Piedmont City Council
March 20, 2023

Xavier Woodruff
Madera*
Hi, I'd just like to say before anything else that I dislike public speaking, it is not easy for me and even though it's not easy for me, I'm willing to do this relatively difficult task for such an important issue as the human right to housing. I've lived in Piedmont all my life. I graduated in 2017, and I think that we should build affordable housing here in Piedmont. I had quite a few notes about how we could make affordable housing possible to build here in Piedmont, you know how it would help the community, how it would make it a more diverse place, but I don't think that the issue is ultimately whether or not it is possible to build affordable housing in Piedmont, but whether or not we want to, and whether or not we want to help people, to give people an opportunity to live here and to give them a basic human right, a roof over their head, and so I think it it'll really come down to whether or not this community wants to be dumb, you know, wants to wants to help people or wants to avoid building affordable housing in Piedmont.

Georgina Russell* Hi, thank you. My name is Georgina Russell. I was raised in Oakland, CA. I now live in Piedmont. I just wanted to start out by saying thank you for all the work and the progress that you have made since the last meeting.

Agenda Report Page 532 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Covering the Housing Element. Today I'd like to firstly, urge the Council to take your time in coming up with the right plan. And I say this particularly in light of the macroeconomic/economic environment which is changing quickly. Specifically, we are witnessing the Federal Reserve raise interest rates at a pace that's unprecedented in my lifetime. This is resulting in home price declines in Piedmont and surrounding areas, which started in just the last few weeks. Alongside this is that California saw its population decline last year and we will likely see that again this year. Given the COVID pandemic has enabled increased mobility, many California residents continue to relocate to low or no state income tax jurisdictions, such as Texas and Florida without having to change jobs. These two factors could increase the likelihood that California's affordable housing needs decline versus that outlined years ago when our allocation was determined and resultingly, we may see an about-face by the government on the Housing Element. Therefore, we should not submit our Housing Element early.

Secondly, I'd like to encourage the City to work with a sense of urgency to create a special zone for Grand Avenue with a much much higher density. I understand that this may require a ballot initiative and it is for this reason that we need to move quickly. I believe that with only with such rezoning, will we be able to achieve the goals for affordable, inclusive housing that is desired by many of the housing advocates who've attended this meeting tonight. Thank you.

Alice Talcott* Thank you good evening and you've heard from a lot a lot of great comments tonight, and I know everybody is tired, so I'll try to keep this really short. Just want to say that I, you know, really “ditto” to a lot of the comments you've heard on why we need to build affordable housing throughout the whole community and that you know, I'm really the thing I'm most concerned about is that you've moved all of the lower income, well, not all, but a substantial part of the lower-income, we read an obligation from the Civic Center to the two sites on Grand and my concern there really is not because I think those are inappropriate sites for affordable housing, because I don't think they're likely going to be feasible.

You know they're privately owned, so that means that the owners have to be willing to sell. It gives them a lot of leverage in that negotiation, which means it's going to be hard to get those at any kind of good price. They also have functioning businesses on them, you know, highly functioning businesses. You know, oftentimes when commercial real estate is redeveloped, it's because something has gone out of business. You know, in this case, it means not only you know, is it going to make those properties worth more, but it also means in that an affordable housing developer in taking the financing comes with IT requirements that they have to do commercial relocation of existing commercial businesses, that can be very expensive and you know some of those buildings have had multiple tenants in them. That's going to make it a very difficult site to develop, even if you could get control of them. So I what really does concern me is that those are being sort of, you're giving up the Civic Center sites which have so many Agenda Report Page 533 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
more, really advantages in actually making them developable. The City has, you know, has control over the land, it can make the land available below market price to make those projects more feasible. But it also has a lot more control over what's developed there. You know when you, a private site and they're coming to you, there's not a lot of under density bonus law, there's not a lot of things you can do, but on a City-owned site you can have a whole negotiated agreement, and so I think it really makes those just, much more possible that those will be the kind of affordable housing that people are saying they want and they can fit into our community really well, so I just really encourage you to go ahead and put back up sites in the Civic Center. I also think, you know, it's highly unlikely HCD, I know you're going to do some analysis, but weather HCD is going to even approve those two sites is pretty debatable, so you might just, I suppose you can find out, but you know, I really encourage the Civic Center sites to come back in.

Thank you.

Audrey Wagman* Thank you for the opportunity. I live in the Civic Center, and I have to tell you traffic is a nightmare. It's one of the reasons that they gave resident parking to us because it is so awful. I see kids and cars and contention all the time. It has three schools. It makes it very difficult for cars, especially when schools are in session. Right now, it's not terrible. I kind of like the summer because I can find parking spaces. Also, I would like to say that this area has a very low walkability score. You can't walk to stores. Yes, you have Mulberry, but if you're in affordable housing, chances are you don't want the prices at Mulberry. Transportation is here, but you only have the 33 bus running right now and it doesn't go a whole lot of places. I don't think that Civic Center is a good source of housing. I would hate to see the Fire Department and the Police Department not be in the center of our town where they are available to everybody here easily with the same sort of distances. You put them on the edges or the fringes, they're harder to get there, and certainly Moraga is not a great place for the fire engines. A lot of traffic there also narrow roads and windy. I liked the idea of housing throughout the area, but not close to 20% increase in housing and the simple, actually it's more than that because the number that you're proposing increases our number just way more than any other part of the city. I also have a question about whether or not there is a way to challenge the State, not that we need to put in affordable housing, but the number of units 587 is almost a 20% increase in the number of houses in our community. It seems awfully large. Thank you.

Jill Lindenbaum* Hi good evening. Thank you guys. I do not envy your position and I really appreciate all your hard work as well as the staff’s to date. I am going to try to keep it short. I really don't, I am disappointed with the staff recommendation on removing the city center possibilities because at this point that's what they are if they're left in the Housing Element and to take anything off the table at this point seems premature, and as you guys, we've all been talking about this master plan, which really could be a policy Agenda Report Page 534 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
baked into the next Housing Element. So if they go hand in hand, then we will come out knowing if there are viable sites with all of the concerns being addressed, and if they're not viable, then we're going to be going through the same exercise that we're going through now: trying to find a different place, but you're removing the sites early before we're looking at a master plan, and it just seems premature, and I really want to understand because I was trying to follow the presentation earlier by the consultant and nothing seemed impossible to me. It was, ‘get creative’ and ‘it's complex’ and I don't know how that led staff to say take it out. And I really would like, I really hope that you guys talk about that at some point this evening, because it really is confounding to me. How that just happened? Yes, we'll have to pencil out the numbers, but it's still very early and we can see what's available. And if it's not the best thing for the City, then let's take it off and find you know, we’ll reallocate those units and I just want to say getting Mullberry’s permitted took three years, so we were looking for a good cup of coffee and a sandwich then, so I know change is scary for people and everyone was against this project that enhanced Piedmont, you know a million-fold, so I just want people to consider that change isn't always bad. And if we're talking about congestion in the center of town, then with a plan it can be improved and I'm just going to leave it at that because I think you guys get where I'm going with it. Thank you again.

Bridgett Harris OK, all right I will. And then it's very specifically, diagrams should have been shown. Here are the areas we're considering. They're just in the possibility of Housing Elements. We're not necessarily picking them, but we're just looking at them right now. Here's the number of units in each one. How many are we putting in the Civic Center area? How many on Grand? How many on Blair? It’s all, it was all too brought to the public I think a little bit too late. Recently we all received this postcard. I mean honestly, it first went into the garbage can and then I thought wait a minute, I think it says Piedmont. Then you realize you have to see a QR code to really get the information. Well, it should have been printed out. I think a lot of residents of Piedmont would have appreciated all this information in writing instead of in the QR code or where you have to go onto a website. The second point I want to talk about is voting. I think that eventually, maybe in 2024, we'll find out about the Housing Element and the mandate, and if it is legal, but that's neither here nor there. What I am interested in though is the this:
your position that a vote is not necessary to change the zoning and I think what we're doing whether we are taking public lands and then I think the word was divvying them up, giving parcel numbers to them and then changing those public lands which are in one zone and converting them to multifamily zones. That needs a vote of the people that should be, that concept of changing the vote requires, I mean changing the zone requires a vote. You may go through with it in any event, but I think it does portend that we are going to have some future litigation on that and that's going to further delay u. And then the final point is that the penalties really further analysis delaying this process, getting more people engaged, getting their Agenda Report Page 535 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
input. The penalties? What are the penalties? The penalties are: we're going to lose State funding? Do we get any State funding? The next penalties, possibly we lose this funding. The A1 funding. That goes to the developers. It doesn't even go to us. And then the third penalty is that possibly there's financial penalties of 10 to 100,000? That requires a court order. The State can't do this. It requires a court order. So in conclusion, I think we need more time. We need more input and we need the vote of the people.

Ben Mant My name is Ben Mant: I've been in Piedmont for about 10 years. This is my first time actually attending so this is all a little new for me. Overall, I want to thank you. I'm not going to go into all the details of how much great work you've done, but I do appreciate it. I think everybody does appreciate the great work. I do want to reiterate that I’m also not totally clear as to where all the units are now located or where we're talking. I think a simple infographic would be great. I've gone through this site. I actually filled out the whole thing with the puzzles and stuff like that I sent emails. And then I perused the 107 page, I'm not great with detail, I need simple infographics, PowerPoint, that type of thing so that would be helpful. I do want to say, I mean, I do get this, I'm very supportive. I'm a first generation college student. I grew up very poor and there were times we did not have a house and we had to live with other families so this rings very true. I understand this. I've worked a lot with a lot of families over the years. And so I am supportive, but I do feel that we have an issue with just how concentrated and how we're talking about the downtown. So to have more than 25% of the units within two blocks does not seem very spread out to me. I know we talked about putting it all over town. That seems very concentrated to me. I know and I actually really like the plan today of just starting to look at other locations down on Grand Avenue, I do think that the bulk of the inventory should go on Grand or Moraga. I think there's for the services, the locations and stuff like that, as well as the space I think those do make a ton of sense, and I think even when you do that, if I understand the plans correctly, there's still units in Mulberry and all, and the banks and whatnot.

So there's still 50 to 100. I'm not sure how many units are left, but, still quite a few downtown, I think the key thing is when you have three schools, you have the City services with police and fire trucks coming in in and out.

You've got Mulberry and you've got kids walking to school, and then you're going to put in new these new units, which we already heard today that they can actually use their exceptions and not do all the parking. Those that creates a lot of issues, so I do think spreading it out. I think using the other spaces in town make a ton of sense and certainly looking at ADUs and some of the other creative solves that we have. So and then the final thing I'd say is, you know I've tried to follow along on this. I think putting it to a vote would be really good. I mean this is a very big move for the for the City I think you know change is scary for people, but I don't think change has to be scary and I think as we're more familiar with this, I think there are great.

Agenda Report Page 536 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Elise Collins* Yes, I thank you so much again, for all you're doing and staying up late and doing all this and I know you're getting our appreciation. Change things difficult. One of my teachers, my yoga teacher says, “staying the same is hard and change is hard. Which do you want to choose?” So, with that I want to say that I also would like to see some of the sights in the city center put back on the table and the reason I say this is because my family has lived in the center of town since the late 1960s, and the reason we moved here like many was because of the schools. And because my mom never drove a car. We also, my mom had a career and many of the moms at that time were stay at home moms. I'd say like 95%, 90%. And the reason I'm saying that is because the whole economic model of the family has changed, and that allowed us to buy a house in Piedmont and living at Newman in the city center was so beneficial to our family because we took the bus everywhere. My mom didn't drive, so I could walk to school. I walked to school every day from kindergarten to high school. I also was hit by a car on Highland Avenue in the 1970s, so I know that this city center has not always been safe, but I agree with Hugh, who has a lot of expertise in transportation, and I think that we can redesign that the city center. The reason I think it's so important to have units in the city center, sorry I’m tired, is because of the schools because I think it's so important for families to walk to school and for people to have that ability to get on the bus and to go places. I want to say also that one of the things I haven't heard all night is that we are a high opportunity area and what that means is we have our schools. We have our parks. We have this beautiful community and that is why we're being asked to build so many units, because for so many years we said no, we didn't grow. Our population has not changed while the rest of the area has changed and for the school. Two hundred students, we are asking for 200 students, so we ask them to apply here and that the number of students is going to decline 6% in the next eight years across Alameda County and there's going to be even less students in higher income areas like Piedmont. So it looks really bad if we were saying no, you can't build housing here, you can't build housing in the city center, but you can come to our schools while Oakland schools are experiencing the same declining enrollment and are having, you know there's a lot of issues, and it does not look good for us. Thank you.

Ahil Saha* I just wanted to just briefly share just a little bit of my background. My mom is Black and my father is from India. I grew up in Louisiana and I remember, you know, driving down the street as a child and seeing the Ku Klux Klan handing out flyers and so you know, I've seen racism kind of upfront and close as a result of that and, you know in Piedmont, we moved here we wanted diversity. That was very important to us, and I feel that sometimes the racist term or racism is thrown out pretty casually and I don't think that.

You know, I support the Piedmont citizens for responsible community and I feel like everyone there has good intentions. I don't think racism has anything to do with what they're doing and I, you know, don't want development to happen downtown and I just wanted to throw that out Agenda Report Page 537 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
there because I know this is kind of a heated topic and you know, and I think that's a someone who's actually seen it and you know up close I wanted to share that perspective. So thank you so much. * = public comment via Zoom

POST COMMENT DEBATE SUMMARY
Please find the meeting minutes for the August 1, 2022 City Council meeting at:
https://piedmont.hosted.civiclive.com/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=18828355.

Agenda Report Page 538 Attachment 2 Exhibit A

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE HOUSING

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING SUMMARY
Format: In-Person & Zoom Virtual Meeting | January 12, 2023 - 5:30pm The purpose of the Special Planning Commission meeting on January 12, 2023, was to hold a public hearing, present changes to the Draft Housing Element Update, and consider a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the 2021-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element and the Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to CEQA for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

The Planning Commission meeting was held both in-person and virtually via a Zoom Meeting on Thursday, January 12, 2023, 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 8 members of the public attended in the Council Chambers and an unknown number participated via virtual meeting format. The meeting minutes posted to the City of Piedmont website (Piedmont.ca.gov) are the record of the meeting. The meeting agenda is outlined below:

1. Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Recap

2. HCD Draft Housing Element

3. Recommendation and Next Steps

4. Public Hearing

5. Planning Commission Recommendation

ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: approximately 8 attendees
City Staff
● Kevin Jackson – Planning and Building Director
● Pierce Macdonald– Senior Planner
● Mark Enea - Administrative Assistant
Planning Commission
● Rani Batra - Chair
● Jonathan Levine (not present)
● Douglas Strout
● Justin Zucker (Alternate)
● Yildiz Duransoy (not present)
Consultant Team
Section E.12
Agenda Report Page 539 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) – David Bergman, Kathryn Slama, Stefano Richichi ● Plan to Place – Paul Kronser

MEETING SUMMARY
Chair Rani Batra brought the meeting to order, welcomed public attendees, and explained the purpose of the meeting. The meeting moderator, City of Piedmont 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. Kevin Jackson then provided an introduction to the Housing Element Update process and past engagement process.

Kathryn Slama (LWC) presented a summary of the staff report and recapped the Housing Element process, followed by a summary of the changes since the release of the public review draft. Karly Kaufman from Rincon Consultants then provided a brief overview of the Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration that was prepared and the findings and next steps. After the presentation concluded, time was given to the Planning Commission members to offer comments and ask any clarifying questions. Wrapping up the presentation, Kathryn then summarized the City Staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and reviewed the next steps in the Housing Element update process.

After the presentation, the Planning Commission members were invited to make comments, ask questions of City staff and the consulting team, prior to hearing public comment. Next, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and members of the public were asked to make any comments where speakers were allowed up to three minutes to voice comments, and there was not a 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 clarifying questions from the public comment period. After comments and discussion between Commissioners, City staff, and the consulting team, a motion to adopt the Housing Element Update was made and roll call vote was initiated. The motion was passed 3-0 by the Planning Commission to recommend the City Council adopt the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update with revisions necessary to address HCD comments and adopt the Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to CEQA for the 6th Cycle Housing Element project.

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
Deborah Leland I've been following the process, two things I'm confused by: 1. PC taking up this item before HCD comments have been received, is PC foregoing HCD feedback? or will the Council Agenda Report Page 540 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
approve without HCD input. 2. CEQA process - different then what was scoped out at the beginning at the process. We would value the actual environmental review, when GP and Zoning amendments will be made. Make sure impacts are looked at together sooner than later.

Agenda Report Page 541 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Section E.13
Miscellaneous Outreach Materials
Agenda Report Page 542 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element
FAQ Zoning Regulations, Article 34 of the California
Constitution, Voting, and Consequences
September 13, 2022

1. What zoning‐related actions are proposed in the current draft of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element? When do the zoning‐related actions occur?
The adoption of a Draft Housing Element does not enact any modifications to the Zoning Ordinance. The Draft Housing Element includes policies and programsthat call for revisionsto the Zoning Ordinance that allow for the housing described in the Element. Implementation of modifications to the Zoning Ordinance is expected to occur within 3 years after the Element’s adoption and will be subject to public review, community meetings, and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Proposed zoning‐related changes in the current draft of the City’s Housing Element include revisions to regulations related to building height, setbacks, lot coverage, floor area ratio, on‐site parking, the number of dwelling units per acre (density), and permitting processes.  The specific changes will vary by zone.  The proposed implementation of 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element does not include properties to be transferred from one zoning district to another, nor includes any program that would reduce or enlarge a zoning district boundary with respect to size or area.

2. What zoning‐related actions trigger a vote of the electorate under Section 9.02 of the Piedmont Charter? Does Council approval of the 6th Cycle Housing Element automatically result in revisions to the City’s zoning regulations?
No.  While the draft Housing Element includes policies and programs to revise the City’s Zoning Ordinance, those actions would require the City to go through a robust public process following approval of the Housing Element before any such changes are considered and effectuated.

Programs under the Housing Element, such as zoning changes, must occur within 1‐3 years, depending on the date of adoption deadline.  An action to adopt the Housing Element does not result in automatic changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

3. After the Housing Element is certified, when and how do the changes to density (and other zoning changes) take place?
In order to be in compliance with State Housing Element law, local jurisdictions in the ABAG region, including Piedmont, must implement significant policies and programs in their adopted Housing Elements within three years of the required adoption deadline of January 31, 2023.

However, if a local jurisdiction fails to adopt a 6th cycle Housing Element by May 31, 2023, implementation of significant policies and programs must occur with 1 year of the adoption deadline.

Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance is a public process that requires community engagement and several public meetings. Community meetings generally occur before and during the drafting of a revised Code. The revisions are posted for public review and comment. The Planning Commission reviews the revisions and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which is the decision‐ Agenda Report Page 543 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
making body. Revisions to the City Code are by ordinance, in which the revised Code has a first and then second reading before Council, and which goes into effect 30 days after the second reading.

4. What provisions of the City Charter might be applicable to the Housing Element update? According to the City Charter, a vote of the electorate is required if the City were to propose extending or reducing the boundaries of any specific zone or changing any property from one zone to another. The Charter does not require a vote if the City changes uses or densities within a zone.

5. What is Article 34 of the California Constitution?
Article 34 of the California Constitution provides a voter approval requirement prior to approving a “low rent housing project,” which requirement is subject to several exceptions.  The issue of whether voter approval is required in a given circumstance is dependent upon the details of a specific project.

6. If the Housing Element provides for the development of affordable housing, does Article 34 of the California Constitution require that the Housing Element be put before the voters? No.  Article 34 of the California Constitution does not impose a requirement on public agencies to place planning documents such as Housing Element revisions before the voters.

7. Would a vote of the electorate on the City’s Housing Element or zoning regulations provide the residents of Piedmont more control over the type, density, and location of housing in Piedmont? No.  Even if the electorate took an action to vote on the Housing Element, the outcome of the vote would not eliminate any requirement for the City to comply with State law to meet the City’s RHNA obligations.

8. What are the consequences and potential penalties that the City could face if it does not have a Certified Housing Element by the May 2023 deadline?
Under legislation enacted in recent years, if a city does not comply with State law, a court may limit local land use decision‐making authority including the loss of the right to approve or deny certain projects. Additionally, a city without a certified Housing Element can face significant fines and litigation. In effect, if a city does not plan to accommodate new housing units and growth in their community, the State of California will decide how the growth will occur, thereby diminishing rather than enhancing local control.

Conversely, an HCD‐certified Housing Element makes cities eligible for numerous sources of funding and grants, such as Local Housing Allocations, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Grants, SB 1 transportation funding for roadways and bridges, CalHOME Program Grants, Infill Infrastructure Grants, Pro‐Housing Designation funding, Local Housing Trust Funds, and Regional Transportation Funds (such as MTC’s OneBayArea Grants). These funding opportunities would not be available to the City if it does not have a certified housing element.

Agenda Report Page 544 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
CONTACT:
[email protected]
https://piedmont.ca.gov
JOIN US AT:
piedmontishome.org
Q: The EBMUD reservoir site and other sites that appear available for the development of housing are not included in the Draft Housing Element Sites Inventory. Why not? A: Using guidance from HCD, City staff and the consultant team undertook a comprehensive review of properties across Piedmont to identify potential housing sites. This systematic analysis was further refined by input from the community. The table on the following page includes sites that were considered by City decision-makers and consultants but are ultimately not included in the Sites Inventory at this time for the reasons listed in the table.

Note: The Sites Inventory does not obligate a property owner to change how they use their property nor force a property owner to develop if it is not in their best interest to do so. 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT

CONSIDERED SITES FAQ
City of
Piedmont
The City’s team of housing
staff and consultants are in
the process of revising the
Sites Inventory (pages 157
to 163 of the Draft Housing
Element published April 8,
2022) based on direction
from the City Council,
provided at the Council’s
August 1, 2022, meeting.

Agenda Report Page 545 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Sites Considered But Removed From Sites Inventory
Piedmont Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
Address/
Location Known As Size Reason Not Included or Removed
Blair Avenue at
Scenic Avenue EBMUD Reservoir 9.66
City staff met with EBMUD on March 4, 2021, at which time EBMUD confirmed their plans to renovate the Blair Reservoir. Renovation must be completed before EBMUD will consider dedicating any of the Reservoir property to housing
Highland
Avenue
700 Block
Highland Strip 0.32 At its June 20, 2022 meeting, the City Council directed staff to remove this property from the Sites Inventory.

Vista Avenue at
Bonita Avenue
CRTC (Corey Reich
Tennis Center) 0.70 At its June 20, 2022 meeting, the City Council directed staff to remove thisproperty from the Sites Inventory. 120 Vista
Avenue
City Hall &
Veterans Hall 0.83 At its August 1, 2022, meeting, the City Council directed staff to remove this property from the Sites Inventory, subject to additional analysis. 801 Magnolia
Avenue
Piedmont Center for
the Arts 0.31
At its August 1, 2022 meeting, the City Council directed staff to perform fiscal analysis on the feasibility of siting moderate-income housing on this site and to analyze locating the housing elsewhere.

Highland Way
Roadway between
Wells Fargo Bank and
Piedmont Community
Church
NA As a public right-of-way, this area does not qualify as a developable parcel and does not meet the criteria to be considered as a site for housing. 198 Oak Road Davie Tennis Stadium 5.0 The City of Oakland owns this property and does not have plans to discontinue its current use as a recreational facility.
(35) Prospect
Road Vacant EBMUD Parcel 0.15 EBMUD water supply line runs underground through this lot. Cannot build atop pipeline and too costly to relocate to the public right-of-way. (1100) Harvard
Road Vacant EBMUD Parcel 0.43 EBMUD water supply line runs underground through this lot. Cannot build atop pipeline and too costly to relocate to the public right-of-way. 1507 Grand
Avenue EBMUD Pump Station 0.11 EBMUD water supply line runs underground through this lot. Cannot build atop pipeline and too costly to relocate facility elsewhere. 5000 Piedmont
Avenue
Mountain View Cem- etery 2+
A small portion of Mountain View Cemetery is in Piedmont. The State of California has established rigorous laws applicable to land designated as a cemetery. There is a presumption under the law in favor of leaving the land undisturbed.

Parkland
• Piedmont Park
• Dracena Park
• Linda Dog Park
• Crocker Park
NA
Under state law, cities are required to identify surplus public land that can be used for housing. In 2019, the State took the following actions to make public lands available for affordable housing development:
• An executive order to make excess state land available for affordable housing (E. O. N-06-19)
• Strengthening enforcement of the Surplus Lands Act (AB 1486, Ting, 2019) • Requiring cities and counties to inventory and report surplus and excess local public lands (AB 1255, Robert Rivas, 2019).

However, pursuant to Government Code Section 54220-54232, land designated for parks is not “surplus and excess public land.”
At its August 1, 2022 meeting, the City Council added Blair Park to the Sites Inventory on the recommendation of City staff in order to study changes that may be needed to Moraga Avenue, Coaches Field, and the City Corporation Yard to identify locations for new housing and to improve public facilities and open spaces in Moraga Canyon.

CONTACT:
[email protected]
https://piedmont.ca.gov
JOIN US AT:
piedmontishome.org
6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT

CONSIDERED SITES FAQ
City of
Piedmont
Agenda Report Page 546 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 1
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
What is the Housing Element, and why does it have to be updated? The Housing Element is a key part of a city’s General Plan and must be updated every eight years, per State law. The current project will update the Housing Element for the period of 2023 to 2031. This time period is the 6th Housing Element cycle. The Housing Element update will set forth the City’s goals, policies, and actions to address new and additional housing types in order to meet Piedmont’s immediate and long‐term housing needs as Piedmont grows for the period of 2023 to 2031.

What are the objectives of the Housing Element?
The Draft Housing Element provides:
 An analysis of housing needs in Piedmont
 Policies that address those needs based on the collective vision and values of our communities  Programs that would help implement those policies
 Guiding framework for future city legislation
 A sites inventory (also called the available land inventory or the opportunity sites map) In the sites inventory, a jurisdiction identifies where it has land capacity to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for all income categories. State law regulates which sites are eligible for inclusion on the sites inventory, including minimum and maximum size, potential displacement of existing occupants, whether or not redevelopment is feasible on the site, and so on. A site’s inclusion in the inventory does not require that housing be built there. By including a site in the inventory, the City is demonstrating to the State that, with the implementation of the programs and policies in section IV of the Draft Housing Element, there is enough land capacity for housing to meet the RHNA. The Housing Plan in section IV of the Draft Housing Element is the City’s policies and programs developed to facilitate development of housing, demonstrated in the sites inventory, as well as housing programs to increase housing affordability, promote fair housing, reduce barriers, and continue compliance with state law.

What are the main changes being proposed in the Draft Housing Element? The Draft Housing Element, published April 8, 2022, includes 7 goals, 56 policies, and 64 housing programs. The 7 goals are: #1 New Housing Construction; #2 Housing Conservation; #3 Affordable Housing Opportunities; #4 Elimination of Housing Constraints; #5 Special Needs Populations; #6 Sustainability and Energy; and #7 Equal Access to Housing. The proposed housing programs include:
 A proposal to study incentives to increase the production of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also called second units or in‐law units, on single‐family property in zones A and E.  A proposal to implement Senate Bill 9 (SB9) to allow lot splits and duplexes up to four units per lot, in zones A and E.
 A proposal to study the effects of the City Charter on the production of housing.  A proposed program to consider a specific plan for Moraga Canyon which would study the development of 132 homes along Moraga Avenue on City‐owned property in the City’s corporation yard over the 8‐year planning period.
 A proposed program to consider zoning amendments to increase permitted residential density (allowed dwelling units per acre) in zones B, C, and D, up to a maximum of 80 units per acre.  A proposed program to consider zoning amendments to permit religious institutions to build housing that is affiliated with the religious use, up to 21 dwellings per acre.

Agenda Report Page 547 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 2
City of Piedmont
Housing Element Update
What is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)?
Each region of the State is allocated a specific number of housing units to meet the housing needs of people in four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. This allocation is termed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA, pronounced “Ree‐na.” The RHNA is a housing production goal established by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development and the Association of Bay Area Governments. The RHNA determines how much housing each municipality must accommodate through its regulations. Piedmont is tasked with creating a plan to ensure land use and zoning regulations allow enough housing to meet the RHNA. Piedmont does not have to develop all the housing needed, but the City must have a plan that allows the housing to be built. The RHNA for Piedmont is 587 housing units in the following categories: 163 homes affordable to very low‐income households (earning less than 50% AMI or “area median income”); 94 homes affordable to households earning less than 80% AMI; 92 homes affordable to people earning 80 to 120% AMI; and 238 homes affordable to people earning more than 120% AMI.

How is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation determined? The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) starts the Housing Element revision process by determining how many additional units of housing each region in the State will need over the next cycle. HCD considers the projected population increase to determine the anticipated household growth rate, household sizes, household formation, vacancy rates and jobs‐housing balance to determine an allocation of housing need for the region. After determining the need for additional housing in each region, HCD allocates that need to the regional Council of Governments (COGs). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the COG for the nine‐county Bay Area region. Next, ABAG assigned each jurisdiction within the region with its “fair share” of the RHNA for the Housing Element cycle, based on an allocation methodology developed as part of the process. The assigned need is broken down by the following income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate.

Can the City of Piedmont appeal its RHNA assignment of 587 housing units? On June 21, 2021, the City considered the option of filing an appeal of the RHNA at a public meeting of the City Council. The staff report and presentation recommended that the City not file an appeal.  Staff noted that Piedmont’s RHNA is the smallest in Alameda County (Albany has 1,114 new units and Emeryville, 1,815 new units). Based on the criteria for an appeal and the record of appeals filed by Southern California jurisdictions, as well as based on the opinion of the City Attorney, it was clear that an appeal of Piedmont’s RHNA would be unsuccessful.  Staff’s determination was proven correct. ABAG’s Administrative Committee denied all 28 appeals submitted by local jurisdictions in the Bay Area region, with the exception of the appeal submitted by Contra Costa County. The ABAG Administrative Committee partially granted that appeal because an area annexed to Pittsburg in 2018 was incorrectly included as part of unincorporated Contra Costa County, and ABAG lowered Contra Costa’s RHNA by 35 housing units.

There are no further pending appeals nor opportunities to appeal.

If 587 units aren’t built, does that constitute non‐compliance? No, there is no requirement that 587 housing units be built in Piedmont by 2031. The State requirement is that the City develop a Housing Element and implement its policies and programs that allow for the construction of 587 housing units in multiple income categories. Non‐compliance is the failure to comply with State housing laws, including the failure to obtain a certified Housing Element by May 2023.

Agenda Report Page 548 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
FACT: Adopting an updated Housing
Element IS NOT OPTIONAL.

The State of California requires all cities to
update their Housing Element every 8 years to
accommodate their assigned Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA).

The updated Housing Element must receive
certification from the State.

FACT: Putting the draft Housing
Element to the voters as a ballot
initiative would diminish—not
enhance—local control.

Voting on the Housing Element would not
eliminate any requirement for Piedmont to
comply with State law.

Failure to adopt an updated Housing Element
by the State mandated deadline could result in
harsh and costly fines and could limit
Piedmont’s authority over future local land use
decisions.

FACT: The City Charter does not
require a vote on the type of zoning
changes proposed in the draft
Housing Element.

Piedmont’s City Charter (Sec 9.01) gives the
City Council authority over the General Plan,
which includes the Housing Element. Adding
uses or changing densities to existing zones
does not require voter approval.

FACT: The Housing Element does not
require Piedmont to build 587 units
of new housing.

The Housing Element only plans for the
CAPACITY for development of new housing. It
does not require the actual development or
construction of those housing units.

FACT: The City government itself would
not build housing.

Any development being planned in the Housing
Element would be carried out by individual
property owners and private developers.

FACT: Affordable housing is less
than half of the City’s allocation.

Piedmont’s allocation includes 257 affordable
(low and very low income) units, 92 moderate
income units, and 238 above moderate income
units, for a total of 587.

FACT: The City cannot reduce its
RHNA allocation or otherwise get out
of updating its Housing Element.

Piedmont submitted seven letters to the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
articulating concerns about the 6th cycle
housing allocations. Due in part to these
actions, our mandate is 50% less than many
comparable cities.

The period for appeals is over. If the City had
appealed to ABAG, we would have risked
increasing our numbers. All appeals to ABAG
were rejected except for one that involved an
incorrect jurisdictional boundary.

FACT: The Draft Housing Element DOES
NOT include “high-density” apartment
buildings throughout Piedmont.

The current draft does not propose allowing
apartment buildings in single-family areas,
which comprise about 86% of land in
Piedmont.

The draft proposes increasing allowed density
only in existing commercial/mixed use areas,
public facilities, and multifamily zones, as well
as for houses of worship building on their own
property.

Agenda Report Page 549 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
September 30, 2022
Dear Neighbor,
As many of you know, I grew up in Piedmont and returned to raise children here. My spouse and I plan to stay here after retirement as we love our friendly neighbors, the classic architecture, and the beautiful public spaces.

Like many of you, I had serious concerns when I first learned about the State mandate that requires Piedmont to plan for significant growth over the next 8 years. I am writing to share with you some things I have learned since then.
• California requires Piedmont to plan for new housing. Piedmont is required by the State to create a plan, called a “Housing Element,” that shows how the City has capacity to accommodate 587 units of new housing, including 257 affordable units, by 2031.
• The Housing Element does not guarantee new development. Piedmont does not have to build 587 new homes, only to demonstrate that zoning regulations and land within city limits could accommodate them. Any future development would be carried out by individual property owners and would have to meet Piedmont’s design, environmental, and traffic safety standards. • Adopting a Housing Element is not optional. If Piedmont does not adopt a compliant Housing Element by May 31, 2023, the City will be subject to significant fines. Piedmont could also become ineligible for State funding for essential needs like infrastructure and road repair.
• Failure to meet State deadlines could result in loss of local control.

Without a compliant Housing Element, Piedmont would be vulnerable to costly lawsuits. In the event of a successful legal challenge, a court could appoint a receiver to bring the City into compliance. This could result in Piedmont losing authority to regulate development within our city.
• Adopting a Housing Element is only the beginning: Once the State approves Piedmont’s Housing Element, the City will spend 2-3 years working with the community to study impacts and implement the policies, programs, Agenda Report Page 550 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
and regulatory changes proposed in the plan. After all that, development of new housing could occur if, where, and when an individual property owner chooses.

It is a complex endeavor to craft a plan that maintains the unique community character we all treasure while also meeting State requirements. As City Administrator, I’ve been fortunate to have a front row seat to watch the process unfold and help keep it on track.

We’ve heard from hundreds of Piedmonters at public forums, through interactive online tools, and at dozens of Committee, Commission, and Council meetings. The draft Housing Element has evolved a great deal over the past 18 months based on this input. It may change again before adoption. Right now, the core of the plan is:
• Making it easier for property owners to build ADUs (in-law units). • Adopting zoning changes that would allow property owners to split certain single-family homes into duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes, which is now State law (SB9).
• Creating a detailed plan for how to accommodate 132 homes on City-owned property in Moraga Canyon. This would involve significant public participation as well as environmental impact and traffic studies. • Planning for more density (up to 4 or 5 stories) in the existing commercial area on Grand Avenue.

I invite you to get involved by visiting PiedmontisHome.org, where you’ll find detailed FAQs, videos, fact sheets, past meeting materials, and much more. Use the feedback form to share your ideas. Sign up for email updates to stay informed about news, future meetings, and other opportunities to weigh in.

I know that by working together, our community can find a way to plan for mandated growth while maintaining Piedmont's beauty, quality schools, and excellent public services. Thank you for being part of this process.

Sincerely,

CITY OF PIEDMONT
Sara Lillevand
City Administrator
Agenda Report Page 551 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank
Agenda Report Page 552 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-1 Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH)
Contents
Section F.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 32 F.1.1 Notes on Figures and Analysis ........................................................................... 32 Section F.2 Assessment of Fair Housing ............................................................................... 43 F.2.1 History of Fair Housing Issues in Piedmont ........................................................ 43 F.2.2 Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement.......................................................... 876 F.2.3 Integration and Segregation.............................................................................. 987 F.2.4 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ................................. 211918 F.2.5 Access to Opportunity ................................................................................. 252221 F.2.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................................................ 322928 F.2.7 Other Relevant Factors ............................................................................... 403736 F.2.8 Summary of Fair Housing Issues ................................................................ 423938 Section F.3 Sites Inventory ............................................................................................ 434039 F.3.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation .............................................. 454241 F.3.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity ................................................. 484544 Section F.4 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions ............................................. 535049 Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) ...................... F-1 Section F.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................F-2 F.1.1 Notes on Figures and Analysis ..........................................................................F-2 Section F.2 Assessment of Fair Housing ..............................................................................F-2 F.2.1 Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement...........................................................F-2 F.2.2 Integration and Segregation...............................................................................F-3 F.2.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ......................................F-13 F.2.4 Access to Opportunity ......................................................................................F-16 F.2.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs .....................................................................F-23 F.2.6 Other Relevant Factors ....................................................................................F-31 F.2.7 Summary of Fair Housing Issues .....................................................................F-33 Section F.3 Sites Inventory .................................................................................................F-33 F.3.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation ...................................................F-34 Agenda Report Page 553 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-2 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing F.3.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity ......................................................F-37 Section F.4 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions ..................................................F-40 Agenda Report Page 554 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-3 Section F.1 Introduction
Assembly Bill 686, signed in 2018, establishes a statewide framework to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) with the goal of achieving better economic and health outcomes for all Californians through equitable housing policies. AB 686 requires cities and counties to take deliberate actions to foster inclusive communities, advance fair and equal housing choice, and address racial and economic disparities through local policies and programs.

Housing elements are now required to address the following five components:

1. Inclusive and Equitable Outreach: A summary of fair housing outreach and capacity that includes all economic segments of the community.

2. Assessment of Fair Housing: An assessment of fair housing issues, including integration and segregation patterns, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs of special needs groups.

3. Analysis of Sites Inventory: An evaluation of whether the sites inventory improve or exacerbate conditions for fair housing.

4. Identification of Contributing Factors: The identification and prioritization of contributing factors related to fair housing issue.

5. Priorities, Goals, and Actions to AFFH: The identification of fair housing goals and actions that directly address the contributing factors outlined above. The housing element should include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress and fair housing results.

This appendix documents AFFH components 2 two through five5. The summary of AFFH-related outreach is included in Housing Element Section I.E (Summary of Public Participation) Appendix E (Meeting Summaries).

F.1.1 Notes on Figures and Analysis
This Appendix contains geospatial data downloaded from HCD’s AFFH Data and Mapping Resources Hub.

Additional analysis is sourced from the U.S. Census’ American Community Survey and HCD’s pre-certified data, where appropriate. Geospatial data provided by HCD for AFFH mapping purposes is different than the ABAGprovided “safe harbor” data used in the housing needs assessment (Appendix A). Note that each source will be referenced when used in this Appendix.

Agenda Report Page 555 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-4 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Section F.2 Assessment of Fair Housing
F.2.1 History of Fair Housing Issues in Piedmont
Overview
On August 3, 2020, the Piedmont City Council passed a resolution officially acknowledging the racism of the past, resolved to review City policies, ordinances, values, goals, and missions though an anti-racism lens, and committed to fostering a safe, inclusive, and civil community.1 This included an acknowledgement of exclusionary housing policies that played a determinative role in the formation of the City. The resolution was a Citywide response to national conversations in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, MN. The following historical context is informed by the City Council’s resolution and acknowledges the effects that discrimination at the national, state, and local levels of government has had on the City of Piedmont’s land use patterns and demographics.

Consistent with the City Council’s resolution, on July 19, 2021, the City Council approved an agreement with the University of Texas, San Antonio to conduct an analysis of calls for service to which police officers respond. The study included the types of calls for service to which police officers respond; if there are alternative responses based on the call types; and the frequency of biased-based calls for police intervention from the public that lack specific criminal-related behavior. The study by University of Texas researchers was presented to the City Council on September 19, 2022, and recommended seven improvements to the City’s procedures and requirements, which are on-going (see September 19, 2022 City Council staff report posted on the City website at https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=18933094 ).

In addition, since 2020 and for years before, local community groups are and have been addressing racial justice in Piedmont, each with a different focus. The Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign (PREC) is working with allied organizations and individuals to raise awareness about racism and support policies for racial justice and equity.2 The Piedmont Anti-Racism and Diversity Committee (PADC) works to create opportunities to engage in meaningful change regarding issues of race and diversity and to advance the shared values of racial equity, diversity, and inclusion.3 The City of Piedmont appreciates the work of these local organizations and their efforts to identify ongoing or potential issues surrounding access to housing in Piedmont. Consultation with these groups along with input from the Piedmont Historical Society, the Exedra news website, and the Oakland Public Library, helped inform the following discussion as resources of local knowledge and data. 1 City of Piedmont, Council Agenda Report, “A Resolution Unequivocally Rejecting Racism,” August 3, 2020, https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16929873. 2 Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign (PREC), https://www.piedmontracialequity.org/ 3 Piedmont Anti-Racism and Diversity Committee (PADC), https://www.padc.info/ Agenda Report Page 556 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-5 The proceeding subsections describe distinct periods of Piedmont’s history as they relates to broader historical trends in the State/Bay Area and, where applicable, their relevance to fair housing issues and the Housing Element update process.

Historical Context
Before the arrival of European settlers, Alameda County, including the City of Piedmont, was the ancestral homeland of the Chochenyo people, one of the many tribal groupings which constitute the indigenous Ohlone people of Northern California. The Chochenyo inhabited the East Bay for thousands of years; evidence of their long presence includes shell mounds along the Bay and arrowheads, tools, funeral burials, and ornaments occasionally unearthed in settlement sites. Most villages were located along the shoreline and creeks, the nearest to Piedmont being Huichin (from Temescal Creek in North Oakland to present-day Richmond).4 The legacies of European colonization – including the Spanish missionary system, the California Gold Rush, foreign diseases, and United States federal- and State-imposed policies and practices – forcibly displaced the Ohlone people from their land.5 As part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element update, the City consulted with Native American tribes and the California Native American Heritage Commission to determine the extent of pre-settlement resources in Piedmont. Although no places of special significance are documented, it is still possible that artifacts exist today. The U.S. Census reported that no Native American or Alaskan Native person was living in Piedmont in 2021, showing the extent of the removal of this population from the community that had occurred as a part of the settlement of California dating back to the 18th Century. Though descendants of the Ohlone are still fighting for federal recognition, communities of Chochenyo, Muwekma, and other Ohlone groups still live throughout the Bay Area and work through political and cultural organizations to revitalize their culture.6 Following the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869, waves of migration and immigration caused the population of the Bay Area to boom. Following the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, many displaced people settled in the East Bay, with the City of Oakland expanding rapidly through annexation of the smaller communities which surrounded it. Residents of then-unincorporated Piedmont, concerned about the impact that annexation into a much larger municipality would have on taxes and public services, voted to incorporate as a charter city in 1907. Piedmont would go on to construct its combined City Hall and fire station in 1910, and between 1907 and 1940, some 2,500 homes were built in Piedmont - nearly 70 percent of the City’s existing housing stock.

Piedmont’s growth was influenced by the City Beautiful urban planning movement, which promoted the idea that city planning and design could not be separated from social issues and should encourage civic pride and engagement. However, this ideology is now seen as having failed to take into account the needs or poor or working-class people, and produced urban landscapes that typically excluded People of Color. In 1913, Wickham Havens, a local real estate developer, listed 32 millionaires living in Piedmont and claimed it “per capita, the wealthiest town of its size in California.” Newspapers quickly called Piedmont the “City of Millionaires.” 7 Piedmont
residents included families that had made their fortunes during the rapid industrialization and laissez-faire regulation of the Gilded Age. Notably, these millionaires did not include any non-White families, and much of the 4 Sogorea Te’ Land Trust, “Lisjan (Ohlone) History & Territory,” https://sogoreate-landtrust.org/lisjan-history-and-territory/ 5 Ibid.
6 Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, “Learn more about the Tribe’s efforts,” http://www.muwekma.org/learn-more-about-the-tribes-efforts.html 7 History of Piedmont, “Piedmont Becomes a City,” https://www.historyofpiedmont.com/after1907 Agenda Report Page 557 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-6 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing wealth that was accumulated in this era was the product of immigrant and non-White laborers, living in cities such as Oakland and other larger Bay Area cities.8
A key method of enforcing racist planning practices was the use of racially restrictive covenants. However, covenants were not always necessary in the face of widely-held prejudice, as evidenced by newspaper advertisements for at least one historical Piedmont developer, which highlighted racial segregation as a selling point.9 The story of Sidney Dearing, Piedmont’s first Black property owner, is an important example that reveals racist and exclusionary historical practices. According to the Piedmont Historical Society, Dearing was a Texas-born businessman who arrived in Oakland in 1907 and founded the Creole Café jazz club.10 In 1924, the Dearing family faced violence and harassment in the form of angry mobs, bombs, and ultimately the City’s threat of condemnation of their property for a roadway – having failed to enforce a racially restrictive covenant that expired in 1923. The Piedmont Police Chief at the time was a high-ranking member of the local Ku Klux Klan and did not provide adequate protection for the family. Dearing hired John D.

Drake, an attorney and President of the Northern California branch of the NAACP, to defend his constitutional and civil rights. Under intense pressure, the Dearing family sold their home and were driven from Piedmont.

Racially restrictive covenants, “redlining,” and other practices demonstrate the types of policies that perpetuated patterns of segregation throughout the nation, restricting how non-White residents could purchase homes, acquire wealth, and integrate into communities for decades. In Piedmont, the federal government’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) specifically classified Piedmont as one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the entire East Bay, adding valuable financial benefits to homeowners to the cumulative impacts of local and State policies.11 While these practices officially ended with the enactment of the Fair Housing Act (1968) and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (1975), they shaped patterns that continue to persist in Piedmont today, particularly compared to the economic and racial diversity of the City of Oakland.

Fair Housing in Piedmont Today
As the City of Oakland’s population grew quickly and encouraged the development of multi-family housing, Piedmont’s population remained static. In Piedmont, 9,866 people in 1940 and 10,917 people in 1970 lived in predominantly single-family zoning districts. While African, Hispanic, and Asian American populations grew steadily in Oakland, Piedmont’s population of African Americans as a percentage of overall population decreased from 1.6 percent in 1950 to 0.6 percent in 1970, and Asian Americans increased slowly from 0.8 percent in 1950 to 2.9 percent in 1970. Notably, the African American population in Piedmont has increased to only 1.4 percent of the total population in 2021, according to U.S. Census data (ACS). Historic policies like the local, State, and national policies described above, as well as the City’s historic enforcement of racial covenants and limited multi-family zoning, likely resulted in the racial and ethnic patterns discussed below in Section F.2.3 (Patterns of Integration and Segregation). 8 Nick Levinson and Marta Symkowick, Piedmont Exedra, “After Dearing: Residential segregation and the ongoing effects on Piedmont,” 2020. https://piedmontexedra.com/2020/10/after-dearing-residential-segregation-and-the-ongoing-effects-on-piedmont 9 Ibid.
10 Gail G. Lombardi, Piedmont Historical Society, “Sidney Dearing in Piedmont,” 1924-1925. https://piedmonthistorical.org/__trashed.html 11 University of Richmond: Mapping Inequality, “Introduction,” https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=11/37.8/-122.371&city=oaklandca&text=intro Agenda Report Page 558 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-7 In recent years, Piedmont’s demographics have become progressively more diverse, with the population reported as races other than White increasing from 3.5 percent in 1970 to 26.6 percent in 2021. Factors that have increased the City’s diversity include Piedmont’s housing programs from the 4 th and 5th Cycle Housing
Element updates. In 2017, the City Council implemented the 5 th Cycle Housing Element by adopting
comprehensive revisions to Chapter 17 (Planning & Land Use). Amendments included adding multi-family residential uses to commercial zones, decreasing the minimum lot size in the single-family zones, reducing parking requirements for residential uses, relaxing regulations for accessory dwelling units, and clarifying the limitations on the restrictions placed on zoning in the City Charter in 1961.

The City of Piedmont’s population remains disproportionately affluent today compared to the diversity of incomes in other Bay Area cities. Piedmont’s 6th Cycle Housing Element addresses the City’s concentration of affluence and lack of racial and economic diversity by a number of new programs to increase access and housing mobility for residents with lower incomes; remove governmental constraints on multi-family housing and affordable housing; overcome non-governmental constraints, such as high land costs and availability of vacant land; and increase production of publicly subsidized, multi-family affordable housing on City-owned surplus land. These programs are listed at the end of this Appendix in Section F.4 (Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions) and described in detail in Housing Element Section IV (Housing Plan: Goals, Policies, and Programs).

Recognizing the legacy of these practices across the State, Piedmont’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing, as outlined in the introduction to this Appendix, are intended to address the racial and economic disparities that exist, protect existing vulnerable populations from displacement, and improve access to local opportunities and housing choices for all. The City of Piedmont is committed to advancing and supporting these efforts.

Agenda Report Page 559 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-8 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing F.2.1F.2.2 Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement
Fair housing complaints can be an indicator of housing discrimination. Fair housing issues can arise through discrimination against an individual based on the protected classifications of disability, race, national origin, familial status, disability, religion, or sex when renting or selling a dwelling unit.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is the federal agency responsible for eliminating housing discrimination, promote economic opportunity, and achieve diverse, inclusive communities. FHEO services and activities include investigating fair housing complaints, conducting compliance reviews, ensuring civil rights in HUD programs, and managing fair housing grants.

Locally, Tthe Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO Housing) provides fair housing services to urban and unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Equal housing access is their primary service component.

According to 2019 ECHO Housing data, Piedmont accounted for less than one percent of alleged housing discrimination complaints from 2015 to 2019, with most complaints occurring in Oakland, followed by the City of Alameda during this time.
12 . These complaints within the County were mostly related to the protected classification of disability (37 percent) at about 37 percent, next was , race (31 percent)the protected classification of race at about 31 percent, the category of “Other” at approximately( 15 percent), and the classification of familial status (was fourth at about 7 percent). According to ECHO Housing, Piedmont had one fair housing complaint from 2016-2021 (a disability complaint in 2021), which resulted in education being provided to the landlord to settle the matter. No attorney was needed for resolution of the complaint in question.

The Ccity does not have any pending lawsuits, enforcement actions, judgements, settlements, or findings related to fair housing and civil rights.

The city City provides residents with fair housing information primarily by posting links to the City’s website. This information includes the “Piedmont Is Home” policy initiative, requesting resident’s feedback on new fair housing programs,s instructions on how to be included in the initiative, workshop videos, and providing relevant contact information. The City continues to receive questions, comments, and recommendations on fair housing through the Piedmont is Home website as well as direct calls from Piedmont residents.

Of particular note is resident concern over housing for special needs groups including seniors, persons with disabilities, and new families with young children. These new programs are anticipated to include expanding fair housing information and resources available through the City’s website. The website provides links for Housing Element updates, new housing programs, and public participation on housing policy.

The City complies with State and federal housing laws as follows:
• Fair Housing Act; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – the City complies by ensuring its actions related to housing are not discriminatory through City protocols, decision-making procedures, and adhering to non-discrimination requirements of federal funding programs. • Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – see Fair Housing Act; also, the City complies through its accessibility protocols, administered and enforced by the City’s ADA/504 Coordinator and Building Official. 12 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, County of Alameda, 2020.

Agenda Report Page 560 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-9 • Americans with Disabilities Act – the City complies with the ADA through building permit review and issuance and as described in Appendix C (Housing Constraints), as well as review by the City engineer during design and construction of improvements in the public right-of-way. • California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and FEHA Regulations – the City complies with FEHA and its regulations through established City protocols for hiring and decision making, mandatory trainings for City staff, and legal counsel and advisement. • Government Code Section 65008 – the City ensures that the City’s actions are not discriminatory through training programs conducted by the City’s Human Resources Department. Programs are included in this Housing Element to facilitate housing for all households, including protected classes (e.g., programs regarding residential care facilities, reasonable accommodation, and emergency shelters). • Government Code Section 8899.50 – Appendix F of this Housing Element documents compliance with AFFH requirements.
• Government Code Section 11135 et. seq. – the City complies with anti-discrimination requirements through the City’s Human Resources programs and the City’s procurement protocols. • Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) – while the City currently complies with State Density Bonus Law requirements, it must also update its density bonus provisions to ensure consistency with State law as described in Appendix C (Housing Constraints) and Program 1.Q (Density Bonus Ordinance).
• Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) – the City must adopt objective design standards in compliance with the Housing Accountability Act (SB 330) as described in Appendix C (Housing Constraints) and Program 4.M (Facilitate Multi-Family and Residential Mixed-Use Projects by Right Subject to Objective Standards).
• No-Net-Loss Law (Government Code Section 65863) – the City has documented compliance with sufficient capacity for RHNA and will ensure compliance with no-net-loss via Program 2.D (Condominium Conversions).
• Least Cost Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65913.1) – the City includes programs in this Housing Element to ensure that sufficient land is zoned with appropriate standards to accommodate its RHNA.
• Excessive subdivision standards (Government Code Section 65913.2) – the City’s subdivision standards are typical or not excessive in compliance with the Government Code (see Appendix C, Section C.2.5).
• Limits on growth control (Government Code Section 65302.8) – the City complies as it has no growth control measures.
• Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583) – this Housing Element documents compliance with Housing Element Law.

F.2.2F.2.3 Integration and Segregation
Piedmont’s 6
th Cycle Housing Element is being prepared in the context of a long history of discrimination in access to land in the Bay Area, beginning with the violent expropriation of native Ohlone territory by the Spanish Agenda Report Page 561 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-10 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Empire, continuing through the rancho era of Mexican independence, and perpetuated by the United States after California achieved statehood in 185048. Racial and ethnic controls were used to limit access to land and housing in Piedmont and throughout the region through a number of institutional tools. These ranged from the exclusion of ethnic Chinese laborers people from legal immigration (and thus land ownership) in the 19th and early 20th century, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, andto the use of restrictive covenants to prevent the sale of land and homes to non-Wwhite, non-Christian populations into the mid-20th century. Restrictive covenants were enforced until the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, but these and other forms of institutional racism still influence patterns and trends of community wealth and population today.

Race and Ethnicity
According to the United States Census, American Community Survey (ACS), approximately 25.5 percent of the Piedmont population belonged to a racial minority group in 2019. Piedmont has less than half of the proportion of population of non-whiteWhite racial and ethnic groups than Alameda County where non-whiteWhite racial and ethnic groups comprises 59.5 percent of the County’s total. Piedmont has a larger proportion of White, nonHispanic residents at 71 percent of the population than the county at 31 percent (see Appendix A, Housing Needs Assessment, Section A.2.3).

Figure F-1 provides Piedmont’s historic non-whiteWhite population percentages by block group from 2010 ACS data. In that year two block groups had non-whiteWhite populations that were below 20 percent. All the surrounding areas of the cityCity had a non-whiteWhite population of 21 to 40 percent in 2010 data.

Agenda Report Page 562 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-11 Figure F-1: Non-White Population (2010)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 563 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-12 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-2 shows the non-whiteWhite population percentage by census block group for 2018. The majority of block groups in the cityCity had a non-whiteWhite population of 21 to 40 percent. One block group had a nonwhiteWhite population percentage of 20 percent or less, and one block had a non-whiteWhite population of between 41 and 60 percent.

Figure F-2: Non-White Population (2018)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
The cityCity hhad higher percentages of non-whiteWhite population overall in 2018 as compared to 2010 according to the ACS data. The 2018 ACS data showed an increase in non-whiteWhite population percentage in two block groups in the cityCity over 2010 levels. The block group in the western portion of the cityCity bordered by Rose Avenue and Grand Avenue had the highest non-whiteWhite percentages in both years increasing from 34 to 43 percent from 2010 to 2018 according to the ACS data. Piedmont contains a racial and ethnic composition that is different from the region with a lower proportion of non-whiteWhite population than the county and Bay Area Region, but it has a similar racial and ethnic composition to the block groups in Oakland that are adjacent to the cityCity.

According to the March 2022 UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG-MTC AFFH Segregation Report (Segregation Report):
[T]he most isolated racial group (In Piedmont) is whiteWhite residents. Piedmont’s isolation index of 0.627 for [nonHispanic] whiteWhite residents means that the average whiteWhite resident lives in a neighborhood that is 62.7% whiteWhite. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups Agenda Report Page 564 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-13 in their neighborhoods... Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the whiteWhite population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

In other words, while the majority of the Piedmont community is comprised of non-Hispanic White residents, the community has become more diverse over the past 20 years. At the same time, according to the Segregation Report, Piedmont has a higher degree of segregation of non-Hispanic White population than average communities in the Bay Area region and non-Hispanic White residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups.

When comparing neighborhood diversity within the City of Piedmont using the Theil’s H-Index, which measures neighborhood diversity compared to the diversity of the cityCity overall, the Segregation Report noted that “racial segregation in Piedmont was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Piedmont is less than in the average Bay Area city.” This may be due to a variety of factors, including a small proportion of the City in racial or ethnic categories other than nonHispanic White. Utilizing a different method of measure, called a Dissimilarity Index, which measures how evenly any two groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall, the City has lower rates of dissimilarity, meaning the City has neighborhoods that are more similar and more integrated, than average communities in the Bay Area. Between groups, “the highest level of racial segregation is between Latinx and whiteWhite residents.“ However; it is important to note that the City of Piedmont has a low (<5%) proportion of Black/African American residents, indicating segregation between the jurisdiction and the region (inter-city segregation) is likely to be an important feature of Piedmont’s segregation patterns rather than intracity (within the City) segregation. (See Attachment 1 for more information from the Segregation Report) Disability
People are considered to have a disability if they have one or more of the following: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. Figure F3 presents the ACS 2010 to 2014 data for percentage of population with a disability and Figure F-4 shows the ACS 2015 to 2019 data for percentage of population with a disability.

According to the 2015 to 2019 ACS, approximately 7.1 percent of Piedmont residents had a disability, compared to 9.2 percent countywide (Table F-1). All census tracts in Piedmont consisted of less than 10 percent of residents experiencing disability during both five-year time periods. The distribution of this population is not appreciably different from the block groups in Oakland that are adjacent to the cityCity.

Table F-1: Percentage of Population with a Disability (2019) Year Piedmont Alameda County
Number Percentage Percentage
2019 808 7.1% 9.2%
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810
Agenda Report Page 565 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-14 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-3: Percent of Population with a Disability (2010 - 2014) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 566 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-15 Figure F-4: Percent of Population with a Disability (2015 - 2019) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old. Examples of familial status discrimination include refusal to rent to families with children, eviction of families once a child joins, confinement of families to specific floors of a building, and overly restrictive rules regarding children’s use of common areas.

According to the 2015 to 2019 ACS, 39.6 percent of households in Piedmont have one or more children under the age of 18. The cityCity’s share of households with children present is higher than that of the county overall at 33.6 percent. It is also higher than the surrounding neighboring jurisdictions of Oakland (27.4 percent), Emeryville (10.8 percent), and Berkeley (19.7 percent). Approximately 34.9 percent of married person households in Piedmont have one or more children under the age of 18 (Table F-2).

Table F-2: Percentage of Married-Couple Households with Children Year Piedmont Alameda County
2019 34.9% 23.4%
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table DP02
Agenda Report Page 567 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-16 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-5 shows the distribution of children in married couple households in Piedmont. The percentage of children residing within married couple households is consistent across the cityCity at over 80 percent according to the most recent ACS data.

Figure F-5: Children in Married-Couple Households (2015 - 2019) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Single-parent households are also a special needs group. Piedmont has 2.1 percent of households comprised of male or female single-parent households. Of particular consideration are female-headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. An estimated1.9 percent 13 of households in Piedmont are single female-headed households with children (Table F-3).
13 This estimate is 5.8 percent in Appendix A due to a different data source (ACS 2019 5-year Estimate, Table B11001).

Agenda Report Page 568 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-17 Table F-3: Percentage of Female-Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present Year Piedmont Alameda County
2019 1.9% 4.1%
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table DP02
As shown in Figure F-6, Piedmont has very little variability in the percentage of children in single female-headed households. The number of children in female-headed households is similar across the City at 6.0 percent in the western tract and 4.8 percent in the eastern tract according to ACS data.

Figure F-6: Children in Female-Headed Households with No Partner Present (2015 - 2019) Single parent households are also a fair housing protected class. Piedmont has 2.1 percent of households comprised of male or female single-parent households. Of particular consideration are female-headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. An estimated1.9 percent14 of households in Piedmont are single female-headed households with children (Table F-3).

Table F-3: Percentage of Female-Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present Year Piedmont Alameda County
2019 1.9% 4.1%
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table DP02
As shown in Figure F-6, Piedmont has very little variability in the percentage of children in single female-headed households. The number of children in female-headed households is similar across the city at 6.0 percent in the western tract and 4.8 percent in the eastern tract according to ACS data.

Figure F-6: Children in Female-Headed Households with No Partner Present (2015 - 2019) 14 This estimate is 5.8 percent in Appendix A due to a different data source (ACS 2019 5-year Estimate, Table B11001).

Agenda Report Page 569 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-18 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 570 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-19 Income
According to the 2015 to 2019 ACS, the median household income in Piedmont is $224,659, which is more than double the Alameda County median of $99,406 over the same period.

Figure F-7 displays the distribution of median household income by census block group in Piedmont. No variation in household income is evident in adjacent block groups in the cityCity but three block groups did not have income data. The missing census block data were due to the number of households in these census blocks causing data suppression. The missing household income information was replaced by ACS 2019 five-year data (Table S1901) from census tract 4261 as noted in Figure F-7.

Figure F-7: Median Household Income (2015 - 2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
The cityCity has high incomes overall with all six block groups and the tract-level data exceeding $125,000, which is much higher than the 2020 state median income of $87,000. Median household incomes in Piedmont and Alameda County for 2019 are presented in Table F-4.

Table F-4: Median Household Income
Year Piedmont Alameda County
2019 $224,659 $99,406
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901
Agenda Report Page 571 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-20 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Low to Moderate Income Households
Figure F-8 displays income distribution across Piedmont by showing the estimated percentage of low to moderate (LMI) income households by census tract. Neither of the tracts in Piedmont has more than 25% LMI households. The eastern tract has an estimated 525 LMI households representing 8.74 percent of the total, and the western tract has an estimated 480 LMI households representing 10.63 percent of the total. Levels of LMI households in areas to the north and east of the City are similar to Piedmont, while areas to the south and west of the cityCity have higher levels of LMI households than Piedmont. This pattern reflects the general trend within Oakland of LMI households increasing from east to west
Figure F-8: Low to Moderate Income Population
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Income should also be disaggregated by race and ethnicity to further understand local patterns of segregation and integration. The poverty rates among racial and ethnic groups in Piedmont and Alameda County are presented in Table F-5. Although the cityCitywide poverty rate was low at 2.4 percent in 2019 compared to 9.9 percent for Alameda County, not all racial and ethnic groups in Piedmont have the same likelihood of experiencing poverty.

Agenda Report Page 572 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-21 As shown in Table F-5, a higher percentage of Hispanic or Latino individuals in Piedmont experience poverty than other racial or ethnic groups at 7.0 percent. This level is significant because this group represents only 4.2 percent of the total population according to ACS data. The poverty rate for Latinos in Alameda County is 12.5 percent.

Table F-5: Poverty by Race/Ethnicity (2019)
Race/Ethnicity
Piedmont Alameda County
Number in
Poverty Poverty Rate % of Total Population Poverty Rate Total population below poverty level estimate 275 2.4% - 9.9% White alone 182 2.2% 74.5% 7.7%
Black or African American alone 0 0.0% 1.4% 20.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0 0.0% 0.0% 15.0% Asian alone 84 4.2% 17.8% 7.9%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone 0 0.0% 0.1% 9.1% Some other race alone 0 0.0% 0.2% 14.4%
Two or more races 9 1.3% 6.0% 8.9%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 33 7.0% 4.2% 12.5% Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table S1701
According to the Segregation Report, when analyzing isolation based on income:

Above Moderate-income residents are the most isolated income group in Piedmont. Piedmont’s isolation index of

0.845 for these residents means that the average Above Moderate-income resident in Piedmont lives in a neighborhood that is 84.5% Above Moderate-income. Among all income groups, the Low-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.

Utilizing the dissimilarity index measurement of isolation and segregation, the Segregation Report noted that “Segregation in Piedmont between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income decreased between 2010 and 2015…[Additionally,] lower-income residents are less segregated from other residents within Piedmont compared to other Jurisdictions in the region.” When looking at isolation and segregation by income at a regional perspective, “Piedmont had a lower share of very low-income residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low-income residents, a lower share of moderate-income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents” F.2.3F.2.4 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) are areas that exhibit both high racial/ethnic concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD defines R/ECAPs as census tracts with a majority non-whiteWhite population (50 percent or more) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower.

Agenda Report Page 573 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-22 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing R/ECAPs may indicate the presence of disadvantaged households facing housing insecurity and need. They identify areas whose residents may have faced historical discrimination and who continue to experience economic hardship, furthering entrenched inequities in these communities. According to the HUD data, there are no R/ECAPs in Piedmont or in the surrounding area (Figure F-9). The R/ECAPs closest to Piedmont are located along Interstate Highway 980 to the west of the cityCity.

Figure F-9: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (2009 - 2013) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households and high household income rates. Based on research from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs, RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 80 percent or more of the population is whiteWhite, and the median household income is $125,000 or greater (which is slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).

Agenda Report Page 574 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-23 However, HCD has adjusted the RCAA methodology in consideration ofto track more closely with California’s higher levels of diversity by settinglowering the whiteWhite population percentage threshold to 50 percent.

Based on this methodologyAccording to , all of Piedmont is considered an RCAA, part of a broader geographic agglomeration of RCAAs that stretches north, east, and south into Oakland, Berkeley, and beyond into unincorporated Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (Figure F-10). These RCAAs follow a long-standing disparity between the region’s higher- and lower-elevation areas, where hillside communities are often Whiter and wealthier while the region’s flatlands are more economically and ethnically diverse. Furthermore, these historic trends underline the importance of the lower- and moderate-income sites identified in Section F.3 below in addressing this regional imbalance in affordable housing access.2010 data available from HCD for this evaluation and provided in Figure F-10, Piedmont census tracts are both predominant (greater than 50 percent) white majority at 56 percent in the east and 52 percent in the west, and these areas contain median incomes above $125,000 (Figure F-7). Therefore, both census tracts meet the criteria to be considered a RCAA. Portions of Oakland to the north, south, and east of Piedmont also meet the RCAA criteria.

RCAAs are not only correlated to fair housing factors such as White race and highest resource areas (based on economic, educational and environmental factors) such as in the case of Piedmont (see Section F.2.5 below), but RCAAs often exist given a lack of zoning for multi-family housing and a lack of publicly assisted housing.

The City’s current efforts in this Housing Element to adopt intentional housing mobility strategies (i.e., to remove barriers to housing and strategically enhance housing access at all income levels), as well as to actively provide a diversity of new housing choices and affordability (i.e., to promote housing supply diversity, more choices for owners and renters, and improve affordability for people who live and work in and near Piedmont) include the many rezoning programs and other programs targeting housing production for lower- and moderate-income housing development such as:
• Program 1.D: Allow Religious Institution Affiliated Housing Development in Zone A • Program 1.F: Increase Allowances for Housing in Zone B • Program 1.G: Facilitating Multi-family Development in Zone C • Program 1.H: Increase Allowances for Housing in Zone D • Program 1.J: SB 9 Facilitation Amendments
• Program 1.L: Specific Plan
• Program 1.Q: Density Bonus Ordinance
• 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
• 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
Agenda Report Page 575 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-24 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-10: White Majority Tracts (2010)Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) by Tract (2019) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 576 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-25 F.2.4F.2.5 Access to Opportunity
One important component of fair housing is a neighborhood’s access to opportunity, which correlates relative place-based characteristics of an area, such as education, employment, safety, and the environment, with critical life outcomes, such as health, wealth, and life expectancy. Ensuring access to opportunity means both investing in existing low-income and underserved communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.

In February 2017, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research and evidence-based policy recommendations to further HCD’s fair housing goals of (1) avoiding further segregation and concentration of poverty and (2) encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and affordable housing, program design, and implementation.

HCD and TCAC prepared opportunity maps to identify census tracts with the highest and lowest resources. High resource areas are areas with high index scores for a variety of opportunity indicators. Examples of indicators of high resources areas include high employment rates, low poverty rates, proximity to jobs, high educational proficiency, and limited exposure to environmental health hazards.

High resources tracts are areas that offer low-income residents the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic advancement, high educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Census tracts in the cityCity that are categorized as moderate resource areas have access to many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have fewer job opportunities, lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors that lower their indexes across the various economic, educational, and environmental indicators.

Low resources areas are characterized as having fewer opportunities to employment and education, or a lower index for other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. These areas have greater quality of life needs and should be prioritized for future investment to improve opportunities for current and future residents.

The opportunity maps inform TCAC, which oversees the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, to distribute funding more equitably for affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity. The analysis evaluates total access to opportunity and categorizes this access as high, moderate, or low, but also individually assesses opportunity access across more specific indicators, such as education, transportation, economic development, and environment.

Agenda Report Page 577 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-26 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score provides an aggregate index of three domains: economic, education, and environmental. Census tracts with higher composite scores indicate higher resource and higher opportunity areas overall. Piedmont is designated a highest resource area in this category (Figure F-11).

Composite scores are also in the highest resource category in areas to the north and south of the cityCity with the scores generally decreasing from east to west across Oakland in the surrounding areas.

Figure F-11: TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Composite Score Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 578 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-27 Economic Score
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score for a census tract is based on poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value indicators. The score is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more positive economic outcomes and the lowest score indicating least positive outcomes. The cityCity’s two census tracts have the highest economic scores of 0.75 to 0.99 as shown in Figure F-12, generally indicating the most positive economic outcomes for residents. Economic scores in the surrounding Oakland areas are very similar to Piedmont. Economic scores generally decrease from east to west across Oakland in the surrounding areas.

Figure F-12: TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Economic Score Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 579 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-28 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Education Score
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score for a census tract is based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rate, and student poverty rate indicators. The score is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more positive education outcomes and the lowest quartile signifying fewer positive outcomes. As shown in Figure F-13, the cityCity has the highest education score of greater than 0.75 overall.

These scores suggest that students of all ages generally have positive educational outcomes. Education scores in Oakland are similar to those in Piedmont in the areas to the north of the Piedmont with the scores generally decreasing from north to south across Oakland.

Figure F-13: TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Education Score Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 580 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-29 Environmental Score
Environmental scores for census tracts presented in Figure F-14 are based on 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Scores that reflect environmental risk. The scores are divided into quartiles with higher scores representing more positive environmental outcomes and lower scores indicating least positive environmental outcomes for residents living there. The cityCity contains the highest environmental scores which indicates that residents are exposed to relatively lower environmental risk factors (Figure F-14). Oakland’s environmental scores are similar to those in Piedmont in areas to the north, east, and west of Piedmont with the scores generally decreasing from east to west across Oakland.

The updated Environmental Hazard Element in the General Plan was adopted in February 2020. The focus of this document is on the prevention and mitigation of geologic hazards, wildfires, flooding, hazardous materials management, and noise control.

Figure F-14: TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Environmental Score Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 581 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-30 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Jobs Proximity Index
HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index for a census tract measures the area’s distance from employment. This index can be used as a proxy to indicate relative transportation needs in a community. The score is broken up by quintiles, with the highest quintile representing areas closest to job centers. The Jobs Proximity Index score is varied across Piedmont. The score improves from east to west across the cityCity with the western portion in the highest quintile indicating relatively closer proximity to job centers as shown in Figure F-15. Approximately 196 people are both employed and live in Piedmont, which is 10.6 percent of employed residents15. The largest proportion of employed Piedmont residents work in the City of Oakland at 34.6 percent, followed by the City of Piedmont (10.6 percent), the City of Berkeley (5.2 percent), and the City of San Francisco (4.9 percent).

Figure F-15: Jobs Proximity Index (HUD, 2014 - 2017)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
15 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), OnTheMap, 2018.

Agenda Report Page 582 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-31 Disparities in Access to Opportunity for Persons with Disabilities People with disabilities often experience challenges with accessibility, discrimination, and housing choice that make it difficult to find suitable housing to meet their needs. This section analyzes such disparities to ensure the City is able to adequately serve its residents with disabilities.

According to the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-23), the most common types of disabilities in Piedmont in 2018 were hearing difficulty followed by independent living difficulty. Disability categories are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. A total of 7.1 percent of Piedmont residents have a disability of some kind according to 2015 to 2019 ACS data.

The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based services to approximately 350,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of regional centers, developmental centers, and community-based facilities. DDS also provides data on developmental disabilities by age and type of residence. According to DDS and as shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Table A-6), there are about 44 residents with a development disability in Piedmont with most of them (34) able to live in their own home with their parent or guardian.

There are a variety of housing types appropriate for people with disabilities, such as licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, group homes, and transitional and supportive housing. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group. The Housing Constraints Appendix (Appendix C) discusses how the cityCity permits various housing types, including the allowance for reasonable accommodations. While there are no current supportive housing projects in Piedmont, the City has approved several applications for reasonable accommodation.

Several facilities in Alameda County provide care and housing for people with disabilities. These include the Housing Consortium of the East Bay, Community Resources for Independent Living, and EveryOne Home. Also, the Center for Independent Living with locations in Berkeley and Oakland provides services for people with disabilities as does the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency.

Furthermore, the Alameda County Social Services Agency operates the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program for low-income seniors or people with disabilities. This program provides support for individuals such as meal preparation, laundry, house cleaning, and personal care to enable them to live at home.

Disparities in Access to Transportation Opportunities
The HUD Low Transportation Cost Index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region. These estimates originate from the Location Affordability Index (LAI). Transportation costs are modeled for census tracts as a percent of income for renters in these households.

Index values are inverted, and percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100. Higher index values indicate lower transportation costs in that neighborhood. Transportation costs may be low within a tract for a range of reasons, including greater access to public transportation and the density of homes, services, and jobs in that area.

Agenda Report Page 583 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-32 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-16 shows the Transportation Cost Index ranges in Piedmont. The cityCity contains only one range for the index, the 79 to 99 quintile. The index values in the eastern and western census tracts are 85 and 90, respectively. The values indicate those areas of Piedmont are estimated to have lower transportation costs than that percentage (85 and 90) of the nation. Transportation costs are therefore estimated to be very low across the cityCity and access to transportation options are relatively even.

Residents have several public transit options. Piedmont contains several Alameda Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus routes. Three AC Transit bus routes through Piedmont provide trans-bay access (lines C, P, and V) and four AC Transit routes (lines 11, 12, 18, and 41) provide local bus service to Piedmont. The transbay bus routes generally provide westbound transportation in the morning and eastbound traffic in the late afternoon on weekdays. Residents also have access to on-demand shuttle and ride services for residents with disabilities and other special needs through the East Bay Paratransit Consortium.

Figure F-16: HUD Low Transportation Cost Index
Source: HUD Spatial Data
F.2.5F.2.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate Housing Needs analyzes if there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class that may be experiencing a category of housing need (e.g. overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing) when compared to the proportion of members of another group experiencing the same housing need in the City.

Agenda Report Page 584 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-33 Overpayment
HUD defines overpayment, or “housing cost burden”, as households paying 30 percent or more of their gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities. Housing cost burden is considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording other necessary expenses, such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.

Overpayment by Renters
Renters are more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. As presented in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A), 21.1 percent of renters across Piedmont are cost burdened. The percentage of renter households exhibiting cost burden is highest in western census tract where there is a mix of housing types at about 25 percent and is about 16 percent in the eastern portion of the cityCity (Figure F-17). This census tract also contains the highest amount of LMI population at about 11 percent. According to the Needs Assessment (Appendix A), a total of 37 percent of households in Alameda County are cost burdened.

Figure F-17: Overpayment by Renters (2015 - 2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 585 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-34 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overpayment by Homeowners
Homeowners generally experience a lower rate of cost burden than renters. Figures F-18 shows the percentages of homeowners experiencing overpayment in the 2015 to 2019 time period. Percentages of homeowners experiencing overpayment are about 24 percent in the eastern census tract and approximately 34 percent in the western tract. As noted above, a total of 37 percent of households in Alameda County are cost burdened.

Figure F-18: Overpayment by Owners (2015 - 2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined by the Census as a unit in which more than one person occupies a room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens) while severe overcrowding occurs when more than 1.5 people occupy a room.

Overcrowded households are an indicator of housing needs, as lower income families or individuals may choose to live together in smaller spaces to save money on housing costs.

In addition to the strain on residents’ mental health, overcrowding can also lead to more rapid deterioration of the property due to increased usage. According to the 2015 to 2019 ACS data, 0.2 percent of households in Piedmont experienced overcrowding and 0.1 percent experienced severe overcrowding. The cityCity’s overcrowding rates are much less than Alameda County at 5.0 percent and the cityCity’s severely overcrowded rate is also much lower than the county’s 2.8 percent (Table F-6).

Agenda Report Page 586 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-35 Table F-6: Overcrowding and Severe Overcrowding Rates
Piedmont Alameda County
Occupants Per Room Units Percentage Percentage

1.01 to 1.5 9 0.2% 5.0%

1.51 or more 5 0.1% 2.8%
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04
The distribution of overcrowded households in Piedmont are shown by census tract in Figure F-19. Both tracts within the cityCity are below the state average levels of overcrowding at equal to or less than 8.2 percent. The statewide spatial data for severe overcrowding did not contain any values in the vicinity of Piedmont as shown in Figure F-20.

Figure F-19: Overcrowded Households
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 587 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-36 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-20: Severely Overcrowded Households
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 588 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-37 Location Affordability Index
Figure F-21 shows the median gross rent across Piedmont per HUD’s Location Affordability Index for the years 2012 to 2016. This index estimates household housing and transportation cost on a neighborhood-scale. These estimates show that most of the cityCity has a relatively high index value between $2,500 and $3,000 per month.

The western census tract has the next lower index value of between $2,000 and $2,500 per month.

This Needs Assessment (Appendix A) indicates the median monthly rent paid in Piedmont in 2019 was $3,130 according to ACS 2015 to 2019 data. This rent amount is primarily affordable to above-moderate income households but would be considered a cost-burden for moderate to lower-income households. It is more expensive to rent housing in Piedmont than it is in Alameda County and the Bay Area (Needs Assessment Appendix A, Figure A-40).

Figure F-21: Location Affordability
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Agenda Report Page 589 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-38 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Substandard Housing
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used as a proxy to indicate substandard housing conditions.

According to the 2015 to 2019 ACS, no Piedmont households lacked complete plumbing facilities and no households lacked complete kitchen facilities. Within Alameda County the number of households lacking each are 0.4 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively (Table F-7).

The age of housing stock can also be an indicator of substandard housing. As homes get older, there is a greater need for maintenance and repair. If not properly addressed, an aging housing stock can result in poorer living standards, incur more expensive repair costs and, under certain conditions, lower overall property values.

Piedmont's housing stock is generally older than that of Alameda County. According to the Needs Assessment (Appendix A), 86.5 percent of Piedmont’s housing stock was built before 1960 compared to 39.2 percent of units in Alameda County.

The greatest share of Piedmont's housing units was built in 1939 or earlier, with 2,523 units constructed during this period, or approximately 64.1 percent of all housing units. The largest portion of Alameda County housing units were built between 1960 and 1979.

Table F-7: Substandard Housing Rates (2019)
Piedmont Alameda County
Substandard Condition Units Percentage Percentage
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 0 0.0% 0.4%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0 0.0% 1.0%
Source: ACS 5-year estimates 2015-2019, Table DP04
Displacement Risk
The University of California Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP) uses data-driven research to produce maps identifying sensitive communities that are at-risk of displacement. UDP defines sensitive communities as currently having “populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost”. Vulnerability was determined based on the following characteristics:
• The share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent:

AND
• The tract meets two of the following criteria:
o Share of renters is above 40 percent
o Share of people of color is above 50 percent
o Share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median
o Percent change in rent is above county median rent increase o Rent gap, which is the difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding areas
Agenda Report Page 590 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-39 UDP has not identified any vulnerable communities within cityCity limits (Figure F-22).

Figure F-22: Vulnerable Communities (2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Homelessness
Information on homelessness and City resources for homeless persons is provided in Section A.3.4 Special Housing Needs of the Needs Assessment (Appendix A).

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires communities to conduct a Point-inTime (PIT) Count of individuals and families experiencing homelessness every two years in January. The most recent PIT for Alameda County was conducted in 2019 and was managed by the Office of Homeless Care and Coordination within the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency. According to the most recent PIT, there were no sheltered or unsheltered homeless populations in Piedmont at that time.

Piedmont is part of the Alameda County Continuum of Care (CoC). The lead agency for the Alameda County COC is EveryOne Home which is a network of private and public sector homeless service providers established to promote community-wide planning and strategic use of resources to address homelessness. As a member of the Alameda County CoC, EveryOne Home can provide homeless services to all individuals requiring support within Piedmont.

Agenda Report Page 591 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-40 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing F.2.6F.2.7 Other Relevant Factors
Rates of Homeownership by Race and Ethnicity
The homeownership rate is about 88 percent in Piedmont compared to about 54 percent in Alameda County.

However, not all racial and ethnic groups have a similar probability of owning a home. The 2019 ACS data for percentages of occupied housing units by race in Piedmont is presented in Table F-8.

The rates of homeownership are lower than renting for Black residents and individuals identified as some other race alone. The difference is greatest for Black residents by a 0.7 to 5.2 percent margin. Asian residents are more than twice as likely to own their housing unit than rent. Renting versus ownership rates are similar for Latinos at 1.9 to 2.6 percent, respectively. Groups that have lower rates of homeownership are more at risk of being displaced due to rising rental prices.

Table F-8: Housing Tenure by Race/Ethnicity in Piedmont (2019) Race/Ethnicity
Renter Occupied Units Owner Occupied Units Total Occupied Units
Number % of Total Number % of Total
White alone, not Latino 399 85.8% 2,780 82.4% 3,179
Black or African American alone 24 5.2% 22 0.7% 46
American Indian and Alaska
Native alone 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Asian alone 33 7.1% 539 16.0% 572
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander alone 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Some other race alone 9 1.9% 0 0.0% 9
Two or more races 0 0.0% 32 0.9% 32
Hispanic or Latino origin 9 1.9% 89 2.6% 98
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table S2502
One obstacle to home ownership is lack of access to the first tier of the financial system to obtain banking services and loans. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) provides the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) July 2021 census tract spatial data known as CRAMap 2021 (www.ffiec.gov/cra/).

Included in the CRAMap 2021 spatial data is the Unbanked index which provides an estimate of households lacking access to the primary banking system. This index estimates the likelihood of a household will lack both a savings and checking account with a bank, thrift, or credit union.

Figure F-23 presents the estimates for the percentages of households that lack access to banking and credit from the CRAMap 2021 Unbanked index. Identifying areas with relatively higher levels of residents without access to the primary banking system can facilitate the process of providing them first-tier financial services.

This may aid lower income residents in avoiding a dependency on second-tier services, particularly predatory lenders.

As displayed in Figure F-23, estimates of households without access to primary banking and credit are very low across the cityCity. The eastern and western census tracts have very low estimates of unbanked households where the rates are 0.15 to 0.32 percent, respectively.

Agenda Report Page 592 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-41 Figure F-23: Percentage of Households without Access to Banking or Credit Source: FFIEC CRAMap 2021 Spatial Data
Housing Units by Type
As described in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A), Piedmont’s housing stock is over 93 percent detached single-family homes, and though multi-family housing of five or more units saw a 30-unit (34.5 percent) increase between 2010 and 2020, the City’s housing stock has seen little growth. As described in the Constraints Analysis (Appendix C), the static housing growth rate is maintained by the application of large-lot, single-family residential zoning districts to the vast majority of residential land in the City, with only a handful of smaller lots allowing for higher densities and reduced setbacks.

Even in these multi-family and mixed-use zones, three-story height limitations, maximum lot coverage requirements, and other development standards result in a cumulative impact that affects the feasibility of denser projects. Furthermore, Piedmont’s City Charter requires a majority of voters to approve zoning map changes, which may present significant cost, timing, and logistical constraints to future housing policy. However, the Zoning Code allows residential use in all zones, and the City Charter allows residential densities and zoning standards to be modified without a ballot initiative. In practice, the Charter has not been and is not expected to be a constraint on housing development during the Housing Element period.

Agenda Report Page 593 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-42 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Increasing multi-family housing would help to diversify Piedmont’s housing stock and accommodate the needs of residents with varying income levels and housing preferences. Multiple policies and programs are included in the Housing Element to promote a greater mix of housing types, including the activation of new land for housing development (i.e., City-owned parcels, religious facility sites), increasing the maximum allowed density in existing multi-family/mixed-use zones, incentivizing the merging of small lots, allowing parking reductions for various housing types, and evaluating the City Charter for its impact on housing production, up to and including an amendment to the Charter if it is determined to be a constraint.

F.2.7F.2.8 Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Access to opportunity in Piedmont is approximately evenly distributed across the cityCity as evidenced by each TCAC score which is relatively consistent in both census tracts. However, the cityCity meets the criteria to be considered a RCAA and several datasets suggest that non-whiteWhite residents generally experience different economic conditions than whiteWhite residents.

Latinos experience higher rates of poverty relative to their overall proportion of the cityCity’s population than whiteWhite residents. Latinos comprise about 4.2 percent of the cityCity’s population but 7.0 percent of Latinos live below the poverty level, an estimated 33 residents. More Non-whiteWhite residents are located in the westernmost census block group of the cityCity. The census tract that overlaps this block group also contains the highest amount of LMI population at about 11 percent and exhibits the highest amount of overpayment by renters in Piedmont. Further, this western census tract contains the highest level of persons with a disability at about eight percent.

Another cityCitywide fair housing issue is high rates of overpayment by homeowners. Also, the cityCity experiences high to very high Location Affordability Index rates.

The primary fair housing issue in Piedmont is disproportionate housing needs, meaning certain groups experience housing challenges (like cost-burden and overpayment) at a greater rate than other groups, because it affects the most residents and protected classes. The contributing factor to this primary issue is land use and zoning laws limiting where multifamily housing can be built. This contributing factor is evident due to the high levels of overpayment by homeowners and renters within both higher and lower income households. These indicators suggest that both higher and lower income households, encompassing various household sizes and characteristics, may choose more affordable housing if available.

The second fair housing issue is also disproportionate housing needs because of the contributing factor of a lack available affordable units in a range of sizes. A combination of very high Location Affordability Index rates and high levels of overpayment indicate the need for more affordable housing. High levels of overpayment by renters in the western census tract and high rates of overpayment by homeowners on both tracts in the cityCity indicates that many residents may be struggling to afford housing costs.

The third fair housing issue is segregation and integration due to the contributing factor of limited options for affordable housing within Piedmont where both census tracts meet the criteria of a RCAA. The fourth fair housing issue is also segregation and integration because of a history of community opposition to building more housing in Piedmont. Evidence of past opposition is demonstrated by the Charter requirement preventing any zone reclassification without voter approval, the continued quantity of cityCity land resources restricted to single-family zoning.

Agenda Report Page 594 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-43 Section F.3 Sites Inventory
AB 686 requires a jurisdiction’s site inventory to be consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

This section evaluates the City’s sites inventory locations against various measures in the Assessment of Fair Housing that includes income level, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, access to opportunity, and environmental risk to determine any socio-economic patterns or implications.

Table F-9 provides a Census tract-level summary of all RHNA units relative to a variety of characteristics that impact fair housing choice. As shown in Table F-9, the creation of new housing units within the two Census tracts in Piedmont will increase access to opportunity, provide housing with low exposure to environmental hazards, and integrate existing racially concentrated areas of affluence.

Agenda Report Page 595 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-44 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Table F-9: Census Tract Analysis Summary
Census
Tract
Existing
Households
RHNA Capacity
AFFH Indicators
Integration and Segregation Access to Opportunity Displacement Risk Lower Mod. Above
Mod.

Median
Income
Poverty
Rate
Low /
Mod.

Income
Pop.

NonWhite
Pop.

Disability
Rate
Resource
Designation
Job
Proximity
Index
CalEnviroScreen
Score Overcrowding Renter Overpayment
Homeowner
Overpayment
4261 2,206 97 50 145
$204,828
-
$250,000

1.5% 8.74%

17.2%
-

38.6%

6.7% Highest 38 - 53 0.3% 0.8% 16.4% 24.1%
4262 1,728 83 17 92
$154,777
-
$248,125

3.7% 10.63%

26.7%
-

42.9%

7.8% Highest 61 - 71 13.2% 0.3% 25.4% 33.5%
Agenda Report Page 596 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-45 F.3.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation
A comparison of a jurisdiction’s site inventory against its LMI households and R/ECAP area can reveal if the cityCity’s accommodation of housing is exacerbating or ameliorating segregation and social inequity. Figure F24 shows the locations of Piedmont’s sites inventory relative to LMI concentrations, and Figure F-25 shows the distribution of site area relative to the area of LMI concentrations.

Figure F-24: Sites Inventory and LMI Households
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
Agenda Report Page 597 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-46 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-25: Percentage of City and Sites Areas across Low to Moderate Income Populations Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
The cityCity contains one LMI percentage category, less than 25 percent LMI households. Very minor amounts of cityCity area along the boundary are in the second and third LMI quartiles and these areas may result from misalignments in the spatial data, but they comprise only about 0.29 percent of cityCity area. If a site was located in more than one quartile it was placed into the category containing the majority of its area, which was the first quartile in each case. One site on Oakland Avenue is fully located in the second LMI quartile but this site only accounts for about 0.2 percent of cityCity area (about 0.08 acres). Since areas are rounded to the nearest whole percentage, the amount of cityCity and site area within the first LMI quartile is 100 percent. The sites inventory is not anticipated to exacerbate fair housing issues with regard to LMI households. 100
0 0 0
100
0 0 0
0 25
50 75
100
<25% 25 - 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 100%
Percentage of Total Area
Low to Moderate Income Population Percentages
Percentage of City Area Percentage of Site Inventory Area Agenda Report Page 598 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-47 Figures F-26 and F-27 display the site inventory area associated with R/ECAP. As previously noted, Piedmont does not have any R/ECAPs within its boundaries. The amounts of cityCity and sites inventory areas that are not within a R/ECAP is therefore 100 percent.

Figure F-26: Sites Inventory and R/ECAPs (2009 – 2013)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
Figure F-27: Percentage of City and Sites Areas across R/ECAP Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
0 25
50 75
100
0 - Not a R/ECAP 1 - R/ECAP Area
Percentage of Total Area
Percentage of City Area Percentage of Site Inventory Area 0 0
100 100
Agenda Report Page 599 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-48 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing F.3.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity
Figure F-28 shows sites inventory locations across the cityCity’s TCAC Opportunity Areas. The cityCity is categorized mostly as highest resource area based on the TCAC Composite Score. These areas have been scored based on very good access to high quality schools and economic opportunities. A total of 99 percent of cityCity and site areas are within the highest resource TCAC Composite score. The sites inventory is therefore not anticipated to exacerbate fair housing trends regarding access to opportunities.

Figure F-28: Sites Inventory and TCAC Composite Score
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
Agenda Report Page 600 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-49 Figure F-29 shows the distribution of Piedmont sites across the TCAC Opportunity Area Composite Score categories. The cityCity is comprised primarily of one category, highest resource (99 percent of the cityCity). A minor amount of cityCity and site areas (one percent) are in high and moderate resource areas, respectively. As mentioned previously however, these areas may result from misalignments in the spatial data and do not significantly affect the analysis. If a site was located on the boundary between two scores it was placed into the category containing the majority of its area.

Figure F-29: Percentage of City and Sites Areas across TCAC Opportunity Areas Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
99 1 0 0 0 0
99 0 0 1 0 0
0 25
50 75
100

1. Highest
Resource

2. High
Resource

3. Moderate
Resource
(Rapidly
Changing)

4. Moderate
Resource

5. Low
Resource

6. High
Segregation &
Poverty
Percentage of Total Area
TCAC Composite Score
Percentage of City Area Percentage of Site Inventory Area Agenda Report Page 601 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-50 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-30 shows the sites inventory across the cityCity’s CalEnviroScreen scores. The cityCity has two CalEnviroScreen scores, the largest area in the ranges 1 to 10 percent, first decile with lowest risk, and a smaller area in the 11 to 20 percent, second decile with low risk. Most sites are located in the lowest risk area.

Figure F-30: Sites Inventory and CalEnviroScreen Score
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
Figure F-31 shows the distribution of sites across the range of CalEnviroScreen scores presented as deciles in Piedmont. The lowest CalEnviroScreen score encompasses 69 percent of cityCity area and 92 percent of the sites inventory area. The next CalEnviroScreen score of the second decile covers 31 percent of cityCity area and 8 percent of sites area. Environmental hazard risk is low across Piedmont and the sites inventory locations are not anticipated to exacerbate fair housing issues regarding exposure to environmental hazards.

Agenda Report Page 602 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-51 Figure F-31: Percentage of City and Sites Areas across CalEnviroScreen Scores Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
Piedmont is a cohesive community, driven largely by its small geographic area. Areas that may be seen as on the periphery of the City are still close to all of the City’s services and amenities, and do not perpetuate existing nor form any new areas of concentration of poverty or segregation. Figure F-32 displays the City’s sites inventory, broken down by affordability category, alongside the location of AC Transit bus routes/stops and relative proximity to City Hall and its amenities. A common way to think about proximity is to measure by walking distance.

A comfortable 15-minute walk equates to about ½ mile or ¾ mile, depending on speed. Figure F-32 shows that most of the site inventory (and most of the City) is within a 15-minute walk radius from the City’s Civic Center.

Lower- and moderate-income sites on the City’s west side are located along the Grand Ave. commercial corridor and AC Transit Line 12, which connects the neighborhood to Berkeley (to the north) and Downtown Oakland (to the south), as well as several transit centers (BART, Amtrak, and ferry service). Likewise, lower- and moderateincome sites on the City’s east side are in close proximity to AC Transit Line 33, which connects the neighborhood to commercial corridors in the nearby Oakland neighborhoods of Montclair (to the north) and Glenview (to the southwest), as well as BART stations in Downtown Oakland. Additionally, the AC Transit Transbay P Line connects Piedmont’s Civic Center and Oakland Avenue with both Oakland and San Francisco’s Downtowns. It is easily accessed by sites in the City’s center and west side. Above-moderate income sites are otherwise distributed throughout the City.

The mixed-income development anticipated in Moraga Canyon in the City’s north is within half a mile of City Hall, accessible by foot via Moraga Avenue and Highland Avenue. Table F-10 demonstrates that the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan area is no further than one mile from schools, parks, recreation, transit, and civic services, including City Hall and the Fire Department.
69 31
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 25
50 75
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Percentage of Total Area
CalEnviroScreen Score
Percentage of City Area Percentage of Site Inventory Area (Lowest Risk) (Highest Risk)
Agenda Report Page 603 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-52 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-32: Sites Inventory and Proximity to Transit and City Center Source: LWC, AC Transit
Table F-10: Walking Distance to Public Amenities from Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area Amenity Walking Distance (mi.)
Frank C. Havens Elementary School 0.8
Piedmont Middle School 1.0
Piedmont High School 0.9
Mulberry’s Market 0.8
City Hall 0.8
Bus Stop: Line 606 at Moraga Avenue & Highland Avenue 0.4 Dracena Quarry Park 1 0.8
Piedmont Community Tennis Courts 0.9
1 The proximity to the nearest park does not include Blair Park, Coaches Field, and Kenelly Skate Park. These parks will be integrated in the specific plan area.

Agenda Report Page 604 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-53 Figure F-31: Percentage of City and Sites Areas across CalEnviroScreen Scores Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
Section F.4 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions Table F-11 lists the most prevalent fair housing issues and its corresponding contributing factors for the City of Piedmont, as prioritized through the findings from the above assessment.

Table F-11: Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Priority
Disproportionate Housing Needs Land use and zoning laws 1 Disproportionate Housing Needs Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes 2 Segregation and Integration Location and type of affordable housing 3 Segregation and Integration Community opposition 4
Table F-12 consists of proposed housing programs the City will pursue to specifically overcome identified patterns and trends from the above assessment and proactively affirmatively further fair housing in Piedmont.

The data and analysis that follows conforms to guidance provided by the HCD through its Building Blocks program and reflects the recommended AFFH analysis as identified by ABAG in its guidance to member communities. The analysis also recognizes that the City is located in the larger context of Alameda County and the Bay Area as a whole. Piedmont itself is an isolated enclave with its own particular development history that has created meaningful disparities between itself and neighboring communities, particularly in comparison with the City of Oakland. The City does not have extraterritorial zoning powers, nor does it have the ability to regulate land use and housing outside of its boundaries. However, this AFFH analysis recognizes that there are regional elements related to fair access to housing and Piedmont is committed to addressing these regional disparities where possible.
69 31
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 25
50 75
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Percentage of Total Area
CalEnviroScreen Score
Percentage of City Area Percentage of Site Inventory Area (Lowest Risk) (Highest Risk)
Agenda Report Page 605 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
F-54 | Piedmont Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Table F-12: Meaningful Actions
Contributing
Factor
AFFH
Strategy Housing Implementation Programs
Land use and
zoning laws
Modify land
use and zoning
laws to be less
restrictive

1.D Allow Religious Institution Affiliated Housing Development in Zone A

1.F Increase Allowances for Housing in Zone B

1.G Facilitating Multi-Family Development in Zone C

1.H Increase Allowances for Housing in Zone D

1.I Lot Mergers to Facilitate Housing in Zone D

1.Q Density Bonus Ordinance

1.S ADU Compliance

2.C Use of Original Materials and Construction Methods

4.G Monitoring the Effects of the City Charter

4.H. Modify Charter Regarding Zoning Amendments

4.L Allow Parking Reductions for Multi-Family, Mixed-Use, and Affordable Projects

4.M Facilitate Multi-Family and Residential Mixed-Use Projects by Right Subject to Objective Standards

4.N Allow Transitional and Supportive Housing by Right in Zones that Allow Residential Uses

4.O Allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by Right in Zones that Allow Residential Uses

4.P Residential Care Facilities

4.Q Parking Reductions for Persons with Disabilities, Seniors , and Other Housing Types

4.R Permit Streamlining

4.U Amend Conditional Use Permit Findings

4.V Emergency Shelters as an Accessory Use
Availability of
affordable units
in a range of
sizes
New Housing
Choices and
Affordability in
Areas of
Opportunity

1.B Market Rate Accessory Dwelling Units

1.E Require ADUs for New Single-Family Residence Construction

2.A CDBG Funding

2.B Preservation of Small Homes

3.C Monitoring Affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit Missed Opportunities

3.D Monitoring Additional Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Opportunities

3.E Affordable Housing Fund

3.F Incentives for Rent-Restricted ADUs

4.J Small Lot Housing Study

4.K Small Lot Affordable Housing Study

4.S Prioritize Sewer Hookups for Residential Development for Lower-Income Housing

5.A Shared Housing Publicity and Media Initiative

5.B Shared Housing Matching Services

5.H Housing for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and Households

5.I Housing for Extremely Low-Income Families
Location and
type of
affordable
housing
Provide Choice
of Different
Affordable
Housing Types

1.J SB9 Facilitation Amendments

1.L Specific Plan

1.M Manufactured and Mobile Homes

1.R Lower-Income Sites Modifications to Address Shortfall

2.D Condominium Conversions

3.B Increase Number of Legal Accessory Dwelling Units
Agenda Report Page 606 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Piedmont | F-55 Table F-12: Meaningful Actions
Contributing
Factor
AFFH
Strategy Housing Implementation Programs

3.G Inclusionary Housing
Community
opposition
Provide
Information
Regarding
Affordable
Housing to
Educate
Community

1.C Public Engagement for Accessory Dwelling Units

3.A Affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit Public Information Campaign

4.A Media Strategy

5.A Shared Housing Publicity and Media Initiative

5.G Faith Community Participation

7.A Public Information

7.C Housing Equity
Agenda Report Page 607 Attachment 2 Exhibit A
This page was intentionally left blank.

Agenda Report Page 608
Resolution _____ EXHIBIT B: City of Piedmont 6th Cycle (2023‐2031) Draft Housing Element HCD Comments , February 16, 2023, and Responses Finding/Comment # Response Section Reference Page
Number
A.1.1
While the element includes analysis of past programs’ accomplishments over the previous planning period (pp. D‐19 to 24), it should also evaluate the cumulative effectiveness of the previous housing element’s programs to address the housing needs of special needs populations.

Expanded narrative to
address the cumulative
impact of 5th Cycle
programs on Special
Needs populations.

Appendix D:

Evaluation of the
2015‐2023 Housing
Element
pp. D‐19 ‐ D‐
24 B.1.1
Outreach and Enforcement: While the element mentions the City does not have any pending legal matters related to fair housing laws such as lawsuits or settlements (p. F‐3), it should also discuss how the City proactively complies with fair housing laws and regulations. Examples include Government Code sections 65008 and 8899.50. For additional information, please see HCD’s guidance memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning‐and‐community‐ development/affirmatively‐furthering‐fair‐housing.

Added list of ways that the
City proactively complies
with fair housing laws,
including direct references
to State law.

Appendix F:

Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing (Section
F.2.2)
pp. F‐8 ‐ F‐9
B.1.2
Income and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs): While the element includes some broad discussion of RCAAs (p. F‐15), it should include specific analysis of income and RCAA at a regional level (City compared to the broader region). The analysis should at least address trends, coincidence with other fair housing factors (e.g., race, highest resource, overpayment), effectiveness or absence of past strategies (e.g., lack of publicly assisted housing and lack of multifamily zoning), local data and knowledge and other relevant factors such as past zoning or local initiatives (see below). The element must add or modify significant and meaningful programs based on the outcomes of this analysis, including actions to improve housing mobility within and beyond City boundaries that are not limited to the regional housing need allocation (RHNA).

Added region‐wide RCAA
map and additional
language discussing the
relationship of City in
influencing regional
trends. Included reference
to housing element
programs which help
promote housing mobility
and access to opportunity
for all income levels.

Analysis did not identify
any new outcomes to
warrant new programs.

Appendix F:

Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing (Section
F.2.4)
pp. F‐23
B.1.3
Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element generally discusses identified sites relative to socio‐economic categories. For example, the element notes 100 percent of sites intended for lower income households are identified in the highest resource TCAC category and are not located in concentrated areas of poverty but the entire City is the highest resource category and the City does not have any concentrated areas of poverty. Instead, to evaluate whether the inventory AFFH, the analysis should address the location (e.g., neighborhoods, planning areas), number of units by income group, magnitude of the impact and, particularly, any isolation of the RHNA then evaluate how the identified sites are expected to improve and/or exacerbate fair housing conditions. For example, a large portion of the lower‐ income RHNA is isolated in three remote areas on the boundaries of the City yet a significant portion of the moderate and above moderate RHNA is located throughout the City. The element should evaluate these patterns and based on the outcomes of this analysis, consider identifying additional sites and add or modify programs to promote housing mobility throughout the City (Not limited to the RHNA).

Added new maps and
other data illustrating
proximity of Sites
Inventory to public transit
and other local
services/amenities,
demonstrating the
proximity of sites in the
inventory to services and
amenities and that the
sites inventory does not
concentrate RHNA in any
isolated or remote parts of
the community nor
exacerbate any patterns of
segregation or isolation.

Appendix F:

Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing (Section
F.3.2)
pp. F‐52 ‐ F‐
53 B.1.4
Local Data and Knowledge: The element includes state and federal data but must utilize other sources of local data and knowledge to supplement the data and mapping including planning documents such as locally adopted ordinances, other elements of the general plan, infrastructure assessments, and mobility assessments to fully describe the impacts on fair housing patterns and trends at a local and regional level.

Added new Section F.2.1
(History of Fair Housing
Issues in Piedmont) to
incorporate local
knowledge; other
additions made
throughout Appendix F
where relevant.

Appendix F:

Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing
pp. F‐4 ‐ F‐7

6. B.1.5
Other Relevant Factors: While the element includes analysis with regards to fair housing on some factors, such as rates of home ownership by race and ethnicity (p. F‐31), it must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction, such as zoning, growth control measures, and other initiatives. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use and investment practices, the City Charter, or other information and demographic trends.

Added new "Housing Units
by Type" section to
examine cumulative
impact of predominance of
single‐family housing.

Appendix F:

Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing (Section
F.2.7)
pp. F‐41 ‐ F‐
42 7. B.1.6
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Upon a complete AFFH analysis, the element must assess and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues and add or modify programs as appropriate.

Additional analysis did not
yield any new findings
regarding AFFH. Other
programs are updated
(see responses below).

Appendix F:

Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing
See updated
housing
programs
below.

4. 5.

A. Review and Revision
A.1

1. B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
B.1

2. Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)

3. Agenda Report Page 609 Attachment 2 Exhibit B
Resolution _____ EXHIBIT B: City of Piedmont 6th Cycle (2023‐2031) Draft Housing Element HCD Comments , February 16, 2023, and Responses Finding/Comment # Response Section Reference Page
Number

8. B.2.1
Overpayment: While the element identifies the total number of households overpaying for housing (pp. A‐54 and 55), it must quantify and analyze the number of lower‐income households overpaying for housing by tenure (i.e., renter and owner) and add or modify policies and programs as appropriate.

Added analysis of
overpayment for lower
income households by
tenure, added new table A‐
19, referenced housing
element programs to
address this need.

Appendix A:

Demographics and
Housing Needs
Assessment (Section
A.5.3)
pp. A‐63 ‐ A‐
64 9. B.2.2
Extremely Low‐Income Households (ELI): While the element includes some information on ELI households relative to race, it should also evaluate tenure, overpayment, resources and strategies available and the gap and magnitude of housing needs to better formulate policies and programs.

Added narrative regarding
overpayment by tenure for
extremely low‐income
households; noted the
current availability of and
proposed new resources
for ELI households; and
added new table A‐19
showing cost burden.

Appendix A:

Demographics and
Housing Needs
Assessment (Section
A.5.3)
pp. 73 ‐ 74;
pp. A‐63 ‐ A‐
64 10. B.2.3
Housing Costs: While the element includes information on sales and rental prices (pp. A‐52 to 55), rental information from the American Community Survey does not fully reflect market conditions and the element should include additional data sources (e.g., Zillow, Apartments.com).

Added narrative regarding
currently available for sale
and rental units; added
new tables A‐17 and A‐18
showing  units available by
unit type and rental prices
based on Zillow research
conducted in March 2023.

Appendix A:

Demographics and
Housing Needs
Assessment (Section
A.5.2)
pp. A‐54 ‐ A‐
59 11. B.2.4
Special Housing Needs: While the element quantifies (pp. A‐28 to 38) the City’s special needs populations, it must also analyze their special housing needs. For a complete analysis of each population group, the element should discuss challenges faced by the population, the existing resources to meet those needs (availability of senior housing units, number of large units, number of deed restricted units, etc.,), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps.

Added and expanded
narrative and analysis of
housing challenges for
several special needs
populations; added
narrative pointing towards
the Housing Element
programs addressing
needs/gaps faced by
several special needs
groups.

Appendix A:

Demographics and
Housing Needs
Assessment (Section
A.3.4)
pp. A‐22 ‐ A‐
41 12. B.3.1
Realistic Capacity: The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted based on the land use controls and site improvements and other factors. The element appears to identify sites with zoning that allows 100 percent nonresidential development. If so, the calculation of residential capacity should account for the likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential development.

For example, the element could discuss existing or planned residential performance standards (e.g., 50 percent of development required to be residential), examine how often 100 percent nonresidential development occurs in the pertinent zone and adjust calculation accordingly or enhance policies and programs to encourage residential development.

Added new program 4.U.
to modify findings for
Conditional Use Permits.

Updated Program 1.H to
waive ground floor use
requirements for
residential in Zone D.

Added explanation that
100 percent nonresidential
development does not
occur in Piedmont trends,
and the existing
assumptions are valid for
capacity in Zone D. Also
provided additional
information regarding
property owner interest in
redevelopment as multi‐
family.

Appendix B: Housing
Capacity Analysis and
Methodology
(Section B.2.3)
pp. B‐7
B.2
B.3
Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low‐income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).) Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Agenda Report Page 610 Attachment 2 Exhibit B
Resolution _____ EXHIBIT B: City of Piedmont 6th Cycle (2023‐2031) Draft Housing Element HCD Comments , February 16, 2023, and Responses Finding/Comment # Response Section Reference Page
Number

13. B.3.2
Infrastructure: The element describes infrastructure concerns and limitations (p. C‐30) such as water and sewer line retrofits and upsizing. However, it must also demonstrate sufficient total water and sewer capacity (existing and planned) to accommodate the regional housing need.

Expanded discussion of
existing infrastructure
capacity and confirmed
that there is adequate
infrastructure to serve the
Piedmont community
Appendix C: Housing
Constraints (Section
C.3.7)
pp. C‐3‐ to C‐
39 14. B.3.3
Large Sites: Sites larger than 10 acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower‐income households unless sites of equivalent size and affordability were developed in the prior planning period or other analysis demonstrates the suitability of these sites. The element identifies one large site of 11.9 acres (p. B‐25). However, the element must also demonstrate the suitability of this site as described above. For example, the element could discuss how parceling will facilitate development with units affordable to lower‐income households or how the housing will be incorporated into the overall development as part of a mixed‐income approach. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element must add or modify programs to encourage housing for lower‐income households on large sites.

Expanded narrative on
opportunities for
parcelization and provided
additional details
regarding the Surplus
Lands Act, RFP for the
Specific Plan, and how the
site will be developed
Appendix B: Housing
Capacity Analysis and
Methodology;
Section B.3.3
pp. B‐25

15. B.3.4
Nonvacant Sites: The element describes the methodology for selecting nonvacant sites with residential development potential (p. B‐9). However, to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment, the element should be revised, as follows:

See responses as follow
immediately below.

Appendix B: Housing
Capacity Analysis and
Methodology;
Section B.2.3
pp. B‐14 to
B‐21

15.A B.3.4
Extent Existing Uses Impede Additional Development: The element broadly describes potential for development based on parking areas and the age of structures but should further evaluate the existing uses to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment. For example, the element should describe whether the existing uses are anticipated to be razed or if the site will be intensified with existing uses remaining and if so, whether the needed parking is an impediment. The element should also discuss any indicators that the properties will turnover in the planning period such as property owner or developer interest, expiring leases, vacancy, marginal operations, lack of improvements or lack of market demand for the use.

Added description of
existing use, recent
improvements, and
evidence of owner interest
in redevelopment to all
non‐vacant sites at all
income levels. No site
presents an impediment
to redevelopment in the
planning period based on
this additional analysis.

Appendix B: Housing
Capacity Analysis and
Methodology;
Section B.2.3
pp. B‐14 to
B‐21

15.B B.3.4
Development Trends: The element lists several recent developments on nonvacant sites and concludes based on these trends, the identified sites will redevelop in the planning period.

However, the element should support this conclusion by discussing how the characteristics of recent developments relate to identified sites. For example, the element lists a recent development on a site with an office building but should discuss the similarity to the identified site. For example, the element could discuss how the office building was a two‐story building with operating offices, included a similarly situated parking lot and how the parking was replaced.

Provided additional
information in Table B‐9
describing the similarity of
sample projects and the
existing conditions for non‐
vacant sites, as well as the
similarity of the projects
with what is allowed in
Piedmont
Appendix B: Housing
Capacity Analysis and
Methodology;
Section B.2.3
pp. B‐14 to
B‐21

15.C B.3.4
In addition, if the element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for lower‐income households, it must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) For your information, absent findings in the resolution as part of adoption based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.

City will make necessary
findings in resolution n/a n/a

16. B.3.5
Publicly‐Owned Sites: The element identifies four City‐Owned parcels to accommodate a large portion of the City’s lower‐income RHNA and includes some broad discussion of the site characteristics and anticipated specific plan process. However, the element should specifically discuss the extent existing uses impede additional development including timing of any potential relocation or similar activity, any known conditions that preclude or affect the timing or feasibility of development in the planning period and potential schedule for development. Based on this analysis, the element should add or modify programs with a schedule of actions to facilitate development in the planning period.

Added additional
description of the site
conditions, the in progress
RFP for the Specific Plan,
and demonstrate exiting
operations (under City
control) do not present an
impediment to
redevelopment. Based on
the analysis additional
programs were not
warranted. Program 1.L
was updated with more
detail and modified with
new timeframes for
implementation.

Appendix B: Housing
Capacity Analysis and
Methodology
(Section B.3.1)
pp. B‐25
Agenda Report Page 611 Attachment 2 Exhibit B
Resolution _____ EXHIBIT B: City of Piedmont 6th Cycle (2023‐2031) Draft Housing Element HCD Comments , February 16, 2023, and Responses Finding/Comment # Response Section Reference Page
Number

17. B.3.6
Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City (p. C‐29), it must describe how these conditions relate to identified sites including any other known environmental or other conditions (e.g., shape, easements, relocation, parking replacement) that could impact or preclude housing development in the planning period.

Added analysis regarding
the Moraga Canyon
Specific Plan since it is the
only site in the site
inventory which could
potentially be impacted by
environmental constraints;
added analysis regarding
infrastructure constraints
for development on water,
sewage, and stormwater.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints (Section
C.3.5)
pp. C‐37 ‐ C‐
41 18. B.3.7
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element may utilize ADUs toward the RHNA based on past trends, affordability, resources and incentives and other relevant factors. While the element discusses ADU assumptions toward the RHNA based on past trends, it should also discuss other relevant factors and adjust assumptions as appropriate. Specifically, the analysis should account for the availability of the units for occupancy which was a key issue in the prior cycle as noted in the review and revise portion of the element (See Program 1.D – p. D‐4). The analysis should incorporate the information gathered from the prior planning period, adjust assumptions as appropriate and if necessary, identify additional sites. In addition, for your information, HCD reviewed the City’s ADU ordinance and noted some areas inconsistent with statutory requirements. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non‐compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add or modify existing programs to ensure the City’s ADU ordinance will be updated to comply with state law.

Added program 3.H to
monitor ADU affordability
and occupancy to support
assumptions and make
adjustments as needed
pending the results. Added
program 1.S. to confirm
the ADU ordinance
complies with State ADU
law and will make any
adjustments as needed.

Maintained ADU unit
assumptions.

Appendix B:

Accessory Dwelling
Unit estimates
pp. B‐5

19. B.3.8
Electronic Copy of the Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning‐and‐community‐ development/housing‐elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Will provide electronic
form after adoption. n/a n/a

20. B.3.9
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters): The element mentions emergency shelters are permitted in Zone B (p. C‐10). However, the element should also clarify shelters are permitted without discretionary action and discuss available acreage, including typical parcel sizes and the presence of reuse opportunities. In addition, the analysis should address proximity to transportation and services and any conditions inappropriate for human habitability. In addition, subsequent draft submissions may need to comply with the requirements of Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339). For more information on timing requirements and these new statutory requirements, please see HCD’s memo at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning‐and‐community/ab2339‐notice.pdf.

Added narrative clarifying
that emergency shelters
are permitted by‐right and
discusses available
development acreage;
added narrative on the
proximity of emergency
shelters to amenities;
added new figure C‐1 to
display the parcels
allowing emergency
shelters by‐right. Added
new program 4.V to allow
emergency shelters as an
accessory use to religious
facilities in Zone A.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints (Section
C.2.2.4)
pp. C‐12 ‐ C‐
14 21. B.4.1
Site Improvements: While the element includes some broad description of on and off‐site improvements (p. C‐24), it must list actual standards and analyze their impact on the cost of development.

Added description and
analysis on the current
road conditions and the
City's Transportation
Element and
requirements; added
narrative regarding off‐site
developments.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints; Section
C.2.5
pp. C‐30 ‐ C‐
32 B.4
An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Agenda Report Page 612 Attachment 2 Exhibit B
Resolution _____ EXHIBIT B: City of Piedmont 6th Cycle (2023‐2031) Draft Housing Element HCD Comments , February 16, 2023, and Responses Finding/Comment # Response Section Reference Page
Number

22. B.4.2
Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element concludes that the definition of family used in zoning and land use does not include unrelated individuals and does not unnecessarily constrain living configurations. However, the element should list the definition and analyze the impacts on housing for persons with disabilities. This is particularly important since upon a cursory review, the City’s definition appears to have potential constraints on persons with disabilities such as requiring families to be “traditional”, “sharing household activities” and requiring a “single written lease”. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify programs to address identified constraints and modify the family definition.

In addition, the element briefly mentions a reasonable accommodation procedure, including some findings of approval. However, based on a cursory review, the procedure has provisions that may act as a constraint on housing for persons with disabilities. For example, the procedure appears to disallow waiving a conditional use permit and the decision‐making criteria includes other considerations such as impacts on surrounding uses and equivalent level of benefit that will not result in exceptions to development standards. The element should specifically evaluate these provisions as potential constraints and add or modify programs to address identified constraint.

Added Program 5.L to
revise the definition of
"family" to be broader in
scope; added analysis of
reasonable
accommodation
procedures; and
subsequently added
Program 4.U to modify the
conditional use permit
findings.

Appendix C: Housing
Constraints, Section
C.2.2.5
pp. C‐17 ‐ C‐
19; pp. 66;
pp. F‐22

23. C.1.1
A large share of the programs lists implementation timelines as “ongoing.” While this may be appropriate for some programs, programs with specific implementation actions must include completion dates resulting in beneficial impacts within the planning period. Programs that should be modified to add discrete timing include (but are not limited to) 5.F (Everyone Home), 5.G (Faith Community Participation), 5.H (Housing for ELI Households), and 5.J (Developmentally Disabled Residents). Additionally, several programs and actions have timelines that should be moved earlier in the planning period to ensure a beneficial impact. Many of these programs’ timelines are benchmarked to the date of housing element adoption. Those programs should be revised to reflect actual dates. Examples include Programs 1.D (Allow Religious Institution Affiliated Housing in Zone A), 1.F (Increase Allowances for Housing in Zone B), 1.G (Facilitating Multi‐family development in Zone C), 1.H (Increase Allowances for Housing in Zone D), 1.P (General Plan Amendments, and 1.Q (Density Bonus Ordinance).

Additionally, programs must have specific commitment to housing outcomes or deliverables.

Several programs include actions with no description of how those actions will be implemented (e.g., “support”, “study”, “explore”, “evaluate”, etc.,). For example, Program 3.E states that the City will “investigate affordable housing fund” and "meet with Council in 2023 to discuss potential risks and opportunities". However, it does not make any firm commitment to establish an affordable housing fund. Programs should be amended, as appropriate, to include specific commitment. Examples include Programs 1.G (Facilitating Development in Zone C), 1.H (Increasing Allowances in Zone D), 1.O (Gas Station Remediation Study), 2.B (Availability of Small Homes), 3.E (Affordable Housing Fund), 4.F (Capital Improvement Plan Updates), 4.G (Monitoring the Effects of the City Charter), 4.H (Consider Modifying Charter on Zoning Amendments), 4.J (Small Lot Housing Study), 4.K (Small Lot Affordable Housing Study), 5.C (Assistance to Nonprofit Developers), 5.H (Housing for ELI Households), and 5.J (Developmentally Disabled Residents).

Modified identified
programs and other
programs to include
specific timing (month and
year), moved some
program timelines up, and
generally amended
programs to include
specific action items
instead of tentative
language like "consider",
explore", etc.

Goal 5: Special Needs
Populations; Goal 1:

New Housing
Construction; Goal 3:

Affordable Housing
Opportunities; Goal
4: Elimination of
Housing Constraints
pp. 39‐87

24. C.2.1
As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

See responses as follow
immediately below.

Section IV: Housing
Plan: Goals, Policies,
and Programs
n/a

24.A C.2.1
Program 1.R (Lower‐Income Sites to Address Shortfall): The element commits to rezone sites and address various requirements related to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). However, the Program should also commit to the shortfall of sites, minimum acreage, allowable densities, and development standards that will facilitate maximum allowable densities.

Modified program to
clarify that lower‐income
sites will also be subject to
the densities,
development standards,
and uses allowed by
various zoning programs.

Goal 1: New Housing
Construction pp. 50
C. Housing Programs
Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory‐built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single‐room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) C.1
C.2
Agenda Report Page 613 Attachment 2 Exhibit B
Resolution _____ EXHIBIT B: City of Piedmont 6th Cycle (2023‐2031) Draft Housing Element HCD Comments , February 16, 2023, and Responses Finding/Comment # Response Section Reference Page
Number

24.B C.2.1
Program 1.L (Specific Plan): The Program should be revised based on a complete analysis as noted in Finding B3. In addition, the Program should commit to complying with the Surplus Land Act, finalizing necessary entitlements, and issuing building permits by a specified date and evaluating progress by a specified date and if necessary, identifying alternative sites by a specified date to accommodate development in the planning period.

Modified program to,
through issuance of an
RFP, prepare a surplus
land declaration and to
receive necessary
entitlements. The program
sets specific timeframes.

Goal 1: New Housing
Construction pp. 45‐48

24.C C.2.1
Program 4.N (Allow Transitional and Supportive Housing): The Program commits to allow transitional and supportive housing similar to other dwellings. But, in addition, the element should specifically commit to permit permanent supportive housing without discretionary action in zones allowing multifamily and mixed‐use development and comply with Government Code section 65651.

Modified program to
permit permanent
supportive housing
without discretionary
action in zones allowing
multi‐family and mixed‐
use development and to
comply with GC 65651.

Goal 4: Elimination of
Housing Constraints pp. 69
The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low‐, very low‐, low‐ and moderate‐income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)

25. C.3.1
The element must include programs with specific actions and timelines to assist in the development of housing for lower‐income households, including ELI and special needs households, as follows:

See responses as follow
immediately below.

Section IV: Housing
Plan: Goals, Policies,
and Programs
n/a

25.A C.3.1
Program 5.C (Assistance to Nonprofit Developers): The element should specifically commit to proactively and annually reaching out to developers of affordable housing and identify development opportunities. In addition, the program should commit to establish a package of incentive that will be ready to assist the development of housing for lower‐income households such as funding, adopting priority processing, granting concessions and incentives beyond State Density Bonus Law, waiving fees, and assisting with site preparation or predevelopment.

Modified program to
establish a package of
incentives for lower‐
income housing including
funding, adopting priority
processing, granting
concessions and incentives
beyond density bonus law,
waiving park
requirements/fees and
assisting with site
preparation or
development. The
program also commits to
proactively and annually
reaching out to developers
of affordable housing and
identify development
opportunities
Goal 5: Special Needs
Populations pp. 76

25.B C.3.1
Program 5.D (Persons with Development Disabilities): The Program should include actions beyond an explanation of the process to retrofit a home. For example, the Program could commit to work with regional providers and non‐profit developers to identify development opportunities, pursue funding, develop a pilot program or other actions more geared toward housing outcomes.

Modified the program to
work with regional and
non‐profit developers to
identify development
opportunities and to refer
to other supportive
housing  programs for
persons with disabilities.

Goal 5: Special Needs
Populations pp. 76‐77

25.C C.3.1
Program 5.H (ELI Households): While the Program commits to “explore” ways to expand housing for ELI households, it should also commit to pursue and establish strategies. In addition, the Program commits to amend zoning to allow SROs but should also commit to appropriate development standards and permit procedures that encourage the use.

Modified program to
pursue and establish
strategies to increase ELI
housing and to circulate an
RFP for consultants to
develop standards to
encourage SROs, co‐
housing, etc.

Goal 5: Special Needs
Populations pp. 79‐81

25.D C.3.1
Program 5.E (Housing Support for Families in Crisis): In addition to providing support and referral to County services, the element should also seek to develop opportunities within the City to address the housing needs of special needs populations such as specific efforts within Program

1.L (Specific Plan) or identifying additional sites, capacity, and funding to pursue permanent supportive housing.

Modified program to
identify additional capacity
and funding to pursue
permanent supportive
housing and to seek grant
funding to support housing
for families in crisis.

Goal 5: Special Needs
Populations pp. 77

25.E C.3.1
Program 5.F (Faith Community Participation): The Program should go beyond identifying potential partners and commit to establish partnerships and pursue strategies such as providing technical assistance, amending zoning, and assisting with funding application and coordinating with non‐profit agencies and developers.

Modified program to
provide technical
assistance, refer to zoning
amendments, and conduct
outreach meetings.

Goal 5: Special Needs
Populations pp. 78‐79
C.3
Agenda Report Page 614 Attachment 2 Exhibit B
Resolution _____ EXHIBIT B: City of Piedmont 6th Cycle (2023‐2031) Draft Housing Element HCD Comments , February 16, 2023, and Responses Finding/Comment # Response Section Reference Page
Number
Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)

26. C.4.1
As noted in Finding B4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised, as follows:

See response as follows
immediately below.

Section IV: Housing
Plan: Goals, Policies,
and Programs
n/a

26.A C.4.1
Programs 1.G (Development in Zone C) and 1.H (Housing in Zone D): These Programs generally commit to increase allowable densities but should also go beyond “consider” or implementing “possible” incentives and specifically commit to establish appropriate procedures and development standards that improve approval certainty and facilitate maximum densities without exceptions. For example, Program 1.G (Development in Zone C) could commit to establish heights of at least five stories and Program 1.H could commit to establish heights of at least seven stories. This is particularly important given the lack of implementation in the prior planning period (p. D‐6).

Removed "consider" and
"possible" language and
specified particular height
increases.

Goal 1: New Housing
Construction pp. 42‐44

26.B C.4.1
Programs 4.G (Monitoring the City Charter) and 4.H (Modifying the Charter): Program 4.G from the prior planning period (p. D‐17) specifically committed to evaluate the effects of the City Charter on multifamily development and take appropriate action to address the constraint. These actions were not limited to the RHNA. In response, the City appears to have taken no action to address this fundamental constraint on housing choices and, as a result, the current programs must have specific commitment to address the constraint. For example, Program 4.H should go beyond “consider modifying” and commit to a schedule of actions to modify the Charter and alternative actions to address the constraint if the Charter is not amended by a specified date.

Modified programs to
include a schedule of
actions and clarified that
proposed zoning programs
can take place without
modification of the charter
Goal 4: Elimination of
Housing Constraints pp. 64‐66

26.C
Program 4.P (Residential Care Facilities): The Program should commit to permit group homes for six or fewer persons as a single‐family residential use regardless of licensing. In addition, regarding group homes for seven or more persons, the Program commits to considering other provisions but, instead, should specifically commit to amend procedures and zoning to allow these uses in all residential zones with objectivity to promote approval certainty similar to other residential uses of the same form. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning‐and‐community/group‐home‐technical‐ advisory‐2022.pdf.

Modified program to
develop objective design
standards and appropriate
conditional use permit
findings for residential
care facilities for seven or
more persons in Zone B
and Zone D and to allow
residential care facilities
consistent with State law
and consider provisions for
care facilities for both up
to six persons and for
seven or more persons.

Goal 4: Elimination of
Housing Constraints pp. 70

27. C.5.1
As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete assessment of fair housing. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs. Programs to AFFH should go beyond status quo actions, include specific commitment, discrete timing, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets and should generally address housing mobility, encourage new housing choices in higher resource areas, improve place‐based strategies toward community revitalization and protect existing residents from displacement. For example, the element must add significant and meaningful housing mobility actions to promote housing choices and affordability (not limited to the RHNA) and overcome the existing patterns in the City relative to the broader region.

Modified Program 1.L to
clarify that all of Piedmont
is a high resource area,
and that any lower‐income
housing development in
Piedmont promotes
housing mobility actions to
promote housing choices
and affordability and to
overcome the existing
patterns in the City
relative to the broader
region. Additional analysis
(see above) did not
identify need for
additional programs.

Section IV: Housing
Plan: Goals, Policies,
and Programs;
Appendix F:

Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing
pp. 47
Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) C.4
C.5
C.6
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) Agenda Report Page 615 Attachment 2 Exhibit B
Resolution _____ EXHIBIT B: City of Piedmont 6th Cycle (2023‐2031) Draft Housing Element HCD Comments , February 16, 2023, and Responses Finding/Comment # Response Section Reference Page
Number

28. C.6.1
The element includes many meaningful actions to promote the creation of ADUs. However, the element should also commit to monitor the production and affordability of ADUs at least twice in the planning period and take appropriate action such as adjusting assumptions or rezoning within a specified time (e.g., 1 year) if assumptions are not realized.

Added program 3.H to
monitor ADU affordability
and occupancy twice
during the planning period
and once within the first
year, to support
assumptions and make
adjustments as needed
pending the results. Added
program 1.S. to confirm
the ADU ordinance
complies with State ADU
law and will make any
adjustments as needed.
n/a pp. 60, pp.
51 29. D.1.1
While the City made considerable effort to include the public through workshops and surveys and included some broad responses to public comments under a separate City Council staff report, moving forward, the City should employ additional methods for public outreach efforts in the future, particularly to include lower‐income and special needs households or representatives. For example, the City could conduct targeted stakeholder interviews or establish a committee representative of lower‐income households in future public outreach efforts. In addition, the element explains various public comments but should also discuss how those comments were incorporated into the elements.

Added discussion of how
comments were
incorporated into the
housing element.

Bolstered outreach
section. Also see Programs

1.C and 7.C
Section I:

Introduction
pp. 14 ‐ 22;
pp. 40 and
87 D.1
D. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) Agenda Report Page 616 Attachment 2 Exhibit B
City of Piedmont
Resolution ______ Exhibit C: HCD Housing Element Checklist Public Participation
Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(8)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Description of the diligent efforts the jurisdiction made to include all economic segments of the community and/or their representatives in the development and update of the housing element.

E‐3 : E‐4
14 : 22
Summary of the public input received and a description of how it will be considered and incorporated into the housing element.

E‐4 : E‐6
E‐1 : E‐165
Review and Revise
Government Code section 65588, subdivision (a)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Progress in implementation – A description of the actual results or outcomes of the previous element’s goals, objectives, policies, and programs (e.g. what happened).

D‐2 : D‐30
Effectiveness of the element – For each program, include an analysis comparing the differences between what was projected or planned in the element and what was achieved.

D‐2 : D‐30
Appropriateness of goals, objectives, policies, and programs –A description of how the goals, objectives, policies, and programs in the updated element are being changed or adjusted to incorporate what has been learned from the results of the previous element. (e.g. continued, modified, or deleted.) D‐2 : D‐30
Special needs populations – Provide a description of how past programs were effective in addressing the housing needs of the special populations. This analysis can be done as part of describing the effectiveness of the program pursuant to (2) if the jurisdiction has multiple programs to specifically address housing needs of special needs populations or if specific programs were not included, provide a summary of the cumulative results of the programs in addressing the housing need terms of units or services by special need group.

D ‐ 2 : D‐3
D‐21 : D‐27
AB 1233 –  Shortfall of sites from the 5th  cycle planning period –  Failure to implement rezoning required due to a shortfall of adequate sites to accommodate N/A
Agenda Report Page 617 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
the 5th cycle planning period RHNA for lower‐ income households triggers the provisions of Government Code section 65584.09.

Housing Needs Assessment – Quantification and Analysis of Need Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(1)(2) and section 65583.1, subdivision (d) Description of Requirement Page
Number
Population (e.g., by age, size, ethnicity, households by tenure) and employment trends
A‐4 : A‐15
Household characteristics including trends, tenure, overcrowdings and severe overcrowding
A‐15 : A‐42
Overpayment by income and tenure   A‐60 : A‐69
Existing housing need for extremely low‐income households   A‐32 : A‐40 A‐69
Projected housing needs: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by income group, including projected extremely low‐income households Section
II.C, 23 : 24
Housing stock conditions, including housing type, housing costs, vacancy rate   A‐43 : A‐60 Estimate of the number of units in need of replacement and rehabilitation   A‐50 : A‐51 F‐38
Identification and Analysis of the Housing Needs for Special Needs Populations
Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(7)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Elderly   A‐25 : A‐27
Persons with Disabilities, including Developmental Disabilities   A‐29 : A‐32 Large Households   A‐22 : A‐25
Farmworkers (seasonal and permanent)   A‐34 : A‐35
Female Headed Households   A‐27 : A‐29
Homeless (seasonal and annual based on the point in time count) A‐35 : A‐40 Optional: Other (e.g. students, military) Non‐English Speakers A‐41 Agenda Report Page 618 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ‐ An Assessment of Fair Housing Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(10)(A)
Part 1 Outreach
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Does the element describe and incorporate meaningful engagement that represents all segments of the community into the development of the housing element, including goals and actions?
E‐3 : E‐165
Part 2 Assessment of Fair Housing
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Does the element include a summary of fair housing enforcement and capacity in the jurisdiction?
F‐8 : F‐9
The element must include an analysis of these four areas:

Integration and segregation patterns and trends   F‐9 : F‐21 Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty   F‐21 : F‐24 Disparities in access to opportunity   F‐25 : F‐37
Disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk
F‐32 : F‐39
Each analysis should include these components:
 Local: Review and analysis of data at a local level
 Regional impact: Analysis of local data as it compares on a regional level  Trends and patterns: Review of data to identify trends and patterns over time  Other relevant factors, including other local data and knowledge  Conclusion and findings with a summary of fair housing issues Agenda Report Page 619 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
Part 3 Sites Inventory
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Did the element identify and evaluate (e.g., maps) the number of units, location and assumed affordability of identified sites throughout the community (i.e., lower, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA) relative to all components of the assessment of fair housing?
B‐29 : B34
Did the element analyze and conclude whether the identified sites improve or exacerbate conditions for each of the fair housing areas (integration and segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, areas of opportunity, disproportionate housing needs including displacement)? F‐43 : F‐53
Part 4 Identification of Contributing Factors
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Did the element identify, evaluate, and prioritize the contributing factors to fair housing issues?
F‐53 : F‐55
Part 5 Goals and Actions Page
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Did the element identify, goals and actions based on the identified and prioritized contributing factors?
F‐53 : F‐55
Do goals and actions address mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place‐based strategies for preservation and revitalization, displacement protection and other program areas? F‐53 : F‐55
Programs must include the following components:
 Actions must be significant, meaningful, and sufficient to overcome identified patterns of segregation and affirmatively further fair housing.

 Metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs/actions and fair housing results.

Agenda Report Page 620 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
Affordable Housing Units At-Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(9)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Provide an inventory of units at‐risk of conversion from affordable to market‐rate rents within 10 years of the beginning of the planning period. The inventory must list each development by project name and address, the type of governmental assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from low‐income use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality’s low‐income housing stock in each year.

A‐69
Provide an estimate and comparison of replacement costs vs. preservation costs   N/A Identify qualified entities to acquire and manage affordable housing   N/A Identify potential funding sources to preserve affordable housing   N/A Analysis of Actual and Potential Governmental Constraints Government Code section, 65583, subdivisions (a)(5), (a)(4), (c)(1), and section 65583.2, subdivision (c)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Land use controls (e.g. parking, lot coverage, heights, unit size requirements, open space requirements, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) requirements, floor area ratios, growth controls (e.g., caps on units or population or voter approval requirements, conformance with the requirements of SB 330), inclusionary requirements, consistency with State Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act, and consistency with zoning and development standard website publication and transparency requirements pursuant to Gov. Code § 65940.1 subd. (a)(1)(B)).

C‐4 : C‐20
Local processing and permit procedures (e.g., typical processing times, permit types/requirements by housing type and zone, decision making criteria/findings, design/site/architectural review process and findings, description of standards [objective/subjective], planned development process). Element should also describe whether the jurisdiction has a process to accommodate SB 35 streamline applications and by‐right applications for permanent supportive housing and navigation centers.

C‐21 : C‐28
Agenda Report Page 621 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
Building codes and their enforcement (e.g., current application of the California Building Code, any local amendments, and local code enforcement process and programs)
C‐20 : C‐21
On and Off‐Site improvement requirements (e.g., street widths, curbing requirements)
C‐28 : C‐30
Fees and other exactions (e.g., list all fees regardless of entity collecting the fee, analyze all planning and impact fees for both single family and multifamily development, provided typical totals and proration to total development costs per square foot, and consistency with fee website publication and transparency requirements pursuant to Gov. Code § 65940.1 subd. (a)(1)(A)).

C‐25 : C‐28
Housing for persons with disabilities (e.g. definition of family, concentrating/siting requirements for group homes, reasonable accommodation procedures, application of building codes and ADA requirements, zoning for group homes and community care facilities)
C‐16 : C‐18
Analysis of locally‐adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of housing (e.g. inclusionary ordinance, short‐term rental ordinance) C‐19 : C‐20
An Analysis of Potential and Actual Nongovernmental Constraints Government Code section, 65583, subdivision (a)(6)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Availability of financing C‐32 : C‐33
Price of land C‐32
Cost of Construction C‐32
Requests to develop housing below identified densities in the sites inventory and analysis
B‐6 : B‐8
C‐6 : C‐9
Typical timeframes between approval for a housing development project and application for building permits
C‐21 : C‐24
 Does the analysis demonstrate the jurisdiction’s action(s) to mitigate nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between planning for housing to accommodate all income levels and the construction of housing to accommodate all income levels? Agenda Report Page 622 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Government Code section, 65583, subdivisions (a)(4), (c)(1), and subdivision 65583.2 subdivision (c)
Provide an analysis of zoning and availability of sites for a variety of housing types including the following:

Description of Requirement Page
Number
Multifamily Rental Housing C‐11
Housing for Agricultural Employees (permanent and seasonal) (compliance with Health and Safety Code sections 17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8) C‐14
Emergency Shelters (including compliance with new development/parking standards pursuant to AB 139/Gov. Code § 65583 subd. (a)(4)(A))
C‐11 : C‐13
Low Barrier Navigation Centers C‐11 : C‐13
Transitional Housing C‐13 : C‐14
Supportive Housing (including compliance with AB 2162, statutes of 2019) C‐13 : C‐14 Single‐Room Occupancy Units C‐14 : C‐15
Manufactured homes, including compliance with Gov. Code § 65852.3 C‐15 Mobile Home Parks C‐15
Accessory Dwelling Units C‐10 : C‐11
Site Inventory and Analysis
Government Code, section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), section 65583.1, subdivision Site Inventory
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Sites Inventory Form Listing: Parcel listing by parcel number, size, general plan and zoning, existing uses on non‐vacant sites, realistic capacity, level of affordability by income group, publicly owned sites (optional).

B‐29 : B‐34
Agenda Report Page 623 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
Prior Identified Sites: Address whether sites are adequate to accommodate lower income needs based on identification in the prior planning period for non‐vacant sites or two or more for vacant sites.

B‐11
B‐27 : B‐34
Map of Sites B‐28
 Did the jurisdiction use the sites inventory form adopted by HCD? * (*City staff has confirmed with LWC staff that the Housing Element Sites Inventory will be transcribed onto HCD adopted forms prior to submittal to HCD for certification.) Site Inventory Analysis and Methodology
Description of Requirement Page
Number
RHNA Progress: List the number of pending, approved or permitted units by income group based on actual or anticipated sales prices and rents since the beginning of the projection period
A‐49
D‐2 : D‐3
Environmental Constraints: Address any known environmental or other constraints, conditions or circumstances, including mitigation measures, that impede development in the planning period
C‐35 : C‐36
Appropriate density: Identification of zoning to accommodate RHNA for lower‐ income households:
•Identify zones meeting the “default” density (Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd.(c)(3)(B)) or;
•Identify and analyze zones with densities less than the “deemed appropriate”(default) density that are appropriate to accommodate lower RHNA.

B‐9
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Capacity: Describe the methodology used in quantifying the number of units that can be accommodated on each APN:
• If development is required to meet a minimum density, identify the minimum density, or;
• Describe the methodology used to determine realistic capacity accounting for land use controls and site improvement requirements, typical density trends for projects of similar affordability, and current or planned infrastructure. • For sites with zones allowing non‐residential uses, demonstrate the likelihood of residential development
B‐8 : B‐11
Infrastructure: Existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate the regional housing need, including water, sewer and dry utilities
C‐36 : C‐38
Agenda Report Page 624 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
Small and large sites: Sites identified to accommodate lower RHNA that are less than one‐half acre or larger than 10 acres require analysis to establish they are adequate to accommodate the development of affordable units.

B‐21 : B‐22
B‐24 : B‐26
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Identified sites throughout the community that affirmatively furthers fair housing (see page 5 of checklist) F‐43 : F‐53
Nonvacant Sites Analysis: For nonvacant sites, demonstrate the potential and likelihood of additional development within the planning period based on extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, current market demand for the existing use, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites B‐9
B‐11 : B‐22
If nonvacant sites accommodate 50 percent or more of the lower‐income RHNA, demonstrate the existing use is not an impediment to additional development and will likely discontinue in the planning period, including adopted findings based on substantial evidence.

B‐11 : B‐22
Nonvacant sites that include residential units (either existing or demolished) that are/were occupied by, or subject to, affordability agreements for lower‐income households within 5 years are subject to a housing replacement program. (Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd. (g)(3))
N/A
Compliance with zoning for sites accommodating the moderate and above moderate income pursuant to AB 725 (2020)
B‐16
Alternative Methods to Accommodate the RHNA: Optional
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Accessory Dwelling Units: Analyze the number and affordability level of ADU units projected to be built within the planning period, including resources and incentives and other relevant factors such as potential constraints, and the likelihood of availability for rent
B‐3 : B‐5
Existing Residential Units: number and affordability level of units rehabilitated, converted or preserved that meet the provisions of alternative adequate sites. In addition, this includes units in a motel, hotel, or hostel that are converted to residential units and made available to persons experiencing homelessness as part of a COVID‐19 response and acquisition of mobile home park. If using this option, the adequate site alternative checklist must be provided.

B‐5
Other: Jurisdictions are encouraged to consult with HCD regarding other alternative methods options including new manufactured housing park hook‐ups, floating B‐24 : B‐26
Agenda Report Page 625 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
homes/live aboard berths, conversion of military housing, adaptive reuse of commercial uses, or other housing opportunities unique to the community to ensure their adequacy to accommodate RHNA.

Other Miscellaneous Requirements
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Description of the means by which consistency with the general plan will be achieved and maintained. (Gov. Code § 65583 subd. (c)(8))
22 49 : 50
Description of construction, demolition, and conversion of housing for lower‐ and moderate‐income households within the Coastal Zone (if applicable). (Gov. Code § 65588 subds. (c) and (d))
N/A
Description of opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. (Gov. Code § 65583 subd. (a)(8))
82 ‐ 85
Description of consistency with water and sewer priority requirements pursuant to SB 1087 (Gov. Code § 65589.7)
22 Other elements of the general plan triggered by housing element adoption:
•Disadvantaged Communities (Gov. Code § 65302.10)
•Flood Hazard and Management (Gov. Code § 65302 subds. (d)(3) and(g)(2)(B)) •Fire Hazard (Gov. Code § 65302 and 65302.5)
•Environmental Justice (Gov. Code § 65302 subd. (h))
•Climate Adaptation
N/A
Schedule of Actions/Programs
Government Code, section 65583, subdivisions (c)(1 – 7), and (10) Description of Requirement Program numbers Page
Number
Program(s) to provide adequate sites (large/small sites, incentives for mixed use/nonvacant sites, publicly owned sites, annexation, etc)

1.A – 1.S 39 : 51
If required: Program to accommodate a shortfall of adequate sites to accommodate the lower RHNA. This program must meet 1.R 50 Agenda Report Page 626 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
the specific criteria identified in Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd. (h)and (i).

If required: Program to accommodate an unaccommodated
need from the previous planning period pursuant to Gov code § 65584.09

N/A N/A
If required: Program when vacant/nonvacant sites to
accommodate lower RHNA have been identified in multiple housing elements, if needed. (Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd. (c))

N/A N/A
If required: Program to provide replacement units when
occupied by, or deed restricted to lower‐income households within the last 5 years, if needed. (Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd. (g)(3))

N/A N/A
Program(s) to assist in the development of housing to
accommodate extremely‐low, very‐low, low or moderate‐income households, including special needs populations

3.E,

3.F

4.G,

4.V

5.A,

5.B,

5.C,

5.F,

5.G

5.H,

5.I,

5.J

5.K

5.L
57 : 58
58 : 59
64 : 66
73 74
74 : 75,
75 : 76
77 : 78
78 79 : 80
80 81
82 82
Program to address governmental and nongovernmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing
4‐A : 4‐V 61 : 73
Program(s) to conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock

2.A‐2.D 52 : 54
Description of Requirement Program numbers Page
Number
Program(s) to promote and affirmative further fair housing opportunities
See attached. F‐54 : F‐55
Program(s) to preserve units at‐risk of conversion from affordable to market‐rate rents

2.D, 3.F 54, 58
Program(s) to incentivize and promote the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at an affordable rent

3.A‐3.H 55 : 60
Agenda Report Page 627 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
 Do programs specify specific clear commitment, meaningful actions, that will have beneficial impact within the planning period?
 Do programs identify timing, objectives (quantified where appropriate), and responsible parties, if appropriate for implementation?
Quantified Objectives
Government Code, section 65583, subdivisions (b)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Estimate the number of units likely to be constructed, rehabilitated and conserved or preserved by income level, including extremely low‐income, during the planning period
87 HCD Checklist Supplement: Housing Replacement Program Gov. Code 65915(c)(3) and Gov. Code 65583.2(g)(3)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Non‐vacant sites that include residential units, either existing or demolished, that are/were occupied by, or subject to affordability agreements, for lower income households within 5 years preceding the beginning of the planning period are subject to a housing replacement program consistent with the requirements listed in Gov.

Code 65915(c)(3) and Gov. Code 65583.2(g)(3)
N/A
Agenda Report Page 628 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
Program(s) to promote and affirmative further fair housing opportunities:

Agenda Report Page 629 Attachment 2 Exhibit C
Agenda Report Page 630 Attachment 2
Exhibit C
Item 4 – Approval of Housing Element and Related CEQA IS-ND Correspondence Received before Monday, March 20th at 3:30 p.m.

Mayor Cavenaugh and Council members Andersen, McCarthy, Long and Ramsey, I am resubmitting my Jan. 15, 2023 written comments to ensure that they will be part of the record for tomorrow's March 20, 2023 City Council meeting on Piedmont's Housing Element Sixth Cycle (HE).

In sum, the Planning Department is asking the City Council to approve a Negative Declaration (that there are no significant environmental impacts) while the City is studying significant environmental impacts for a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Planning Department has yet to identify in one of its bulletins or reports a specific CEQA statute or a specific CEQA guideline that would allow the City Council to vote on the final HE in this way before the programmatic EIR has been completed.

Thank you once again for considering my comments.

Randy Wu
From: Randolph Wu
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2023 15:20
To: City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Kevin Jackson <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Process Update January 17, 2023 - Agenda Item 9

Dear Mayor Cavenaugh and Council members Andersen, McCarthy, Long and Ramsey,

At last week's Planning Commission meeting the Planning Department and Rincon, its environmental consultant, proposed a novel process for environmental review of Piedmont's Housing Element Sixth Cycle (HE). They maintain that the HE is just a policy document for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not yet required. As several of you know the City Council engaged Rincon to start work on an EIR back in August, 2021. Under the most recent schedule a draft EIR may be released this summer during the HE implementation period. Because the draft EIR is not yet ready staff has prepared a Negative Declaration for the City Council even though Rincon's work on the programmatic EIR is underway.

This is an inventive approach - perhaps an example of "trying to have your cake and eat it too".

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows Piedmont to rely upon a programmatic EIR that has been certified with its final HE and then avoid preparation of another separate EIR for zoning amendments during the implementation period. (See Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(e) and CEQA Guideline 15183.) This is allowed as long as the HE unit densities have been studied in the programmatic EIR. However, the law does not allow the converse - to delay certification of an EIR when the final HE is adopted because the City will consider zoning amendments later during the implementation period.

The HE will be a binding plan for 2023-2031 and clearly is a "project" under CEQA. Housing development may proceed during the implementation period even without zone amendments. ADUs and single family homes may be built. Multi-family projects can be developed based upon the HE densities. A developer may request variances from the current zoning code while the City is amending its code to conform with the HE.

CEQA requires all cities to study an HE's significant impacts on the environment, as well as feasible alternatives, before a vote is taken. Other cities have been able to prepare EIRs for certification with their HEs. For this reason I urge the City Council to direct the Planning Department and Rincon to release the programmatic EIR that already is underway as soon as possible - at the latest before the second HE adoption deadline of May 31, 2023. (If Piedmont does not approve its HE by this date, then the implementation period may be shortened from three years to one year.)

To the extent there is concern about the so-called Builder's Remedy taking effect after the first HE deadline of January 31, 2023, please note that the City will retain its authority to review any Builder's Remedy applications filed after January 31, 2023 through project specific EIRs.

CEQA clearly requires certification of an EIR with your vote on the final HE. Piedmont should do its best to comply with State environmental law sooner rather than later.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Randy Wu
Dear City Council,
I am writing to urge you to reconsider and prioritize the addition of multi-family and affordable housing in Piedmont's city center to the Revised Housing Element.

My parents purchased their first home on Highland Avenue in the late 1960s when they moved to this area for its excellent schools and because it was conducive to walking to school. Later, in the early 1970s, we relocated to Sierra Avenue, which was conveniently situated across the street from the community center. During my time at Havens, Piedmont Middle School, and Piedmont High School, I walked to school every day. I also regularly took the bus from the city center to visit my grandmother in San Francisco. Our family relied heavily on public transportation, and my dad took the bus to downtown San Francisco until he was 91 years old, just before the pandemic forced him to shut down his business.

My own experiences have led to my continued support for the addition of multi-family affordable housing sites in the city center for the Revised Housing Element. Close to the new pool and easy access to public transportation, Piedmont’s city center is an ideal location for residents who commute to San Francisco and Oakland. Additionally, it is within walking distance to our outstanding schools. Excluding this area from the Revised Housing Element would be shortsighted. In the long term, I would like to see Piedmont create a plan for the city center that includes affordable housing, allows for safe traffic flow, and is amenable to those who walk, bicycle, and take the bus
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Elise Marie Collins
March 20, 2023
Piedmont City Council
120 Vista Ave.

Piedmont, CA 94611
Re: Comment on Piedmont’s Revised Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Dear Members of the City Council:

We have reviewed Piedmont’s Revised Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element that was just released a few days ago. We are glad to see that the Revised Draft addresses several of California HCD’s requests for technical changes, but were disappointed to find that the City still has not met one of HCD’s most important substantive requests: to “consider identifying additional sites” for lower-income housing beyond the three sites “isolated in three remote areas on the boundaries of the City.” As we have stated in several previous letters – and as the City’s own consultant recommended – the best way to address this request from HCD would be to create an additional housing program that explores how to add affordable housing on city-owned sites in the civic center. Given the scarcity of available sites for multifamily housing in Piedmont, building on city-owned land remains the most likely and feasible path to creating affordable housing, and the City overlooks an important opportunity by omitting such a program from the Housing Element.

In its original draft Housing Element, the City included several city-owned sites in the civic center in its site inventory, but the City Council removed these due to objections from residents of the adjoining neighborhoods, as well as concerns about how placing the sites in the site inventory would constrain the City’s ability to carry out improvements and renovations to City facilities. The Council removed the civic center from the table, against the recommendation of its Housing Element consultants, Lisa Wise Consulting, and contrary to two City-commissioned feasibility studies carried out by Environmental & Planning Systems (EPS) indicating the viability of building affordable housing in the civic center (see reports dated August 1, 2022 and October 24, 2022). ” This is a win-win solution that the City has not been willing to adopt for reasons that are unclear.

On page 21-22 of the Revised Housing Element, Attachment 2, Exhibit A (page 147-148 of the Agenda Report PDF), the City states that it removed the city-owned civic center sites from the site inventory in response to public comments. However, the City has never explained why it has not taken up its own consultants’ recommendations, as well as our and other Piedmont residents’ public comments and letters supporting housing in the City Center. A partial list of this correspondence is included below, for your reference:

Item 4 – Approval of Housing Element and Related CEQA IS-ND Correspondence Received before Monday, March 20th at 4:00 p.m. ● March 6, 2023 - Letter from PREC re: Comments on the California Department of Housing and Community Development Response to Piedmont’s Draft Housing Element, 6th Cycle
● November 14, 2022 - Letter from Michael Gomez re: Housing Element - Civic Center Sites
● November 14, 2022 - Letter from PREC re: Revisions to Piedmont’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
● October 27, 2022 - Letter from Michael Gomez re: Housing Element - Civic Center Site ● September 12, 2022 - Letter from “Residents of Lower Piedmont” re: Feedback on Housing Element Update
● June 15, 2022 - Letter from PREC re: Addendum to Feedback on the Draft Housing Element
● May 5, 2022 - Letter from PREC re: Feedback on the Draft Housing Element Finally, since the City is relying on non-vacant sites on Grand Avenue and Park Avenue for more than 50% of its low-income housing sites, HCD asked for evidence of interest from the property owners. We note that in its revised Draft Housing Element, the City indicated it has received letters from owners indicating such interest. It is hard to evaluate the seriousness of this interest, absent the actual letters and concrete steps towards redevelopment. Given the high likelihood that one or more of these sites will not be redeveloped into housing for low-income households during the 2023-31 Housing Element cycle, the City would be well advised to identify surplus sites on city-owned land in the civic center. This returns us to the imperative of carrying out a master plan for the civic center.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly,
Irene Cheng and Deborah Leland
Co-chairs, Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign (PREC) Housing Committee Cc: Sara Lillevand, Pierce MacDonald-Powell, Kevin Jackson, California Department of Housing and Community Development
Item 4 – Approval of Housing Element and Related CEQA IS-ND Correspondence Received before Monday, March 20th at 5:00 p.m.

Dear Councilperson,
The revised Draft Housing Element appears to respond reasonably to nearly all the concerns and suggestions expressed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Responses to HCD’s following concern should, however, be improved. “…a large portion of the lower‐income RHNA is isolated in three remote areas on the boundaries of the City yet a significant portion of the moderate and above moderate RHNA is located throughout the City. The element should evaluate these patterns and based on the outcomes of this analysis, consider identifying additional sites and add or modify programs to promote housing mobility throughout the City (Not limited to the RHNA)” I believe Piedmont’s defense of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan process should be stronger. The revised Element should make clearer that the process will produce a plan for an entirely new neighborhood of 132 housing units, 60 of which will be affordable to low-income families. This new neighborhood will be socio-economically, and likely racially, more diverse than Piedmont as we now know it. It will have its own physical, social, and political identity shaped by policies agreed among Piedmonters in compliance with State requirements. It will be a place where residents benefit from good design, good schools, good public services, and good intentions to build an integrated neighborhood. It can, in short, be everything that HCD and Piedmonters hope to achieve through the general plan process. It must, of necessity, be at the periphery of the community because no other location in Piedmont presents an opportunity to build an entire neighborhood of 132 mixed-cost housing units.

As I and others have previously noted, the only threat to realizing this desirable objective arises from the possibility that the neighborhood will, by plan, be internally segregated. The threat arises, ironically, from good intentions. The Council added Blair Park to the Specific Plan area to make possible the rearranging of existing Canyon uses including the city corporation yard. Given previously studied and documented safety hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians accessing Blair Park, moving the corporation yard there (where the original Blair Park plan of the early 20th century assigned it), would allow more space on the safer side of Moraga to realize a socio-economically and physically integrated community. Including Blair in the plan, however, has led some Piedmonters to suggest assigning all 60 low-income units there. As has been argued before the Council and elsewhere, this scheme would physically, functionally, and socially isolate residents and put them at risk of accidental trauma. Presuming, however, that good land-use planning and decent policy prevail, no residential uses would be allowed in Blair Park and a new, safe, neighborhood of 132 homes, including 60 for low-income families will grow around an enhanced Coaches Field.

HCD’s concern that the revised Element shows no low-income units in central Piedmont appears reasonable given that city staff, city-paid consultants, and a Council-appointed Housing Committee all recommended that the Council locate at least some low-income units there. Council’s attempt to explain its decision to exclude low-income families from central Piedmont has been muddled at best, leaving observers (apparently including HCD) to infer that organized resident resistance to low-income housing drove the choice. I urge the Council to correct this inference by further revising the Housing Element to include the following strategy. Keep the current assignment to Grand Avenue of low-income units (other than the 60 intended for Moraga Canyon) in the Element as the “default option.” But, as recommended by the Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign (i.e., PREC), also begin a Central Piedmont Specific Plan process to identify possible locations for at least some of these units. The spirit and intent of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan process should, in other words, apply to central Piedmont. As the Moraga Canyon process specifically calls out possible use of public lands and rights-of-way as sites for low-income housing, so should a Central Piedmont Specific Plan. Highland Way, for example, serves essentially as a parking lot. Structures equal to or lower in height and massing to the adjacent church and office building could be built there without denying access to the church or businesses. The Central Piedmont Specific Plan could also coordinate with the Moraga Canyon Plan to ensure that the city has locations for all essential public functions. Indeed, the Piedmont Unified School District could also participate in the planning to ensure its needs for physical space are met as well.

Thank you for considering the above comments.

Ralph Catalano, Ph.D.