• Will another EIR have to be done for future housing development projects? o The City is preparing a programmatic EIR to address the Housing Element. Future development could tier off of that EIR, but it would depend on the proposal. • Why was Blair Park not on the table in terms of including it as a site? o The State (and City) have a deference to park spaces. Also, it could set a precedent for the City or for other cities in the Bay Area to develop park land. • In Berkeley, the regional water quality control board would want to daylight creeks that are in culverts (where there was once a creek there). Where does that factor in? o The City’s CEQA consultant, Rincon, is looking at hydrology through the EIR, but Piedmont does not have a requirement for creeks to be daylighted. • We (the Park Commission) would like to have input on the plan in terms of elements that address habitat, open space, parks, and street trees.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Only one public comment was received:
• The Housing Element should cite sections from the General Plan, including the Sustainability Element. We need safe pedestrian and bicycle transportation, as we have a lot of undeveloped land, a lot of it near transit; the Corporation Yard and Blair Park require vehicles. We need to equitably distribute housing throughout our City and get creative with Zones A and E.

Agenda Report Page 471 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
This page is intentionally blank
Agenda Report Page 472 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
1 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING SUMMARY
Format: In-Person & Zoom Virtual Meeting | May 12, 2022 - 5:30pm The purpose of the Special Planning Commission meeting on May 12, 2022, was to present key findings and recommendations of the City of Piedmont Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element and provide a forum for feedback and discussion from members of the Planning Commission and the general public. Feedback received will be considered by the City Council in making their recommendation to submit the Draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) this Summer.

The Planning Commission meeting was held both in-person and virtually via Zoom Meeting on Thursday, May 12, 2022, at 5:30pm. City staff and the consultant team (Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. and Plan to Place) facilitated the meeting. The agenda, presentation and staff report were posted on the project website:
piedmontishome.org. Approximately 50 members of the public attended. The meeting agenda is below:

1. Welcome, Introductions, & Housing Element Overview

2. Sites Inventory

3. Goals, Policies, and Programs

4. Next Steps

5. Public Comment

6. Planning Commission Recommendation

ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: approximately 50 attendees
City Staff
● Kevin Jackson – Planning and Building Director
● Pierce Macdonald – Senior Planner
● Suzanne Hartman – Planning Technician
● Mark Enea - Administrative Assistant
Planning Commission
● Rani Batra - Chair
● Jonathan Levine
● Tom Ramsey
● Douglas Strout
● Justin Zucker (Alternate)
● Yildiz Duransoy (not present)
Consultant Team
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) – David Bergman, Kathryn Slama, Stefano Richichi ● Plan to Place – Paul Kronser, Rachael Sharkland
Section E.7
Agenda Report Page 473 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
2 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MEETING SUMMARY
Chair Rani Batra brought the meeting to order, welcomed public attendees, and explained the purpose of the meeting. The meeting moderator, City’s Administrative Assistant Mark Enea, then gave an overview of the format of the meeting, including the protocol for the public comment section which occurred both in-person and virtually. Kathryn Slama (LWC) and David Bergman (LWC) began the presentation with a high-level review of the Housing Element, including background, components, document organization, key findings, and project FAQs. Following the overview, the presentation was organized into three sections: 1) Sites Inventory; 2) Goals, Policies, and Programs; and 3) Next Steps. After each section concluded, time was given to the Planning Commission members to offer comments and ask any clarifying questions. After the presentation, the Planning Commission heard public comment where speakers were allowed up to two minutes to voice comments, and there was no cut off on the number of speakers.

Following the public comment period, members of the Planning Commission led by Chair Batra asked City staff and the consulting team some of the frequently asked questions from the public comment period.

Next, the Planning Commission members were invited to make comments, ask questions of City staff and the consulting team, prior to making a final recommendation. After comments and discussion between commission members, City staff and the consulting team, Chair Batra reviewed the proposed revisions to the Public Review prior to a motion to adopt the resolution as provided by staff with additional modifications and roll call vote. The motion passed 5-0 to send the Draft Housing Element Update to HCD.

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
For a summary of Planning Commission questions and discussion, please see the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, available here.

PUBLIC COMMENT
The table below includes public comments in the order they were received.

Commentor Comment
Beth Sala Covin
Lived in Piedmont - for 17 years we've lived in New Jersey, Princeton. They have affordable housing requirements, great town and on forefront of de-segregating their schools. One experience was at one point the hospital was outgrown and CEO demanded a new building and found cheaper land the one town over. They thought replacing a non-tax generating property by an apartment building that did generate taxes was a good idea. But they didn't do any economic feasibility. The schools were stretched to capacity. Housing prices didn’t rise, lastly, I don’t understand this plan and why Piedmont isn’t seeking some type of exemption? Really the City plans to build more housing next to the hayward fault? John Malick
Resident and architect, since 1982. Built a lot of homes in Piedmont, I believe we can commit to kinds of multi-family housing without overwhelming the City or diminishing quality of homes. There are examples of multifamily housing that live comfortable in our community and fit into the fabric of our City, so I visited 5 multi-family projects that you don't know where they are because they’re built prior to 1945 and become part of the texture of the community.

The fears that people have about density are not in conflict with what folks like about Piedmont, namely that it is walkable, the transit and services. I have confidence that in Agenda Report Page 474 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
3 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Commentor Comment
Piedmont we can have density and won't diminish these qualities, that in fact density could allow us to have a coffee shop or restaurant. When this community was built it was for the car. I do have a question for consultants? What is the median lot size in residential areas? The consultant said SB 9 only applies to larger lots, but I believe would apply to all lots in Piedmont. See images below.

Demintri Magganis What are the tax credits from the state? What is if any, are restrictions on public/private partnerships and what agreements can they make?
Kristen Harknett
Piedmont Resident since 2014; I am excited the community is thinking proactively to address affordable housing crisis; we should be taking leadership and removing barriers. We have a huge affordable housing crisis and I believe affordable housing will enrich our community, I want childcare providers, teachers, doctors to be able to live here. Make it easier to build more housing.

Dai Meagher
Regarding timeline, CEQA should have started: 1. Could someone discus why that hasn’t started? 2. Housing grouped in income categories and how is that enforced, low income housing in a certain place that never developed. 3. When are the traffic studies going to be incorporated to accommodate new traffic 4. Clarify zoning that has to be passed in a certain amount of time and charter city zoning has to be passed with a majority vote.

Bob Eisenbach
Highlight use and purpose of 130 units on Corp Yard, Moraga Ave; please reconsider.

Moraga has only two lanes, can't accommodate the building of this number of units from a traffic standpoint. Other issue, which is wildfire risk; that area is at heightened risk, prospect of intentionally building here, doesn't make sense. Not practical, realistic site. How would we get out of Piedmont if there is a fire? Instead suggest the kinds of units showed from Redwood City, Walnut Creek on City Center and on Grand Avenue where already mixed use.

Rick Raushenbush
Blair Ave. I appreciate everyone’s effort on drafting this element. My interest is not just having Piedmont comply but have some affordable housing be developed. City owned land as a prime location. 172 units were to be developed don't suit where they are to be built and the City will be forced to consider other locations during CEQA. Blair Park should be considered not just as a backup site. Has good site characteristics (access, site, etc.) Staff report says it was excluded because of parkland needed and should be put into the inventory now.

Rob Lautt
Privilege to live here; some of privilege due to systemic biases, these are real and intractable. This is an opportunity to take a baby-step to address. 500 new units is the right thing to do, not whether, but how. Challenge City to inspire us! Remind us, we are in this together. Don't concentrate housing in places that can't be imagined. Enrich our city! Naomi Stein
Represent synagogue - made up of 600 families and member of homeless action committee - aware of effects of housing crisis. Lend my voice to say that the synagogue is in support of affordable housing, remind us of civic, moral and spiritual responsibility and now is a time to address these historic wrongs.

Liz Lummis O’Neil
Really happy about full-hearted plan to welcome low and mid income families. We moved here because we get to see trees. Our property prices would go down if you build on the Corporation Yard. Infrastructure can't support increased density. Sound study, what would impact be with 130 units? Also privacy is a concern. Please plan for landscaping to maintain privacy. Consider Blair Park, much better site.

Agenda Report Page 475 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
4 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Commentor Comment
Irene Cheng
Co-chair of equability in housing - what the state is asking us to do is a tall order and want to applaud the City/team. Piedmont has had a prior experience of up zoning on Grand Ave., and other techniques presented are all great ideas and worth pursuing. Not one of these strategies will be enough - we have to add new housing everywhere. Most land is privately owned and an obstacle to build new housing.

Sarah Karlinsky
Member of PREC and a mom, echo Irene, impressed with the work. Vision: should be positive, plan can be wonderful, rectify past ills, better community for all. There is declining enrollment in our schools. Fulfill moral and legal obligation to build more housing for all.

Hugh Louch
Resident of Oakland and chair of ped bike committee, thanks to staff and team and appreciate time and effort put in. Supportive so far what has been put into the housing element. Moral effort to bring affordable housing into the region. We need to do more than what is listed in the plan, not all will happen and need a nice buffer but to look beyond and add more sites. Piedmont has high rates of transit use and we're very close to the region. Go bigger on Civic Center site, big opportunity there to combine street space (e.g. Highland Bend) with Civic center sites.

Tyler Lopez
Specific to areas under consideration: concern around density in City yard and use of Blair Park. Specifically, around fire risk and traffic, how you would get in and out? Highly problematic site is the Highland Grassland strip. How would you get 10-20 units here? Advocate for removing sites that less suitable such as the median, which would dramatically alter the character of the City. I would ask that we consider the conservation of community and character.

Elise Marie Collins
Live at Sierra Ave. with my parents in their 90's. I want to address fair share of housing and eliminating barriers for construction from a health and equity perspective. Thank you for taking this on tonight. Grew up in Piedmont in 1960's, when population was majority white while Oakland was majority black. This was problematic and we didn’t learn about this in school. My parents live in a high resource area and people in high-resource area live 15-20 years longer than those that live in other areas. Your zip code determines your life expectancy more than your genetic code. Really excited that Piedmont has the chance to change these invisible walls.

Ronna Kelly
Bigger picture: Bay area experiencing homelessness and housing crisis. Per capita income here is substantially higher here, time for us to stop living in our bubble and take responsibility for crisis. Be bolder and more creative. Show more leadership. All of the above approach, consider all strategies, Blair Park study more closely, feasibility plan. Blair Park is underutilized, also more inclusive vision in Civic Center. Cemetery? Increasing densities.

Let's remember for people that are living in third world country conditions. Help address regional crisis.

Pam Hirtzer
30 year resident of Piedmont - a lot of my property extends into the canyon, several years ago the Piedmont soccer club proposed putting a field in Blair Park - previously addressed issued it would have caused. Proposal here is to have Moraga Canyon to carry the brunt of the units proposed and it doesn't have that kind of carrying capacity within the physical constraints of the canyon, because there were several studies. Canyon is a tinderbox and fire hazard is huge, loaded with people it will burn.

Garrett Keating
Incorporate more elements of General Plan update; won't get as many units as we've proposed. ADUs impact on our privacy. Incentives for ADU need to be scaled to Zone A.

Stipulate a setback. AFFH - city council for equitable distribution, so why putting everything Agenda Report Page 476 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
5 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Commentor Comment
in the canyon? As I understand the timeline, the deadline is January 2023, we should take some of those months now so more time for public feedback and analysis. I appreciate the effort of staff, this committee, and the consultant team.

Dan Saper
We all live here and will go to Piedmont schools - commend City Council. We are deeply committed to community. Broadly support this plan across all facets especially allowing people to build more if their lots can allow it. Build in meaningful ways even beyond what the plan proposes. Let go of our limiting beliefs, we can allow Piedmonters to build in tasteful ways to meet our housing needs. I was embarrassed to see the articles in the news that reported our population was 1% white 100 years ago and hasn't changed today. I don't want to see a City that is predominantly white but rather one that can become a beacon of light.

Deborah Leland
Question relates to how difficult it is to achieve affordability, best tools is allocation of A-1 funds; as we get ready to go to board of supervisors, it isn't clear how the Housing Element as drafted allows for the use of these funds within the timeline? Point I would like to make, this is a tough format with 2 minute snippets for understanding the Update, we would benefit from more direct dialogue, ask the City to have some housing round tables, forums where people can talk and can be facilitated. City is very full of smart folks.

Frances Fisher
Live on Fairview Ave, feel like from when I was a child it has become more exclusive instead of inclusive and appreciate ideas that have been put out there. ADUs being added is great but many adults aren't allowing for low income. Potential for changing residential zones to allow for duplexes/triplexes. We need to consider all sites in Piedmont, all need to take responsibility.

Deepti Sethi
Conversation led with no requirement for distribution. Tokenism in this community is insulting and concentration of housing in one area perpetuates segregation. Also concentration of housing negatively impacts the price of property. No acknowledgment of how impacts specific property owners, we put 20% down on our home and this will wipe us out.

Suzie Struble
Live here in Piedmont with 2 children - lot of opportunity and intel on community engagement around this and more of this can happen. Different format, smaller groups where people can have chats - similar to Pool project where we got creative about problem solving. Do more.

Jill Lindenbaum
Seeking vision from leaders, we need more community engagement. We should study all available sites for affordable land, we should look at all publicly-owned land. Specific focus on downtown area. Consider that we have an aging veteran’s hall, why not rebuild and add an art center and having housing above. or put housing in parking lot? Site selection areas that rely so heavily on religious institutions? Also address the affordable housing fund, just don't want to see it tied to one program, such as the ADU. Should be available for all programs.

Claire Parisa
Member of the HAC. I commend City staff and consultants and developing a plan responsive to ideas. I wrote a letter; hope you have had a chance to review. I agree with others that A1 funding should be allocated to all affordable housing projects, not just ADUs. Please include a continuing education opportunity for real estate agents that share best practices regarding equity and access. Blair Park needs to be included as a primary site and is most obvious site in town with exception to park - better fire access and presents a real opportunity to develop for affordable and senior housing. Meaningful charettes for people in the neighborhoods to gather information.

Andy Madeira Express appreciation to consultants and staff; thank you for information on AFFH. AFFH not a bar to developing affordable housing, it's a requirement, and the best way to do this is Agenda Report Page 477 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
6 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Commentor Comment
through density. Pro-affordable housing, I felt more optimistic from a lot. Deb's question around A-1 funds, look for ways to use these funds toward affordable housing. Blair Park should be considered. I don't see any other site as feasible. Envisioning a future Piedmont that is diverse and welcoming, and redress racist policies of the past.

The Twins
Maria De Avila, one of less than 4% of Latinos in Piedmont. We are your neighbors; we live on Grand Avenue and we are just as valuable as others that live in Piedmont. We too are concerned with property values. Please don't concentrate housing and all of Piedmont must share responsibility - please consider Blair Park.

Alice Talcott
20 year resident; thank you, very thoughtful. Step up and address regional housing crisis. I work for affordable housing non-profit developer. Brooklyn Basin, we had over 550 applications for 130 units. The need for housing is overwhelming and we must help meet this need. I support sites and think Blair Park should be included. Think about the voices that aren't heard tonight, that have been excluded. Need to be welcoming.

Carol Galante
Address two points, agree with all commentary - I agree that this needs to be an all-of-theabove, need more housing everywhere in Piedmont. Plan does that generally. Blair Park site, questions whether should be called a Park, because it is essentially undeveloped, excess property that was never developed. So should be developed as residential as rest of the community around it. To my Moraga Canyon neighbors, I disagree with your argument that this plan concentrates housing in one area. It looks at sites throughout Piedmont. Think we should create an incredible Civic Center if we concentrate the Specific Plan in this area. Plan looks at all the areas of Piedmont and strengthens specific plan on that. Finally, you cannot say that building housing in the canyon is segregating. Adding multi-family housing to exclusionary single family zoning, cannot be considered segregating, and all areas in Piedmont are high opportunity and will compete well for funding. Please add Blair Park to the list!
Randy Wu
Thank you all, process hasn't been rushed, there have been plenty opportunity for public to participate. Our allocation is small compared to other cities. Oakland over 26,000. We are planning for our fair share of housing. We are in an affordable housing drought.

Vincent Fisher
Not going to praise consultants because weren't bold enough: putting all housing in one area is not visionary. Proposing housing in A and B would be bold and I think Blair Park and C Corporation Yard should be included. Put yourself in the place of the new people, we want people that work here being able to live here. Spread out a bit - try to be as bold as you can and share burden.

Catherine Documents are heavy and long; see an environmental report at very least. Traffic analysis would be helpful. Property values being impacted.

Scott Mortimer
Live in northern Piedmont - thanks to staff and team for efforts - agree that this is an all of the above solution and big step forward. Written comments about downtown civic centers and concentration of housing and these can be best handled with time. Recommend that there be adequate time to make comments to the document and premature to submit to state. PC should pause at this time and not approve the plan as it stands so we can have time for community members to submit comment.

Mike Henn
Submitted a letter, please take a look and ask questions. Concentrate now, agree with Malick, we can be adding units and stay within the beautiful fabric of the City. This can be done through lot splits, ADUs, and duplexes. SB9 enacted to allow this to happen. HCD is receptive to SB 9 units being incorporated into Housing Elements. March 2022 HCD paper Agenda Report Page 478 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
7 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Commentor Comment
outlines how to do this. Unrealistic sites are included in the sites inventory including Ace Hardware, Schools etc. These sites are never going to happen. Blair Park is only viable site for large multifamily development. But I would want to concentrate on overall densification within the fabric of the community.

Michelle Mazzeo
Teacher in PUSD - make a plug for teachers who can’t live in Piedmont. Important that teachers have opportunity to live in the community they teach in. Increase affordable housing in Piedmont! Students with exposure to different kinds of folks have better sense of empathy.

Agenda Report Page 479 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John Malick, May 12,
2022
Agenda Report Page 480 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John Malick, May 12,
2022
Agenda Report Page 481 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John
Malick, May 12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 482 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John
Malick, May 12,
2022
Agenda Report Page 483 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John Malick,
May 12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 484 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John
Malick, May 12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 485 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John
Malick, May 12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 486 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John Malick, May
12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 487 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John
Malick, May 12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 488 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John Malick,
May 12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 489 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John
Malick, May 12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 490 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John
Malick, May 12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 491 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by John Malick,
May 12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 492 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted
by John
Malick, May
12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 493 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Submitted by
John Malick,
May 12, 2022
Agenda Report Page 494 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATERECREATION COMMISSION SUMMARY
Format: Zoom and In-person | May 18, 7:30 pm
The purpose of the Piedmont Housing Element Update presentation to the Recreation Commission meeting on May 18, 2022 was to:
• Informational report to Piedmont’s civic leaders about the Housing Update • Provide sources for information
• Provide a forum for public comment
• Highlight the opportunities and tradeoffs of new draft housing programs and sites inventory The presentation slides are posted to the project website: piedmontishome.org. The presentation outline is provided below:

1. Introduction, RHNA, and the 5th Cycle Housing Element

2. New 6th Cycle Housing Element Requirements

3. Available Sites Inventory and Housing Plan

4. Next Steps and How to Find More Information

5. Public Comment
ATTENDANCE:

Council Liaison: Betsy Anderson
Staff Liaison: Chelle Putzer
City Staff:

Kevin Jackson, Planning & Building Director
Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
Recreation Commission: Dick Carter, Jenny Feinberg, Lisa Gardner, Rebecca Posamentier, Susan Terrill, Aamir Virani
Consultant Team:

Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC): David Bergman, Kathryn Slama Audience: 1 in-person and approximately 11 people on zoom.

MEETING SUMMARY:

City Staff introduced Kathryn Slama (LWC) and David Bergman (LWC) who presented the topics as outlined above. At the end of the presentation, time was given to the Recreation Commission members to offer comments and ask clarifying questions. City staff and the consultant team responded to Recreation Commissioner questions. After the presentation, the Recreation Commission accepted public comment.

Section E.8
Agenda Report Page 495 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
RECREATION COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND CLARIFYING QUESTIONS:

The bullets below include Recreation Commissioner comments and questions. City staff and consultant responses are provided in italics:
• What criteria will be used to determine viability of a site? And what happens if the city of Piedmont is unable to accommodate?
LWC: The State of California has pushed the envelope in making communities think about the likelihood of development of non-vacant sites in this coming cycle. If the site is vacant and doesn’t have any built improvements on it, there’s not a lot that the state looks at. Non-vacant sites that require redevelopment, the state gives a little more attention to. And they are looking for evidence in the region that sites of that nature would, and could, and have been redeveloping for housing that is anticipated on those sites. So, if there is evidence in the region for sites converting from single-use commercial to multi-family mixed use or multi-family housing without mixed use. That’s the threshold the state is looking for. The city is not required to conduct a financial feasibility analysis to assess market cost, construction cost, or any sort of pro forma analysis as part of the housing element.

Kevin Jackson (Planning & Building Director): The State has given us an allocation along with ABAG, so we put together a set of goals, and programs, and policies that we say will allow for this construction The Housing Element doesn’t say that development has to occur on those sites, and it doesn’t say that it can’t occur elsewhere. It's just a demonstration that yes, indeed we have some sites, that given the policies and programs we’re planning to implement it would perhaps occur during the next 8 years.

LWC: If the city is not able to demonstrate to the State of California that there is capacity to accommodate that need, the city would need to make modifications to the sites inventory and the Housing Plan to demonstrate compliance with state requirements. It is a state requirement to ensure that there is adequate capacity for the full RHNA at all income levels and if that can’t be done the city would not be in compliance with state law, and there would be some penalty associated with that.
• I heard the words ‘aspirational’ and ‘realistic capacity’. Does the Housing Element have to get to 587 units or is it about showing the state we can get to 429? Is there any give and take? LWC: The number 587 does have to be demonstrated as being met in the Housing Element. The city doesn’t have to show that there is more capacity than that. A buffer is helpful in case a site doesn’t develop as anticipated, but not a state requirement. The concept of realistic capacity is that it would be unrealistic to assume that every single site in the City of Piedmont develops at 100 % of its allowed potential. There are always some site-based constraints. We’re trying to take a conservative approach to make sure there are some realistic expectations for development.

Agenda Report Page 496 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
LWC: There are three interrelated but separate concepts. One is this question of ‘realistic capacity’. The state recognizes that rarely are you able to build to 100 % of your entitlements; you have setbacks, codes, the geometry of the site. Developments often get less 100 % of their full building envelope, so the state requires us to show ‘realistic capacity’ based on the evidence from other developments to inform that estimate.

The next concept is ‘non-vacant’ sites; any sites that have improvements on them. That’s pretty much all of Piedmont. New to the sixth cycle is the need to demonstrate that the existing use would not be an impediment for redevelopment over the eight years of the cycle.

The third concept is the finding of substantial fact that the city council needs to make when they adopt the Housing Element, that certifies that there is no reason the identified sites could not be used. Again, new to the sixth cycle is the requirement that you maintain enough capacity in your sites to meet the demand at all income levels.
• We’re not the ones building the units? If we make proper allocations, hopefully someone will come in and build?
Piedmont is responsible for showing that it can accommodate 587 new dwelling units at different income levels from above market to low-income. The city responsibility is to show that it can fit, and that they are removing any constraints in the development codes that are unnecessarily preventing that housing from being developed. It’s really about setting the table so that this housing can be produced by the private sector. • Increasing the number of units required in the Housing Element by ten times is fairly dramatic.

I think the question is that if we do this for eight years, are we going to get hit with another tenfold increase eight years from now? If we develop the last remaining land in Piedmont for this cycle, what happens in the next one?
This is a complicated and sometimes elusive process. A lot of communities are feeling a lot of what the commission is feeling with respect to the significant increase in the allocations from the state. It’s an extreme mathematics equation that is difficult to understand that has put a lot of focus on making up for the lack of supply and construction of the previous cycle, so it’s very difficult to say what those future allocations may be for the city of Piedmont or the State of California, because there is a relationship of housing demand and the RHNA allocations at the state level to population increase. There are shifts happening in population in California. We’re seeing declines for the first time in a long time so it’s very difficult to say what may happen in eight years, so the focus is on accommodating the need now and that may help eliminate some of the pressure to have a higher allocation in the future.

Pierce Macdonald (Senior Planner): As part of this Housing Element, we have to do a review of the success of the last Housing Element, and we get to continue those effective programs.

Because we have a track record, we can show they’ve been effective and we’ve produced housing at different income levels, so in this case we’re able to use 140 ADUs to meet our RHNA, because we have a track record of producing up to 17.5 ADU a year over the last three years.

Agenda Report Page 497 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
When the next housing cycle comes around, we’ll be able to show our production of different types of housing units and continue those programs if they’re effective. • We’re being asked to update zoning and regulations in our city so that we can get 587 units.

After that the private sector is supposed to take over. Is that right? LWC: The push from the state is not to force everyone to change their zoning regulations. If zoning amendments are needed to demonstrate a capacity, that is one strategy. Or if zoning regulations are identified as constraints to accommodating that housing, then yes, but the ultimate goal is to demonstrate that there is capacity to build. • People are fearful we’ll be told to sell off community hall, build units there and have a minicommunity hall nearby. People think that’s going to happen. How do you respond to that? Kevin Jackson (Planning & Building Director): That’s not the way it works. In the sites inventory you’ll see that for affordable housing the state wants to see affordable housing sites that are greater than ½ acre and less than ten acres. In Piedmont, that is very limiting, and we also recognize that for affordable housing and multifamily projects to pencil out, generally that needs some donated land. So, we’ve identified some city owned land including what we’re on here at city hall and recognizing that the facilities here are underbuilt. We need better public safety, fire, and police facilities. We need better office space and more office space in city hall. Thus, we recognize that in working with a developer, the city can get better facilities and also accommodate some housing. We’re not forced to do that, just like any private property owner who is not forced to do anything that’s not in their best interest, the city is not forced to do anything that’s not in its best interest, so it would have to be a win-win for that to occur. But we recognize there is the possibility for that to come to fruition given the right circumstances. • What happens in eight years if we don’t hit the 587 number? LWC: The city has to demonstrate through the Housing Element that there is space to accommodate this number throughout the planning period. As projects are built, that shows progress toward that number, so that number starts to go down. If the city does not have that much development over the next eight years, as of now that is not a non-compliance issue. It is maintaining adequate capacity for the need through the eight years. That is the requirement. If there is no private or non-profit sector interest in developing housing, that is how things go and the city could evaluate why things didn’t change. There is not a requirement to see that number come to fruition.

Every year the state requires an annual report on this progress towards RHNA. There’s constant reporting back up to the state as to how many units are being built and that information should inform the next cycle state forecast as to how much everybody needs to accommodate.

Compliance is your plan meeting State Law. Separate, but related, is a requirement that communities that haven’t met their low-income housing goals are required to allow ministerial approval of affordable housing projects.

Agenda Report Page 498 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
• So, it’s that the plan must demonstrate capacity to achieve additional housing units? It’s not a requirement that over the next eight years the 587 units actually be built. Is that correct? That’s correct.
• Is there anything in the plan we should be aware of or relates specifically to recreation? Kevin Jackson (Planning & Building Director): Not necessarily, except for the city-owned sites and how they might affect our facilities that relate to recreation. • Potentially the use of Blair Park for housing rather than recreation? Correct. Right. Or if 801 Magnolia is identified and we replace the all-purpose room there with somewhere else, so we still have the capacity to have all the programs recreation currently has. • One of the things about Piedmont is that we actually don’t have enough parkland for the population, so we’re already in a scarcity situation. Does part of the Housing Element address increasing the open space as we are increasing the density of housing? Pierce Macdonald (Senior Planner): We’ve heard that comment a lot about services in general including recreation services. And so, the draft Housing Element includes some programs to assess an appropriate impact fee that development should pay in order to continue the high quality services the community has. We’re not really in the position to annex more land, but we could standards and we could collect this impact fee to expand recreation programs or create new multipurpose spaces and keep up with our growing population.

THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Agenda Report Page 499 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
This page is intentionally blank
Agenda Report Page 500 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY
Format: Zoom Virtual Meeting | June 7, 2022 6:00-8:00pm The purpose of the Housing Element Update Town Hall meeting was to provide an opportunity to answer common, recurring questions from Piedmont residents about the Draft Housing Element and to provide a forum for any additional questions. As such, the first hour was dedicated to a presentation addressing frequently asked questions the City had received throughout the public review process prior to the meeting, and the second half was dedicated to answering questions received during the Town Hall meeting itself. City Staff and the consultant team also directed public participants to the Housing Element Update website, piedmontishome.org, for additional FAQs and project resources.

The Town Hall meeting was held virtually via Zoom Webinar on Tuesday, June 7, 2022 from 6:00-8:00 pm.

City staff and the consultant team (Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. and Plan to Place) facilitated the meeting.

The presentation was posted prior to the meeting to the project website and the prepared questions and answers are available on the FAQ section of piedmontishome.org. 63 members of the public attended.

The meeting agenda is outlined below:

1. Welcome & Explanation of Town Hall Intent

2. Prepared Questions and Answers

3. Response to live question submissions
The slides from the June 7, 2022 workshop presentation are posted to the project website:
piedmontishome.org.

ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: approximately 63 attendees
City Staff
● Kevin Jackson – Planning and Building Director
● Pierce Macdonald– Senior Planner
Consultant Team
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. – David Bergman, Kathryn Slama ● Plan to Place – Rachael Sharkland
Section E.9
Agenda Report Page 501 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

WORKSHOP SUMMARY
During the first half of the meeting, Planning and Building Director Kevin Jackson presented answers to 27 questions selected from the over 550 comments and questions the City received at various engagement events and by means of various media throughout the Housing Element Update process, including:
● Community Workshop #1 (12.2.21)
● Community Workshop #2 (3.24.22)
● Direct comments submitted via email or Piedmontishome.org ● HAC #1 (9.29.21)
● HAC #2 (4.19.22)
● Piedmont Housing Puzzle Online Submissions
● Park Commission Meeting (5.4.22)
● Planning Commission Meeting (5.12.22)
● Recreation Commission Meeting (5.18.22)
The full set of questions and answers can be viewed on the piedmontishome.org website.

During the second half of the meeting, Senior Planner Pierce Macdonald selected questions from those submitted live using the Zoom Q&A tool during the Town Hall for the City staff and consultant team to answer. In selecting questions to read, Ms. Macdonald chose questions that had not been previously asked and she consolidated similar questions into one. The table below captures these questions and responses.

Question/ Comment Response
What is the process to implement the programs in the
Housing Element (HE)? For example, how will SB9 be
applied?
SB9 went into effect on January 1st 2022; it is in the
City's best interest to modify regulations to comply with SB9. This will be part of a public process and any
modifications to the zoning code would go to the
Planning Commission (PC) and the City Council (CC) for
approval.

Regarding the Sites Inventory (SI) What is being
considered regarding the conversion of Grand and
Linda Avenue buildings?
The City began with consideration of every parcel in
Piedmont, and then narrowed down the SI to parcels in
the City that had the greatest potential for mixed use or multifamily development. Not every parcel in zone D was included, because the City could develop enough
capacity without identifying every single zone D site.

Note that sites that aren't identified in the SI may be developed and residential development is not limited to the sites identified in the HE. There are requirements
from HCD for including non-vacant sites, for example
existing uses may be an impediment to developing
housing, for example, gas stations. Often these sites
have covenants that the gas companies put on these
parcels to limit their environmental liability.

When will the EIR be published? Fall 2022.

Agenda Report Page 502 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
How is the HE consistent with other General Plan (GP)
policies, such as wildfire and pedestrian friendly design? Is there an analysis of how they are consistent?
Both documents and sets of policies are required to be
internally consistent. The City will be doing an analysis to ensure the policies and programs are consistent with
other elements of GP, and any changes to the GP and/or
HE would go through a public approvals process.

How does the HE consider elderly family members and
special needs populations?
Appendix A provides an analysis of how the HE
programs address the requirements of the City’s special needs population. Appendix A focuses on identifying
which groups are in need and HE section 4 identifies
programs related to meeting these needs. Senior
households have special needs in Piedmont; ADUs are a
great example of a program that can help house seniors
and other special needs groups.

What are the next steps? For areas where large
numbers of housing units are proposed, will residents
have input?
Development on large parcels in Moraga Canyon is
expected to occur through a specific plan process. Once that plan is finished the City would seek developers
which would have to implement the approved plan.

These sites in Moraga Canyon are City owned, so the
City is the decision maker. The City is also working on finalizing objective design standards (ODS) by
September 2022, which will provide guidance for new
projects. ODS give the public a chance to see what might come down the pike if projects go to ministerial oversight.

Have any developers expressed interest in developing
large parcels? No.

In Section 4, there is mention of 157 extremely and very low units, where are these planned and do teachers
qualify?
The state allocated RHNA is broken into 4 categories;
there is an understanding that there is a fifth category:
extremely low, for which no number is allocated. 50% of very low units are available to extremely low-income
households. The City has identified sites that would be eligible for any of the low-income classes. Eligibility for these categories is not determined by occupation, but
rather depends on household income compared to the
County median income. So for example, in Alameda
County, a four person household would be considered a
low income household) if it had an annual income of
$109,600. There is some indication that elementary
teachers would qualify.

How will Piedmont pick future low-income residents?
Piedmont won't pick because Piedmont won't own or
develop the affordable housing. This housing is typically created by private development. Access to vouchers for
low-income housing is administered at the County level.

Fair Housing comes into play in determining eligibility, i.e., income and combined household income. Typically,
non-profit housing agencies will work with a private
developer to set up a process by which units are
distributed. Developers determine whether units are
Agenda Report Page 503 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
rental or for sale. The HE incudes programs to
encourage affordable housing and mixed-income
development.

Are ADUs that are considered under review included as
pipeline projects in the HE?
Yes, all ADUs permitted in 2021 have been included in
the HE
Does the team have examples of other cities proposing
to build on City-owned land, tennis courts, or community halls?
If the City does develop these sites, it doesn't necessarily mean the existing functions would cease, rather they
would be incorporated and updated in the new
development. There are examples of City Halls being
developed on a lower floor with people living behind and above. Redevelopment does not imply complete
replacement. Piedmont is difficult because there aren't a lot of vacant sites, so the City was compelled to consider a variety of sites. There are precedents: 1) San Jose,
Mabuhay Way Court developed by Bridge Housing for
seniors. 2) City Center Plaza in Redwood City.

Is the City considering incentives or requirements for
rent restricted ADUs to ensure they are rented to lowincome tenants? More than a decade ago the City developed an incentive
program, which offered homeowners the opportunity to
develop a deed restricted ADU for 10 years that didn't
require the unit to have a parking space. Each year the owner was required to document who the tenant was.

That program was seen as successful. These units
contributed to the City’s inventory of the City’s affordable units in the previous RHNA cycle.

Will enhanced building heights over 20 feet be
considered for ADUs in the HE? Will new incentive
programs be referenced in the HE update?
Yes, the City is incorporating this work around ADU
programs into the HE so all ADUs are subject to the
same vetting process and EIR analysis. For more
information refer to program 3F "Incentives for rent
restricted ADUs" on pp. 51 of the document.

Regarding SB2 (Objective Design Standards) and the
ADU incentives program: didn't the City Council (CC)
pass a resolution with guiding principles saying that lowincome housing should be distributed throughout the City? What civic center sites is the city considering for extremely low- and low-income housing? Has the City
Council decided that the state designation of all of
Piedmont as a high resource area overridden the
current policy of equitable distribution of units across the City?
The SB2 scope of work, which included ADU incentives
and ODS, was based in the fifth cycle housing element,
and considered the regulatory landscape of 2015. As
part of the fifth cycle HE, the City proposed guiding
principles for the SB2 scope of work and these principles were adopted by CC. The new 6th cycle HE- includes its
own programs in order to meet new the new RHNA
obligation. The City, through the HE needs to
affirmatively affirm fair housing. There is not a wide
distribution of sites that are suitable for low income. The criteria for low-income sites require an area of between

0.5-10 acres and allow a density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre. There is not just one location being
considered for low income. The Corporation Yard and
sites in the southeast and southwest of the City meet
these criteria.

Agenda Report Page 504 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Many of the questions ask about environmental
impacts.

The EIR is not the subject of this town hall. The
development of the HE doesn't include mitigation
measures. The State requires the City to create
programs and identify sites in the HE for potential
housing regardless of environmental impacts. The EIR
then is meant to understand potential environmental
impacts and propose mitigation measures. Traffic is not considered an environmental impact and so is not
necessarily included in EIR.

Regarding sites around Maxwelton, were views and fire
hazard considered?
The SI includes all vacant sites, so all vacant parcels in zones A & E are considered for at least one unit in the site inventory.

A site is not necessarily determined by the City but by prior subdivision and being recorded by the County,
correct?
The consultant worked from what was currently
considered an individual parcel or site and did not
consider subdividing or creating new properties. The SI identifies sites and the EIR then analyzes potential
impacts. The HE doesn't contain programs to modify
entitlements on parcels.

Does the EIR address sound? Sound is a CEQA category.

Regarding the EIR and HEU programs: what happens if
a specific plan or the environmental review says units
aren't feasible, will the capacity be redefined?
Regarding development feasibility, the EIR studies the
potential impacts if all proposed sites are developed.

CEQA would identify impacts and mitigate or eliminate
sites. In the instance that there are unavoidable impacts, it would be the responsibility of the CC to adopt the HE with a finding of overriding considerations.

How do programs in the HE verify housing need? Many
young people are income rich but asset poor, many
elders are asset rich, but income poor.

Ultimately, the City doesn't determine the need for each household income classification, that is what the
Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) assigns
based on the State of California requirements. These
income classifications are based on Annual Median
Income and how each household reports their income.

The City also doesn't determine who is eligible for
housing.

If the ADU projection for the next 8 years based on past needs, is this accurate given impact of COVID?
HCD does not require that changing conditions from year to year (such as a pandemic) are part of how future
projections are determined. The City hasn't seen a
slowdown in ADU applications, rather we have seen an
increase.

What is the next step to provide comments at the June
20th [City Council] public hearing?
The best way is to send an email to City that will make its way to CC. There will be public notice in tomorrow's
(6.8.22) public post and The Piedmonter on Friday,

6.10.22. Other opportunities: once the City submits a
draft HE to the state for their review, the likelihood is the HCD will have comments and the document will need to
be revised. Based on HE processes in other cities, this is likely to happen twice so there will be many more
Agenda Report Page 505 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
opportunities to have your voice heard.

How will the HE incorporate feedback regarding the
Corp Yard site and Blair Park after input from the last CC, Parks and Recreation Meeting??
Written response in Staff report and on the website.

How much of the civic center would be converted into
affordable housing?
The State defines criteria by which a site is determined to be eligible for low-income housing: the site needs to be between 0.5-10 acres and allow a density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre. This is intended to allow for an economy of scale to effectively develop below-market
rate units. The City isn't required to build this housing but is required to identify sites that meet this eligibility requirement. The City can then seek proposals from a
developer that in the case of the Civic Center sites for example, would update facilities in conjunction with the development of housing. Because housing can be
configured in a variety of ways, the overall density
determines the capacity of the parcel.

Agenda Report Page 506 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
1 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE HOUSING

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUMMARY
Format: In-Person & Zoom Virtual Meeting | June 20, 2022 - 5:30pm The purpose of the City Council meeting on June 20, 2022, was to present the City of Piedmont Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element and the proposed changes to the Draft Housing Element, and to provide a forum for feedback and discussion from members of the City Council, Piedmont residents, and the general public.

Feedback received will be considered by the City Council in making their recommendation on whether to submit the Draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with or without additional changes.

The City Council meeting was held both in-person and virtually via the Zoom virtual meeting platform on Monday, June 20, 2022, starting at 5:30pm. City staff and the consultant team (Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. and Plan to Place) participated in the meeting. The agenda, presentation, and staff report were posted on the City website and project website: piedmontishome.org. Approximately 60 members of the public attended. The meeting agenda is outlined below:

1. Housing Element Overview

2. Sites Inventory

3. Goals, Policies, and Programs

4. Next Steps

5. Public Comment

6. City Council Direction

ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: approximately 65 attendees
City Council
• Teddy Gray King - Mayor
● Jen Cavenaugh - Vice Mayor
● Betsy Smegal Andersen - Councilmember
● Conna McCarthy - Councilmember
● Jennifer Long – Councilmember
City Staff
● Sara Lillevand - City Administrator
● Kevin Jackson – Planning and Building Director
● Pierce Macdonald– Senior Planner
Consultant Team
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) – David Bergman, Kathryn Slama, Stefano Richichi ● Plan to Place – Paul Kronser, Rachael Sharkland
Section E.10
Agenda Report Page 507 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
2 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MEETING SUMMARY
Mayor Teddy King welcomed public attendees, and the meeting moderator, John Tulloch, gave an overview of the format of the meeting, including the protocol for the public comment section which occurred both in-person and virtually. Kathryn Slama (LWC) and David Bergman (LWC) began the presentation with a high-level review of the Housing Element, including background, components, document organization, key findings, community outreach and noticing, and common public comment topics. Following the overview, the presentation was organized into three sections: 1) Sites Inventory; 2) Goals, Policies, and Programs; and 3) Next Steps. After each section concluded, time was given to the City Council to offer comments and ask any clarifying questions. After the presentation, the City Council heard public comment. Speakers were allowed up to three minutes to voice comments, and there was no cut off on the number of speakers. Following the public comment period, members of the City Council were invited to make comments, ask questions of City staff and the consulting team, prior to giving direction.

After comments and discussion among the Council members, City staff and the consulting team, the City Council requested City staff to make revisions to the draft Housing Element, conduct additional analyses, and return to Council with information for consideration at a future date.

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
For a summary of City Council questions and discussion, please see the City Council Meeting Minutes, available here.

PUBLIC COMMENT
The table below includes public comments in the order they were received.

Commenter Comment
Winston Street
Live in town and grew up here; if you implement HE is it lawful? Our City charter says any changes in zoning needs to go to a vote. I would comment that the town halls and the maps didn't allow for negative comments. Who is doing the EIR? Fire LWC, their one-size fits all approach isn't working. Need to reach for Olmsteads.

Pam Hirtzer
I live on Scenic Avenue. Most of my property is on Moraga Canyon - you are going to kill people with the proposal to put 150 units in the Canyon; it is endangering over 200 families. Realistic capacity has been incorporated into that proposal, 200 apartments translates to 600 people and 300 cars and I can't see people living in Moraga Canyon. It is so dry, so fire danger is high. You are offering low income families an education at Piedmont schools but have not thought out how those people would get to school. Mitigate Blair Park traffic. Children crossing from Blair Park and building a bridge over a street is not feasible, instead they dart across the road. Consider the consequences of families living in the Canyon.

Agenda Report Page 508 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
3 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Jill Lindenbaum
The goal is to produce more housing, I would like to address the issue of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) and segregation. I and other community members want to bring more affordable housing and want to bring more attention to environmental justice and how higher opportunity neighborhoods influence someone's life expectancy. Building more densely can mitigate this issue. Takes economy of scale for projects to be feasible. All of Piedmont is a high opportunity area so we should be supporting all housing on all sites. We should stop arguing where it should go within our City borders.

Ted Kinch
I would like to speak up against rezoning the civic core area. I have safety concerns for our children going to school and the amount of congestion created by the new housing. In the early 2000's we put in a similar project and parking becomes a problem, getting out of the city becomes an issue. Elementary, middle, and high school are all within a block of what we are thinking of developing. That being said, there are opportunities to develop other areas such as Blair Park and other areas that are easy to get in and out of the community. Once we rezone, if there is a viable offer from a developer, the state bonus of density would be applicable, which means development would be potentially 50% over what was proposed within the specific area.

Christina Maybaum
I know you have attempted to engage the community; many of us have just learned about it in the last month. Take a little more time to engage the community.

Lawrence Siskind
When we started this proceeding, we spoke eloquently about Juneteenth. The plan proposes a disproportionate number of people being segregated in and around Moraga Canyon and the safety issues involved in that. Our daughter/husband were injured on that road and children that would have to cross the street would add to that danger. Issue of segregation and putting a disproportionate number of people in one area who would feel segregated and we need to do a better job of integrating.

Liz O’Neill
This has not felt like an inclusive process. There were only banners on Highland.

Notices and emails would be useful. Property values are impacted if low income housing is segregated and concentrated. What are the two units on Maxwelton? We feel targeted. I hope that sound impacts will be included in EIR.

Marsha Lane
Thank you for your work. I learned about this about 10 min ago and feel there has been lack of outreach. I was born and live in Piedmont. I have not heard about the details of the proposal until today. Regarding the civic center, I can't leave my house because of schools, and it does not seem feasible to put high density housing there. This should go to a City vote. Lived through the 1991 fire, and it took my father 1 hour to get from there to the freeway. So if they are going to build those units, where would we get out?
Ellen Greenberg
PREC: Echo Jill, supporting production of additional housing in the community.

Deeply concerned about housing affordability and our housing crisis. Blair Park should be considered for an affordability project that takes advantage of A1 funding.

Support civic center becoming mixed use, including housing and public uses. I would encourage the City to propose a car-free civic center as a response to citizen's safety concerns for young people. Wildfire comments: we are a community with access to resources, and our cities allow us to live more sustainably.

Agenda Report Page 509 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
4 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Catherine Rongey
Reality is we are missing moderate builds, the task is to find this. Low income homes impact housing values, so the City should look for dispersing density by evaluating ADUs and project ADU numbers more than what you have in order to increase density. Qualitative analysis - mentioned full name of public participant in report; this needs to be redacted. Not in favor of high density builds, better for centers with existing commercial uses. Our civic center is not equipped for large, dense builds.

Rajeev Bhatia
Providing an economic analysis is moving in the right direction; SB9, if we show sites that are viable, ask Veronica Tam. Share examples of density that we can get if we add 1-2 more stories to proposals, we don't need to go to the civic center.

Christine Brozowski
I am disappointed that the proposal of 587 new housing units has never been put on a ballot. I saw a banner which was the first time I've heard about it. We are not excited to have a parking lot turn into housing. Easier to get on board if we were voting on this. Encourage this to be put on the November ballot, or ask for a reduction/exemption. Stick it on a ballot
Georgina Russell
Anxiety around fire in 1991. How can we obtain an exemption? What will happen if we don't comply? Examples of projects that include towers to accommodate 500 units.

Moira Chapman
Thank you council and commissioners, I lived in town for 7 years. Grew up in Marin, Tiburon. Piedmont has not been a city that has been welcoming to different populations to live here. I support more housing for more income levels. HEU regulations came to be to promote civil rights for all. I support an option to explore other options. As the climate crisis continues to worsen, new development needs to be built with solar and regenerative landscaping.

Brett Snyder
I am an architect and resident supportive of affordable housing, we should leverage all our resources. One site to consider is the skate park, this site is underutilized, not designed well.

Max Davis
Speaking as a member of East Bay for Everyone, and would like to comment on the buffer on sites - 12% for above minimum and HCD recommends 15%, would recommend pushing to 30% to build for better housing. Seems you were backed into the sites. Many single0family homes are split across two lots. Take some of those sites off. A lot of civic sites don't seem proposed to be built on, go big. Any housing not built in Piedmont will be built out further away.

Rebecca Posamentier
Complicated issue. The City has pushed out lots of information in lots of different ways. Piedmont Puzzle was very eye opening and revealed some of the process.

Difficult to engage folks, and I applaud the City. There are no good sites, some better than others. City of Berkeley has examples of civic uses with apartments above. Civic center is unsafe now, a great design could make things more safe for our kids. We are just identifying opportunities we aren't actually building at this time.

Elise Marie Collins
Voice my support for building affordable housing. It's scary how the government conspired with realtors in the past - read up on history, we are part of the Bay Area.

Piedmont was segregated in the past. Our population is down about 600 people, and we shouldn't worry about population going up. Older, higher income people can live in Piedmont. We need younger families and more children.

Agenda Report Page 510 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
5 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Michael McConathy
Voting issues. HEU proposes low and very low should be located in Zone B park and municipal lands, Coaches Field and Blair Park (342 units, not residents). That plan violates City charter. Proposed HEU says the City can make changes and ignores the charter that requires a ballot measure. Classification of MU parcels, and allow C and D lands, how is that not a reclassification under the charter? City needs to follow its own rules.

Naomi Stein
I represent the synagogue and am concerned about the homeless population. We appreciate the City undertaking this HEU. Less than 2% of Piedmonters are black.

We're discussing what role the government has in developing more housing, not developing the housing itself. What are we doing with our resources in our city? Ray Catalano
This is not new business, but a continuation of a meeting from a century ago where the City directed an African American family out of the community. History has also repeated itself, and the proposed locating all of the 215 low income housing in the Blair Park neighborhood. Putting low income housing in Blair Park, this would be stigmatizing.

Carol Galante
This is not a segregation issue. There is no housing being proposed in Piedmont that is segregating people. and we believe in dispersing of housing. If not here, where? We're not going to solve our moral obligation to housing exclusively through ADU's, which don't go to people of lower income. We need to look at public sites and plan to build on multiple sites. New housing and new families are an asset to Piedmont.

Deborah Leland
I've seen how beautiful affordable housing can be. Concerned that Moraga Canyon may meet the letter of law, but does not enable housing development for our community. Proud to have affordable housing in our neighborhood. New development would provide better pedestrian access and safety.

Marjorie Blackwell
Considered consequences of building in certain sites such as Blair Park, Moraga Canyon. Moraga Avenue carries heaviest traffic and fastest moving cars. No place for safe crossings. Environmental Hazards chapter of General Plan lists out changes of hazards. Blair Park made of filled land. Construction in Blair Park could trigger landslides. Stated goal in General Plan is to restrict development on unstable sites.

Rick Schiller
SB9 fact sheet states HEU law allows cities to utilize projections. SB9 signed into law a half a year ago. Embracing SB9 is a realistic approach to meet the needs.

Garrett Keating
Questions about two items: 10: other affordable housing types, could you elaborate on that? 17: Short term new housing construction - new units quickly. What are these two items about, what would the new housing look like? Online survey needed to get public opinion. Add abstract of the Draft Housing Element plan. 877 survey responses. GP update had over 1200. Civic center sites were put in the Draft Housing Element document to meet a number.

Andrea Ruiz-Esquide
Made a lot of progress. Climate action, we need to put more people in urban centers. Piedmont can grow reasonably. Implement SB9 sooner - law has been in effect, and there are applications everywhere. City shouldn't lag behind much more.

Subdivide housing into more units rather than SB9 lot split. Continue to investigate civic center sites. Don't remove tennis courts.

Agenda Report Page 511 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
6 City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Meghan Bennett
Appreciate all the signs and all the communication for this. Love to see more affordable housing. There is a lack of students and low income seniors in Piedmont.

Grand Avenue doesn't have a problem with traffic. Rare instances of earthquakes and fires. Piedmont will always be changing.

Dan Saper
I speak to principles, and this is the right thing to do. We have an obligation to add more housing. We need to do our part. Seeking any sort of exemption would put us on the wrong side of history. More important to support triplexes done in a nice way. We can add a lot more housing in Piedmont.

Claire Parisa
Moral issue, equating the inclusion of Blair Park to what happened a century ago is inaccurate. To preclude the possibility of housing would lead to segregation. These arguments are distracting us from the core issues of building housing in Piedmont.

Include multifamily housing and pair local money with County A1 funds. Move Blair Park out of the SP and put A1 funding to good use there.

Andy Madeira
I work in affordable housing and development. Yes, we need a housing element to be approved by HCD but more importantly we need affordable housing. Developing in Blair Park is not segregation.

Irene Cheng
Spreading density throughout the town. SB9 on its own won't get us far, only feasible for a small portion of lots. Doesn't fit Piedmont in a way - converting to duplexes but not triplexes. HCD doesn't want to count SB9 units. Need to tailor City’s SB9 program to conditions in Piedmont. Zones A & E comprise over 2/3rd of our land, so need to do more about adding housing in those areas. SB9 will be market-rate, but not affordable, which the state is asking us to build.

Agenda Report Page 512 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUMMARY
Format: In-Person & Zoom Virtual Meeting | August 1, 2022 – 6:00 pm The purpose of the City Council meeting on August 1, 2022, was to address several items discussed at the June 20, 2022 City Council meeting, including:
• Feasibility of Use of Civic Center Sites
• Issues Concerning the City’s Ability to Regulate Development on City-Owned Sites • Alternatives to Civic Center Sites
• Questions Related to Specific Plan
In addition to addressing the above topics from the June 20, 2022 City Council meeting, at the August 1, 2022 meeting, City staff:
• Sought Council direction on removing the Civic Center sites from the Sites Inventory, and including all City-owned sites located in Moraga Canyon to the Sites Inventory, pending further investigation on feasibility
• Provided information related to increasing ADU and SB 9 production in the 6th Cycle Housing Element
• Provided clarifications regarding the City Charter
• Provided clarification regarding the submission timeline to HCD

ATTENDANCE
City Staff
• Kevin Jackson – Planning and Building Director
City Officials
• Teddy King – Mayor
• Jen Cavenaugh – Vice Mayor
• Betsy Anderson – Councilmember
• Conna McCarthy – Councilmember
• Jennifer Long – Councilmember
• Sara Lillevand – City Administrator
• Michelle Kenyon – City Attorney
Consultant Team
• Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. – Kathryn Slama and David Bergman • Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. – Ashleigh Kanat
Section E.11
Agenda Report Page 513 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

MEETING SUMMARY
Mayor Teddy Gray King brought the meeting to order and stated the purpose of the meeting. City Administrator Sara Lillevand stated that the meeting was largely informational and sought to address questions from the June 20th Council meeting, clarifying that staff was not requesting a vote to authorize submittal of the Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) at this meeting. City Administrator Lillevand then gave an overview of the basics of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and discussed Civic Center sites, sites on City-owned land, alternatives to City-owned sites, and the specific plan proposed for Moraga Canyon.

Subsequent to City Administrator, Lillevand’s presentation, Ashleigh Kanat of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., gave a report regarding the Civic Center sites at 120 Vista Avenue and 801 Magnolia Avenue, concluding that affordable housing in the Civic Center area might be feasible, given the preparation of a Master Plan. Planning and Building Director Kevin Jackson then gave a presentation about the possibility of relocating housing units from the Civic Center sites to Zone D along Grand Avenue, at the parcels at 1221 and 1337 Grand Avenue. Consultants Kathryn Slama and David Bergman of Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., City Administrator Lillevand, and Director Jackson variously answered questions from the City Council. After questions, City Administrator Lillevand requested City Council direction to:

1. Expand the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area to include all City-owned property along Moraga Ave including Blair Park and initiate the planning process before the end of 2022.

2. Conduct analysis required to relocate from Civic Center City-owned sites contained in the Sites Inventory as follows:
a. 74 lower-income units to 1221 and 1337 Grand Avenue
b. 18 moderate-income units to parcels in Zones C and D.

3. Conduct analysis required to relocate above-moderate income units from 1221 and 1337 Grand Avenue as needed.

4. Within HCD guidance, maximize total and lower-income ADU count.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

The table below includes public comments in the order they were received.

Commenter Comment
Eric Sullivan Thank you for all the hard work. You guys have been working on this for years and the carefulness and deliberation shows and it is appreciated by lots of people in the community. Then, secondly, I want to thank the community because one of the things I’ve been proud of is how through this process there’s been no NIMBY-ism. Everybody recognizes the need to do what is required by the State and everybody is trying to figure out what’s best for the community both existing community members and the new community members that will come once these new units are built, so I’m grateful for what I’ve heard in talking to people. Lastly, I want to say Agenda Report Page 514 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
that I read the background paper that City Manager Lillevand published today on the website, and I was grateful because I finally understand it, actually. And I’m really impressed with the direction we’re going. When I was here a couple weeks ago, I talked about the need no to bring more density into the school zone. The fact that we’ve got 1400 kids plus everyday meandering around here and now I realize that there’s broader issues. I didn’t realize that the fire department and the police department, that the entire community relies on, was crumbling. I appreciate that you guys have been so artfully able to plan for that and plan for the rejuvenation that is needed in those buildings and how that will require us to pivot a little bit and it all the more makes the point that you guys have really done your homework and put it high-quality planning and effort to make sure that we keep our kids safe and we keep our community safe with the police and fire upgrades that are needed so thanks for that. I think when I hear the discussion about Moraga Canyon, we're lucky one of the most beautiful parts of Piedmont is available in the State supports developing there. I think that between the Moraga Canyon availability and what you guys been talking about today there's a solution that will work for everybody and provide wonderful new homes to all the people we look forward to welcoming in this community so thank you.

Michael Gardner My name is Michael Gardner and I've been a citizen of Piedmont for a very long time. And I've had the great pleasure of living in Lower Piedmont, Upper Piedmont, and central Piedmont. Every one of these neighborhoods has distinct differences. Nobody knows what it's like living in somebody else's neighborhood unless you actually live there yourselves. With that, for 37 years, I've lived in the center of town on Bonita Ave, right across from Haven School. I've attended countless City Council meetings, commission meetings over the years. I've written tons and tons of letters, all opposing development in the center of town. It's very important to me as a citizen, and I think you know, in reading all of the letters that you received and the online things I saw and so forth, everybody wants to keep the small-town character of Piedmont. Everyone knows that if you want to remodel your house, the City has very strict, requirements all to maintain the look and the feel of our small-town community. Recently our neighborhood has been developed with two new high school buildings and the construction of the new Aquatic Center. It's very dense already. Our neighborhood already supports such community benefits as the Arts Center, the Recreation Center, the tennis courts, City Hall, Veterans Hall, schools, businesses and more. And I think it's time that it's enough. All of my years and with the help of the City efforts of protecting Piedmont, the reward was that during COVID people came from all over Piedmont and they walked, they sat in the parks, they social distanced, they had picnics. They even picnicked on the tennis courts; you know the grass at 801 Magnolia. I mean, this is where the action was in Piedmont. People walked down the middle of the streets.

There were cars parked everywhere. It was really something and it was quite beautiful. So, in closing, I'm asking you to find an alternative that will Agenda Report Page 515 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
not impact any residents’ homes, whether it's in lower Piedmont, Upper Piedmont or central Piedmont. Thank you for your time.

Megan Bennett First I want to thank Council and everyone your time for being here. I know it's long and you’ve been here a lot. I graduated in the class in 1998 from Piedmont High and I'm with a large majority of the next generations for four affordable housing and people. I don't want to waste more of your time waving my multi-generational flag here in Piedmont because many of us do. One can look at the plethora of newspaper articles using legit sacks or even a week of the blotter that paints negative image of Piedmont’s visceral fears of outsiders. These outsiders are now past generations of Piedmont that can't afford to live here. Many people’s children and grandchildren, people that were just speaking who were in my class, can't afford to live in Piedmont. I would love to have more teachers, childcare providers, senior citizens, afford to live here. Nevertheless, some of my parents’ classmates can’t afford to purchase their own home and have written lengthy emails to the Council to show their disapproval of affordable housing. I know quite a few to see their citizens here, empty nesters in Piedmont today that would have difficulty purchasing their own homes in market rate without the help of Prop 19. Similar to the naysayers, I don't have a perfect solution, but I'm willing to sacrifice my overpriced home value in Zone D for more affordable housing. I'm probably going to be living in Piedmont the next 40 years. I'm for it. I want to work with everyone and have more affordable housing. My only question to the Council is when we do get approved plans, how long would it take actually build? Eight years? Ten years? 20 years you know? So, thank you for your time, I appreciate it, thank you.

Dave Dorroge It's nice to be here. I appreciate your work. I appreciate politicians who are willing to consider compromise. I appreciate hearing some numbers, but I'd like to talk about concepts. Maybe I'm taking a step back. Call me old fashioned and it's been a while since I took, 50 years as matter fact, political science and I worked in Washington DC, which by the way has a height limit on buildings. It's called the Washington Monument, it's had 100-year-old zoning limitation on the height of buildings allowed there. But I believe in democracy. I believe in self-determination. I believe in majority rules, but with rights protected and guaranteed to minority voters as well as majority voters. Vote Vote Vote. I was never offered any opportunity to vote on this matter. I wasn't offered a chance to vote by the State of California on what was referred to here, I think as the State mandate or the California mandate. I must say I don't like the word mandate. I know I've never voted in any California election to allow California to change cities, zoning laws unilaterally without a vote, and for political reasons, and let’s admit it's political reasons. Thirty years ago, I voted with my feet and moved from downtown or central San Francisco to here where I bought a home and I think most of the people here in Piedmont, living in Piedmont, even renting from Piedmont, homeowners similarly voted to live in a small town. We Agenda Report Page 516 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
voted with our moving vans OK? So, I implore Piedmont City Council members to not without the urging and votes of more than half of or 2/3 of Piedmont citizens take it upon themselves or upon any other Commission members to suddenly change Piedmont’s zoning laws. Character, history, schools, population density, pollution, traffic problems, crucial electrical grid, sewage and water needs; all of which would suffer under the proposed plans. I know your proposed plans include compromise and bless you for trying to compromise, but I think it's still time that we should fight this takeover of zoning laws by the State of California. There are probably a half dozen legal ways to fight this, according to some people, some of whom are from the audience who have mentioned a few possibilities to mine Now, are there enough lawyers around? There’s a lot of lawyers in Piedmont and I'm willing to bet that several Piedmont attorneys, maybe citizens of Piedmont who might volunteer to work pro bono.

Don Chandler Hello, my name is Don Chandler and I live at 17 Bonita, been a resident for about 45 years and I'm a retired architect with extensive experience in major projects. I'm going to take a curmudgeonly approach here and I'm very happy with it. I follow on the same line as the speaker, I believe strongly that the Council and staff need to take a strong approach here to reject this 587-unit requirement. The State auditor audited, and the State auditor is a neutral body and you may know all of this. But the State auditor audited the HCD process and found significant problems with it to the point that there might have been significant number of overcounting of the of the requirement. Now we're talking about 2,300,000 units in all of California that were part of the 587. OK, HCD, before the Senate Bill 828, and this is kind of getting wonky here, but before our friend, Senator Wiener, and or assemblymen Wiener passed Senate bill 828 the HCD requirement for the number of units was like a million three. It's now two million three. It was as a result, as from what I understand, and the attorney here can kick in on this if possible, but it was because of that senate bill. Now, are we planning units in California on as-need basis, on a pure basis, or is it political? I would say if you double your number based on some Senate bill then it’s somewhat political and I would stay on this gentleman's coattails here that the Council should look at the options of, how do I put it? I don't want to say file lawsuit but contesting in all possible ways, this number of 587 units. I have not seen 1 presentation here that shows where the 587 units are. We should know, we should know. It seems like it's kind of mysterious and we've got the Grand Ave things, we've got the central city things, we don't have a plan. I don't think we have a plan, and now we're going to do a specific plan on Moraga Avenue. I personally know what a specific plan is and I’m appalled that it's being brought up now. At this point you have been mayor, you have been on this process for some time. OK, so I rest my case. I ask you to re-look at the options and let the residents know the options that you've looked at specifically regarding the essential services.

Agenda Report Page 517 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Mike McConnathy Hey everybody, Mike McConnathy. Scenic Ave. At the last planning meeting on July 11th, I raised some legal concerns with using dedicated park land in like Blair Park for housing. The City Attorney responded on page eight of your report, in my opinion, I think those conclusions are a little bit unfounded. Firstly, the report says that the Park Preservation Act Can be ignored since Piedmont is not actually acquiring land for the Housing Element, but this conclusion completely misses the point of the law. The PPA applies not because Piedmont is buying up land, but because it is offering up its dedicated parks for the Housing Element. The statutes prevent a city from transferring park land without a vote to itself or to a quasi-government mental agency, for like, say, a public private housing coalition with Piedmont. This is public resources code 5401A. Secondly, the staff report finds that the Park and Playground Act is inextricable because Piedmont is a charter city. Didn't cover that last time, I only get 3 minutes, don’t have time to give you a whole brief, but the charter city certainly can manage its municipal affairs. The report cites the Wiley case, which the court let Berkeley build a Firehouse on Parkland because the process involved local control, 60 years old case, 80-year-old case. But Piedmont General plan, City charter, municipal code all champion the protection and preservation of its parks. Either way, Piedmont currently has no process to abandon, sell, or donate its dedicated parks so nothing preempts the park and Playground act, at least as of today. If the City wants to enact laws to limit its parks, the City Attorney has said you have the unilateral power to do that. You've been told that the City Charter and the municipal code can all be changed without any public opinion despite the plain wording of those documents. This is not going to be an easy fight. Particularly if you want to please everyone, by the end of 2022 as was stated earlier tonight.

And what a message this sends to the State. Piedmont will be the first municipality to give away its dedicated parks for housing. We'd be the poster town for the HCD and for Scott Wiener. Do you care how other cities will respond to such a precedent and when HCD comes calling for the next Housing Element? Dracaena, Crocker; guaranteed they're going to be on the radar. With that, I would just ask that you make efforts to protect the character of Blair Park in the Moraga specific plan. Thank you.

Marsha Lane I'm Marsha Lane. I live on Bonita Ave. I respectfully request that the City Center sites be removed from the plan. Basically, on the fact that the City is already quite developed in our neighborhood. We have the schools, all three of them which account for a lot of traffic in the mornings. The parking situation in our neighborhood is already fairly dire. My own family can't visit without getting parking tickets, and that to hear that one of the opportunities for a developer to trade a lower allowance for parking would greatly impact the neighborhood. Additionally, we are expecting quite a lot of construction which we've already had to deal with for the past year and in the future with both the pool and the future high school buildings and then up next most likely the middle school. It's lot to deal with; cars beeping at 5:00 o'clock in the morning to think that we're going to spend Agenda Report Page 518 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
the next 10 plus years with development in the neighborhood, on and on and on makes living in the neighborhood extremely uncomfortable, especially with small children. Personally, I used to live in the recently developed housing on Piedmont Ave. That is why we moved to Piedmont.

The noise of a high-density housing is extremely unbearable and we moved to Piedmont specifically for a small-town quiet neighborhood to raise our children and go to school and to think that you could put another 40 plus units of housing in a one block area with all of the major schools in the City is just a little unthinkable in my opinion.

Deborah Leland Thank you all for all of your hard work and I really appreciate your efforts to bring our community along and do our fair share to meet regions housing crisis. I think one thing that we can all agree upon throughout this process that we've learned is that getting housing built is hard. That's why we have a housing crisis, and I think that the questions that you asked in June were good, important questions to ask, particularly about developing the City's Civic Center sites and I'm a little disappointed with the conclusion that you drew from having the answers that you came up with, because nothing that I have heard or seen or read about those answers point to any insurmountable problem with choosing City owned sites to be in the City inventory. What it says is that it's hard, but guess what, it's hard everywhere. It's hard to build housing everywhere, and particularly removing those City Center sites from the sites inventory makes it so much harder everywhere else. I think for several reasons. First, obviously physically when you need to squeeze that many units in elsewhere, it's physically difficult to accommodate, but the thing I want to bring to your attention is and to me more importantly is it becomes so much harder to get housing built anywhere if you take out those City sites because of the message that you are sending to the community if you do that. That message was really two things. One, you're sending the message that you don't really believe or are committed to the important principle of integrating new housing throughout the City. It becomes a fringe issue. And even if you commit to a master plan, if you don't have any numbers associated with that in the City sites that feels to me and I think to others who live outside of the City Center, like an empty promise. Secondly, it says to me that if a neighborhood raises enough of a stink that you back away from that even when that is what makes the most sense from a planning perspective, in that, if you're adding housing in Piedmont, if you add it where all the jobs and transit and schools are, you don't have people driving through. People are going to be able to walk to do that, so it makes so much sense. So, I just want to in closing; there is a path forward here to get housing built in the City, but if you retreat from the principle of integrating housing throughout and you say that neighborhood objections can derail good planning and all the good work you've done up till now you blow that process.

Agenda Report Page 519 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Reed Settlemire Hello councilmembers, thank you for your help with this, I know it's a very challenging problem and I want to say as I was listening tonight and I really greatly appreciate the staff and the council's plan to sort of reconsider and look at alternatives to the downtown area and the group of people I've surveyed, 50 people I would say, 45 people, do not want the housing downtown, so I really appreciate you guys taking the time and looking at that and sounds like you've listened to what we said. I've spoken to many you and it's really great that you guys, I think you guys have listened. The RHNA process is kind of difficult and it's un unfair process. And it seems like a real cram-down by the State, as some of these people have said, to just cram housing down on people in places where it isn't available. It really doesn't really fit anywhere here, and another problem is that I don't think anybody really understands the process as I'm listening to this, I'm seeing a lot of questions. Nobody really understands the whole process. I'm a developer. I'm a real estate developer contractor. I don't totally understand it. Very complicated, and we're putting together a million-dollar proposal to put something and I don't think we really all understand and the outreach, I know there was outreach. It's really difficult to do outreach. On my projects it's hard to get people to know what's going on. Normally they wait till the hearing and then everybody shows up and you know; pitchforks and pitchforks and torches and go after you guys, so. The outreach was probably would was not that effective. I think we're getting a lot of outreach now, you're getting a lot of a lot of play here. A lot of people are getting involved as you, as you're seeing here so I really think, this is me as a developer, I go and talk to cities, states, counties and push back. I negotiate with them. I think we're being crammed down. I think we really need to push back on this thing. I know there's 20 or 30 lawsuits on this thing. I think this whole thing may change before we get to January and then I know there's a deal in May. I mean I've never had a city ever meet a deadline they ever promised me in 20 years of doing what I do, right? So, I don't think they're going to meet the date on this to get back to you Kevin. I don't think they're going to get back, Sarah, they're no getting back to you in 90 days. I don't think they're going to make their times. I really think we should slow down the process. I think we come up with the right plan that’s a well vetted plan that it's got more input from the City, which we're starting to get now, we've got a lot of momentum now. We can really get some input. We've got six months to submit this thing. I'm not a fan of hurry up and get it there. I'm a fan of waiting. I think the lawsuits are going to push this thing out. Huntington Beach wins, the whole thing changes.

There's lots and lots of legal stuff going on that could certainly change this thing. You know, another concept I hate to bring a crazy concept like this, but why can't we put some of this in Oakland? Why can't we put it half a mile away in Oakland? I mean like why can't we buy it and do it there? Maybe that's a crazy idea. I know the City is not going to like something like that. There’s a lot of other places that have a lot more space and we, I appreciate you guys. I know it's a tough, tough complex. Thank you guys for Agenda Report Page 520 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
listening and we really preach more outreach and hoping to come to the solution together, unified solution.

Dan Luskin My name is Dan Luskin. I've lived in Piedmont for six years now. I own a house at 53 Wildwood. My kids go to school, two of them have just graduated from Beach. I know Teddy from doing Beach review, chaperoning with her. There you go, so I'm also a member of the Piedmont Racial Equity campaign. Some of the other speakers, including Deborah Leland are members as well and I just wanted to echo one thing she said that we should all be doing our fair share. Like of course you know 587 units it's just a little part of what the whole state needs to do and so we should do our part. Everybody else should do their part too. We can do ours. Also, just as a more broad point. I think a lot of people love to go to Paris on vacation. I sure do. It's beautiful, and so I think we should imagine instead of being scared of the density, think about those Parisian boulevards with all the restaurants and apartments above that doesn't need to be all of Piedmont, but that could be a vision for what the boulevards could look like. That could be Grand Avenue. I live five houses off Grand Avenue. I would be delighted to see Grand Avenue look like that. Instead of flying to Paris I would just walk down to Grand Avenue. That's possible, we can make that happen. This is the kind of venue where that could happen. One other point I wanted to raise is parking, totally a concern. Like you know, I get it. Like, I don't live far from Zachary’s. When people are like filling up my spots in front of my house going to Zachary's. Yeah, it's a little annoying, but I think we can all recognize the more we see Uber and Lyft and the like, that's the way of the future. I'm not sure we're going to be worried in 10 years about parking because not as many people will own their own cars and so we don't want to be building buildings that are going to last for 100 years based on the technology that exists today and then in 10 years we'll be like oh we were worried about parking, this problem just disappeared. I'd also want to say that just to narrow in on some of the things we've been talking about tonight like maybe the most contentious issue is: do we locate things in the city center or do we try to push things to other spaces? A couple thoughts about that. The first thing I'd like to say is, I understand the concerns about the city center, like I like to play tennis. Would I be happy to see those four tennis courts disappear, no, not really. I'd like to see them still be tennis courts, but at the same time, I don't want us to create a ghetto out in Blair Park where we cram lots of low-income units and that becomes like a separate part of town that we don't want to deal with.

Instead, we need to spread those units out we need to have them be everywhere. We need to have them in Blair. We need to have them in the city center, Grand Avenue, all those places. If we do that, it'll work beautifully to like be part of the fabric of the of the city. So I think that needs to be the vision to put things in the city center and Blair and Grant it needs to be everywhere. So thank you all for your consideration and your time.

Agenda Report Page 521 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Nicholas Stamatakis My name is Nicholas Stamatakis. I didn't come with any notes but I came to listen to the presentation today and I was just wondering actually you people have placed the cart before the horse. I mean, have y'all had an input from the City? Wouldn't it be nice if y'all would give the City population time to more or less vote on this. I mean, I know what City governments do. You can see what's happening. You're calling about the housing situation. Yeah, that's a housing situation because the politicians let everybody come across the border. That's one thing. Politicians sit up there in Washington and Sacramento. They push things to you. They don't do the same thing. They're sitting at the French Laundry, eating. So you see we, the people here, we’d like a little more input into this whole situation.

Fine and good. You see what happens in West Oakland? The government built all those buildings down in West Oakland. What do you have there? A ghetto. So therefore I think the people in Piedmont should vote on this. Are y'all going to push this thing through without the people of Piedmont voting on it? I'm asking you. Yes or no? I mean, I think we fought for our rights a long time ago. You remember the Boston Tea Party? We didn't want big government telling us everything that has to be done. So I think you should think about it and let the people vote on it first and then you can continue with your proposal. I really do. Thank you for your time.

Liz Lumus-O’Neill Hi you all. Liz Lumus-O'Neill here. Thank you for your time attention and I really appreciate the back and forth and the follow up since the June 20th meeting and I love hearing new ideas. I love the idea of: oh my gosh 587.

Have we questioned the State on that? In a way the State is given Piedmont an impossible task I think, and on the same token we do need to do something about our housing. I've been a lifetime educator and I've had plenty of colleagues and also young families need to move away, and it's because of housing costs and I'm, you know, it seems like that's a problem in Piedmont, and I think it's solvable, and I think it's great to see these numbers that wow that means teachers and City workers could actually afford to live and be vested in the town where they work. That sounds great to me, as well as attracting new families, and I think the way we approach this as a city matters. I had a colleague at a school where I worked last year comment that she heard from Piedmont unified She lives in Oakland, you know, saying that there are ways to apply to get your kid to go to Piedmont schools. It felt really good and I think those types of things, I think when people understand that Piedmont is a place that's attracting teachers diversity students. It's good for Piedmont, and it feeds on itself, I think it's really, really important. I think it's important that we do have lowand mid-income housing spread throughout the city per variety of reasons.

It's hard and it's a bummer, and I don't know the easy answers to that and naive question I have is: have we talked about the Bank of America building yet? And there’s probably like a reason why that's not on the table, but I wonder about the Bank of America building. I also wonder about the specific plan and how we're going to make sure that that the citizens are engaged and that there's a process that everybody really knows about Agenda Report Page 522 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
because I think this process has been going on for a long time, and there's a lot of citizens who are kind of new to it. At each one of these meetings there are people who are brand new to it, so my hope is that with this specific plan, it does feel like that's coming at the final hour, but if that's a done deal that we do need to do that, my hope is that constituents, the neighborhood citizens of Piedmont, can be really involved and engaged in that, and I think I'm done with all my notes, Yep. That'll do it, thanks so much you all.

Sonny Bostrom Hi, my name is Sonny. I have a couple of thoughts. I think it's going to end up being a lot more beautiful than we anticipate. I see no reason why we couldn't put bids out to architects saying we would like to have the most beautiful buildings that you can think of that are the most livable. Things that maybe people have never done before and make them as green as possible to help with all of our global warming concerns. I wonder when the State tells us that they'd like us to build a certain number of units, whatever that ends up being, without a national policy that has to do with population control or tidier immigration rules, what we have to protect us from receiving this message every 10 years to build another 500 maybe 1000 next time. What is the cap? What is the end of this? We'll just go on and on until we're it’s so crowded that we can hardly turn around? I haven't heard anybody addressed that and I am an optimist. We wonder why we have a housing crisis and of course there are many reasons, however, with the stresses of life and with the divorce rates, you may have never thought of this, but every time someone gets divorced, they need an extra place to live. Very rare, it's very rare to find a couple that say we're going to just put a line down the middle of the house and be civil to one another, so stresses go up and concerns multiply and divorce goes up suddenly we need two units or complete houses instead of one when people were sharing. I wonder why we can't have 500 square foot studios or small one-bedrooms which would cost even less to build and less to rent instead of these ones that somehow cost $800,000, which seems like a lot of money to me. At that rate, couldn't we just buy a million and a half Piedmont house and divide it and make it into a duplex or triplex. I mean to me $800,000 is still a lot of money. People have been concerned about thinking that there'd be perhaps some shame attached to living in a housing project on Blair Park if it was thought of as low-income, and I thought, well, they're going to be living on a street between two- and three-million-dollar houses. How upsetting is that when you come down to it. And someone said they'd have to walk many blocks to get to school, well the children that live on Seaview Ave, where some houses are $10 million each, have to walk seven blocks too. Good thoughts. Thank you for all your work. No one will ever know the hours you put in.

Mora Chapman* Hi, it’s Mora. First of all, thank you all and you know, I think these meetings alone you should get awards for, they’re long and I have attended one or two, but boy you guys are doing it all so thank you. With that, thank you to Agenda Report Page 523 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
the City for all the efforts that they have put in, for all of this and I, I totally agree with the last speaker and many other speakers who have said that there's so much more time that goes into all this than any of us can see. So, I have a letter from a few of us and then if I have time I have a couple things to. I’ll just read it: Dear Piedmont City Council members, we write to you as active Piedmont residents to advocate for more housing in Piedmont, especially small multifamily and apartment buildings, duplexes, triplexes, and accessory dwelling units offered at affordable rates that utilize green building design and construction methods and materials as feasible and, this is key, are integrated throughout the city at sustainable densities.

Sustainable meaning these are densities that really our work in terms of energy and water and traffic flow and on the fall. We believe that the goal of housing in Piedmont is to meet the needs of current and future residents while doing everything in our power as a city and community to help alleviate both the local and statewide housing shortages and the global climate crisis. Providing affordable, sustainable housing of all types throughout all areas of Piedmont, equitably and appropriately distributed, will give City and school district employees, senior residents, and families with children options to rent or purchase housing in town. This benefit will extend beyond these individuals, families and groups to the entire Community by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the form of energy consumption, and other resources, via the elimination of such actions as long commutes and relocations. The energy and water savings and the air quality benefits of increasing the residential density in Piedmont can be amplified by concentrating new housing sites in centrally located areas such as our Civic Center properties, where there is proximity to municipal and commercial services, schools, and public transportation. Transportation comprises more than half of Piedmont total greenhouse gas emissions, so locating new housing on are on or near current public transit lines will help to achieve our cities Climate Action Plan 2.0 reduction targets, while serving these new residents. We contend that it is incumbent upon the City of Piedmont and its current residents to use this Housing Element process as a way to begin to make up for the historical inequities in the representation of members of diverse income, racial and ethnic groups in our town providing housing for a broader population of residents will benefit. I just want to last end with it's time for Piedmont to do its fair share in helping to address the 21st century challenges of homelessness and climate change so.

Francis Fisher* Thank you for the opportunity to speak. The additional analysis that's been done and recognize the urgency under which it has been taken. It seems like including downtown Piedmont as an area for housing, including lowincome housing, would allow us to keep our options open without increasing the density of housing and focusing the low-income housing along the perimeters of our city. Once further analysis is done, if it's found infeasible to coordinate the redevelopment of all of the facilities that Sarah has mentioned in with affordable housing, then we'll need to look at other Agenda Report Page 524 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
opportunities around the city. But why start by illuminating those options? Personally, I see a new downtown, a new downtown that's safer for everyone to walk with new roads and expanded pedestrian facilities. I see a new downtown that has additional housing and that brings students to the schools that are currently underpopulated. I see a downtown built for people with direct access to all of those valuable resources: the pool and Rec Center in Piedmont Park and the Art Center and Gardens that provide us an expert an opportunity to access funds that can be used to build the new police and fire facilities that we so desperately need. I have to admit that tonight has made me sadder than I have expected. I've heard so much more NIMBYism than I'd hoped to hear from my neighbors. I've heard that everywhere is bad. That Piedmont can't be a place for people to live, just us who are already here. But as I look at California’s economy, I see we're losing jobs and people and the cultural amenities that make the Bay Area such a wonderful place to live because there isn't enough housing to support our economy. If we don't figure out a way to create housing everywhere, including here in Piedmont, we're looking at an even tougher economic future for all of us. We're looking at a loss of the restaurants that we love and our local businesses. Is it better that people live in fire prone areas and drive hours to urban centers? No, we all need to do our part and put the housing at putting the housing just at the edges of Piedmont at locations that may or may not have any interest in changing their footprint at all. Like the two the properties that have been mentioned on Grand seems to be a folly. We need to look everywhere in the city, including downtown. If we're looking for more students for our schools and people to teach them, we need to find actual ways of building housing and not rely on private developers. Thank you.

Joshua Saffron* Hi my name is Joshua Saffron. I'm an attorney with the Rudder Law Group and we represent Piedmont for responsible development, which is a nonprofit dedicated to making the City a safe and nurturing community. We did submit a letter dated July 29 which objects to the current draft of the Housing Element, at least the portion of it that modifies that public facilities designation, which folks have been talking about as sort of the central area of the city. We do ask that the letter be made part of the administrative record and that the Council and the City Attorney carefully consider our legal analysis before they do move forward on this Housing Element. I will just say in the shape of comments tonight that I it's a little bit of a clever idea of identifying municipally owned lands and re-designating planning and zoning designations to put multifamily housing on it, but I believe that it's a little bit, ultimately disingenuous and a little bit too clever. You know, the Zeppelin company had this idea of putting lighter than air hydrogen into balloons and transporting people across the Atlantic, and it seemed like a good idea, but ultimately, that hydrogen was highly flammable, and what I'm talking about here is when you're talking about increasing densities twelvefold in a planning document, which ultimately requires modification of Zone B, which right now is currently limited on the residential side to Agenda Report Page 525 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
single family residential if you're going to blow through that cap exceed even the multifamily density is allowed in Zone C, again by twelvefold number, that kind of a radical legislative change is going to trigger section

9.O2 of the City Charter, which does mandate that modifications to zones need to be submitted to the voters for a vote, and it's our client’s understanding that that vote would come back from the people of Piedmont as a resounding no. And so, it's you know why go through the process of submitting this to the State and making promises to the State that this is the way that the City is going to accommodate this housing allocation, when in reality we know there's a combustible gas in this plan that's going to blow up, so that's the gist of our comment. I think we were a little disheartened to see I'm not, you know, blaming anyone in particular, but the staff report did seem to sort of try to pretend that even though this zoning reclassification, a 12-fold increase in density, you know quacks like a duck and looks like duck, that it's not actually a zoning reclassification and therefore would avoid approval by the citizens at the ballot box as required by the Charter and I cite a series of cases and they're basically saying, you know, look, California courts don't accept the kind of trade of not calling a land use duck a duck. It's a duck. It needs to go up for voter approval and it will, and let's make the right decision while we can.

Laurel Plumier* Madam Mayor and Council members, thank you for all of your hard work on this issue. My name is Laurel Plumier, as I said and I'm the President of the League of Women Voters of Piedmont and I'm speaking today on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Piedmont. We fully support equal opportunity in housing, and we believe that Piedmont should provide its fair share. We understand that a number of residents within Piedmont have expressed concern over traffic safety and loss of open space that may arise as a result of denser housing in our community. While we can understand these concerns. We believe they represent the classic “not in my backyard” stance that has no place in a community that's striving to provide its fair share of housing. We believe that the current Housing Element update should include all types of housing available to us in our small community.

This includes duplexes, triplexes, small apartments, medium sized multifamily buildings and more accessory dwelling units rented at affordable rates. Embracing these creative and robust solutions instead of fighting against change is a necessary first step in doing our part to alleviate California's housing crisis. More housing in Piedmont means that more people who work in Piedmont will be able to afford to live here. Seniors looking to downsize will be able to do so without having to relocate to a different community and young families with small children will be able to afford to purchase a home in Piedmont. We urge the City Council to ensure that all types of housing in all suitable sites are included in the current housing update and I want to emphasize this last point. Piedmont is a small community, and we need to take advantage of all sites available to us if we expect to provide our fair share of housing. This includes finding creative Agenda Report Page 526 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
solutions to use the properties that are owned by the City of Piedmont, including those that are in the city center. Thank you.

Andy Madera* Hi everybody, good evening. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address all of you and I'm changing what I'm saying based upon some of the comments that I think we just heard. I think we just heard basically that preserved downtown Piedmont people signal what their intention is when you have a group that was formed just a couple of weeks ago, and when you have them, hire a lawyer who then starts commenting, they're pretty clearly telling us what their intention is. But I think that despite that fact, we still have to do the right thing, which in this case is really make housing and specifically make affordable housing available for people in City of Piedmont. We're really talking about people who do not live here now, because they are priced out because they were legally barred from living in the City of Piedmont because we had racist laws that excluded them. And so, I really think that we have to stand up to that sort of bullying that we really have to consider the best options in the Housing Element that will to do the thing that we ultimately want to have happened, and that is really expand the number of people that can live here that will be invite people that are Black and brown to live in the City of Piedmont in the way that is really, that Piedmont is very exclusive right now. I'd also, again, looking at some of the proposals right now, pushing the amount of density down on Grand Avenue while it pushes out the number of units that need to get absorbed so that you don't have to show anything to downtown, I don't think it's ultimately feasible. We know that we don’t have landowners that are going to be willing to sell there, and I think the math doesn’t work. I know that the math can work to do affordable housing downtown, and I think if we really considered all the sites that are available downtown and do a master plan like the City has considered doing in the past for downtown, that we can accommodate this. Years ago, when the City wanted to build again, we were talking about the pool years ago and wanted to build sort of an Aquatic Center, and we considered doing a master plan then. I hope that we will consider doing a master plan now, downtown when what we want to do is serve affordable housing. Thank you.

Rod Boothby* Thank you everyone for giving me the time to speak with you all. I want to convey a single idea. Teachers are lower income. California doesn't pay them well. We don't pay them well. The people we are considering who could be in the housing that we create downtown, spread throughout the city, at the edges, everywhere are the people who teach our children. They are the people that we move here for. Community is wonderful. The people who are our neighbors are wonderful. I don't sure we'll all agree some of them have some interesting views. Some of them are...we have a diverse set of ideas, obviously. But, the core that holds this community together, more than anything else, is our amazing schools. And if we can figure out a way so that we have housing, you've been in the center of town, that would Agenda Report Page 527 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
be for our teachers, and would allow maybe new teachers coming out of college to have extremely low rents for a few years; get them on a footing where they could afford to live in the Bay Area anywhere, let alone in Piedmont, would help us to attract the most talented, most diverse, most interesting and most capable sets of teachers that we could possibly get.

We need to think about who these low-income people are? They're not frightening people. They're the people we love, the people we have moved here for. The people who benefit all of us. I'd like to put that more than anything else into the record to focus on it. The other thing I'd like to do, considering I've got a minute and eight seconds is to put forth that change happens. For instance, the banks that we have in the center of town.

They're not going to be there for very long. All banking is shutting down their branches, it doesn't make economic sense. What are we going to use that space for? What if we used it for something that allowed for in that area? Both housing for seniors or teachers and things that painted the same kind of wonderful community vision that the gentleman who described Paris hinted at. That's the kind of thing that I think we'd most want. It's not frightening. It's the very people that we moved here for. Thank you very much for your time and thank you all very much for all your efforts.

Ron Heckman* Hi, thanks for plugging me in, really appreciate the Council's efforts and Mayor King’s great leadership and Conna McCarthy: thanks for briefing me on some things on the side. Just a couple of points. I wanted to just say; in the big picture you’re on the right track. I really endorse where you’re going with this. I want all of us to think about our own backgrounds in how we got here and how we were able to find housing and a place to live. We are immigrant children, for the most part and Piedmont, unfortunately, has a dismal track record of providing housing. Andy Madera’s statement, I'd copy his statement and endorsed that full heartedly. We need to create more housing, focusing on Grand and Moraga and Park is great, but I think we can accommodate more housing downtown. The height limits make a lot of sense, that way we can control it. Another speaker made a great observation about how Grand Avenue could be a Parisian boulevard.

Maybe Oakland can get on the same page and make it 3, 4, 5 stories of fabulous apartments over great retail. The Protopapas project you mentioned on Piedmont Avenue at 51st , it's a great example of work to be done with high quality, it's not super tall, so at any rate, just want to support what you're doing and also point out the Deb Leland petition. I think she's characterized some good perspectives and that photograph of what four or five units of housing could look like, that doesn't look like high density was just really good. So anyway, keep going, ignore the lawsuit threats because they're always going to come out and just do the right thing. Thank you for your effort.

Robert Berger* (No response / bad connection)
Di Maher* Thank you, I'd like to first thank the City Council for the additional forms you've created for the public input on this very appreciative of that. First Agenda Report Page 528 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
thing I'd like to comment on is this notion of Piedmont's fair share. It's a very emotional concept. I'm not certain how you quantify it, and I challenge anyone to come to quantify that. And I think it's when you when you look at what, that housing is a problem in California, that really we can't put the shoulder of that problem on the City of Piedmont, and I'm not opposed to, you know, increasing housing, but this notion that somehow we have some sort of duty to solve global warming and right the wrongs of the past etc., and then we must do this by the current plan and changing the City Council to me, I think, is preposterous. I want to express that the characterization that the zoning changes could be accomplished without a vote of the citizens it really just shocks me that people that think that are so close to where I live. I just feel it's a real breach of conduct. I think the notion that we should just ignore legal threats by I think pretty accomplished attorneys, I don't think it's worked out very well in Piedmont’s 10-year, 15-year past with legal issues. Look, I hear that people want change, people would like to you know, turn Grand Avenue people into Paris. You know, Paris is Paris.

Go to Paris if you want Paris. Look, it’s fine for people to want to change Piedmont to look different, do whatever they want, etc. It’s also fine for people in Piedmont that don’t want that so, look live and let live, you want it fine, OK? But the majority of people don't want such a drastic change in such a short period of time. So, I just wish that, you know, the City of Piedmont to.. I thank them for looking at these other alternatives and to continue to listen to a wide variety of people. Thank you.

Kristen Harknett* Hi happy to be here. My name is Kristen Harknett. I live in central Piedmont. I live on El Cerrito Ave near Dracena Park and I've lived in Piedmont for eight years. It is a great place to live. I've been following the housing element process for the past few months and have really appreciated the Piedmont is home website. The articles I've read in the Piedmont Post, etc. and the multiple opportunities to hear presentations and to provide public input. Through this I've learned a lot and right now I am 100% on board with an all of the above approach to the Housing Element zoning. All of the above as an approach is essential, and as an earlier speaker said, without Civic Center on the table, everything gets harder and when I think about the Housing Element, one way I think about it is as a moral issue. We've got an affordable housing crisis, a homelessness crisis and every city, including Piedmont, has to do something and I hope that Piedmont will do at least their fair share. A bold housing element is the right thing to do, but as we've heard, many speakers articulately expressed- - Megan and Frances, the representative from the League of Women Voters, Rod and many others-- I want teachers to live in my community. I want them to be able to afford to live here. I want nurses and 1st responders, retirees and young families, to be able to live here. I felt very lucky to be able to move here and to be able to afford to live here, but just barely, and I find a socio-economically diverse group of people to be my neighbors, because as Rod so eloquently said, these teachers, they're low income and they’re really the lifeblood of our community. The final thing I Agenda Report Page 529 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
want to say is that we are so lucky to have a dedicated and expert group of residents to our policymakers who are planners, architects and who have been volunteering so many hours to think about creative ways for Piedmont to do their fair share. And although Piedmont is a very small place, we can make a big difference by doing our fair share, but by doing it very creatively and expertly and showing other cities how it's done, and we can take a great deal of pride in that. Thank you.

Tracy Woodrow* Hello hi, this is Tracy Woodrow, I am a long-time resident of Piedmont and I really want to applaud you for all the many public processes that you've had up until this point, and I also think everyone agrees we are very fortunate to live here, and we have a real opportunity to improve our city and create a more vibrant and diverse community and I really want to emphasize all the comments about how we should be looking forward and not looking backwards. I also took this time to speak to support the ‘all of the above’ approach, but the last speaker spoke so eloquently about, and I want to name that we should increase housing, particularly multifamily affordable housing in all the areas, including Moraga Avenue, city center, and Grand Avenue. Though I want to also want to be cautious about that because it's not clear that the City owns that land on Grand Avenue, so they may not be a realistic option, which would re-up how important it is to consider the city center upgrading facilities and Piedmont is already committed to upgrading facilities in the Civic Center. The high school has been upgraded. The pool and Community Center has already been upgraded, so it makes a lot of sense to integrate improving the City facilities and to add a modest housing that fits with the rest of downtown, including considering upgrading the tennis courts. And by having affordable housing, particularly in the city center, we could help contribute to our climate emergency, and reducing our climate footprint because it would allow more walking, access to transit and I just think this is a red herring about child safety; well, children could be walking to school. We could redesign the downtown pedestrian safety, and that there will, again, be public transit access so just want to also just note that you have had a very long process of outreach. People have seen the beautiful signs that have been put up through town. Many of the people on this call participated in that process and I think now it's the time that we have an opportunity to really make change. Change is what we need. We have a housing crisis. Piedmont should do its fair share to participate with the rest of the Bay Area and addressing that change can be good. It's important also to improve the wrongs of the past. We always want to be looking to improve where we are, and I think this is a really important opportunity to diverse our final community and look to make changes that will lead to a more vibrant city that we can all be proud of. Thank you.

Hugh Lodge* Thanks, Mayor King and members of Council. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight about the Housing Element. I guess I have three things that I kind of want to cover with you all tonight. First of all, from a Agenda Report Page 530 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
transportation perspective I've heard a lot from folks about concerns about Civic Center and concerns about safety and as someone who's been a transportation planner and a city planner more than twenty years and as someone who works professionally in this capacity now, I just want to make sure to allay any fears that folks have, and honestly, I would say one of the best things we could do for safety in our Civic Center area is to put a little bit more housing to make it possible for people to walk to the places that are so walkable there and many other folks and spoken about that tonight, but just that's not something that we should be concerned about. The second thing I want to say sort of stepping out from that, a little bit is: one of the main goals of the housing element process as it's evolved over time and as it exists now, and you all know this, is to affirmatively further fair housing. And if we're honest with ourselves, Piedmont has not historically done that, and we know that to be true, and if we're honest with ourselves, the Bay Area hasn't done it, and California hasn't done it, and anybody who's been down to the freeways, who's been to any of the parks or other centers in Oakland, who’s been to San Francisco and other areas all over the Bay Area. You see the results of this. You see the number of people who are homeless. You see people living in camper bands in tents all over the place. This is not the result of some fluke thing. This is the result of cities from across California not doing their fair share, not contributing that. And as much as there are people out there who are thinking like, we can sue and the City gets a right to vote as residents, the State is watching that too and that's going to be a concern that the State is going to look at, and could be a thing that leads ultimately to City of Piedmont no longer having land use authority, and I think you really need to take that in consideration as you think about this tonight. And then the last thing I really want to say to you is City Council members and I everybody has made such excellent points about why we need to include the Civic Center and all the other sites. This is ultimately going to reflect on you as leaders. You have an opportunity as a group of people to look, think about to say to the residents of Piedmont: the future that we have in front of us in Piedmont and in society in general, has the potential to be very bleak. We're coming out of a pandemic. We face the very real specter of climate change that's out there.

There are major safety issues on our streets, and we can either embrace that and say we're going to do something about this, we're going to look for ways to address this and one of the main things we can do as a society is really think about bringing more people into the cities that we already have, or we can turn against that. And don't let the fears that are being created to say as a city that Piedmont can't do it. People can't do this. You have very talented people that can help you. And if we're going to look at these things and say these are impossible, then that is really, frankly, a city that I don't think is worth living in I don't think you do either, thank you.

Hope Salzer* Hi, thank you very much. First, I just want to say like many others have that I really admire and appreciate the thorough, thoughtful, and lengthy deliberations that all of you are Council members, staff and consultants Agenda Report Page 531 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
have done our on our behalf of this process to meet our housing responsibility, it's, as I said, admirable and really appreciated. So I just want to express my opinion, which agrees with the position expressed by Frances Fisher, Kristen Harknett, Megan Bennett, Tracy Woodruff, Hugh Lodge, Mora Chapman, Deb Leland and the League of Women Voters and the gentleman who envisions an approximation of the charm and urban beauty of the Parisian boulevards in Piedmont. As these speakers emphasize, building sufficient incremental housing is difficult, and all properties, regardless of their current ownership which qualify for housing redevelopment, should be considered or need to be considered. I think in a good faith effort to build real housing for real people, I share their optimism that increased density and a Town Center redesign will make our pedestrian and school areas in fact safer and invite new members to join our community and it seems like the numbers says, you know, say everything that even with 587 new units, Piedmont will still be a relatively small town. I don't think we need to fear that we will, you know, Manhattan-ize Piedmont. I also share Mr. Boothby, Rod Boothby’s regret in hearing the objections to development in the city center in the name of student safety. Some of these newer, low- and moderate-income residents may be the very junior rank firefighters that were sworn in in our last City Council meeting and that who have pledged their lives to protecting all of us, I think we should be so fortunate if those first responders would elect to live in central Piedmont. I also agree humbly and reflect with humility on my own and my husband's family journeys to the US, however many centuries ago that was, and that the space and welcome that was made for our families in, you know, long ago communities and I'm not so long over here in Piedmont. So thank you very much.