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

Staff Report HERE.

Agenda and Participation Information HERE.

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

Letter to the City Council:

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

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

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

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

Figure 1

Figure 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member, Piedmont Resident

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

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

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

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

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

“Choosing natural gas would be irresponsible from a climate perspective.”

Progress on the new Piedmont Aquatic Center has reached a key decision making point. Between now and April 4, 2022, the Piedmont City Council will be deciding between a system that heats pool water by natural gas (a climate-warming fossil fuel) or one that uses no natural gas, relying instead on electricity from renewable sources.

The news from the preliminary energy use reportprepared by the engineers under contract with ELS architecture is good and cause for great hope that a climate-friendly all-electric system is within our financial reach. The analysis shows that while an all-electric facility will require an additional $600,000 in upfront cost and have a longer payback period (15.8 years, in comparison with 8.4 years for the natural gas option), it will provide approximately $1,000,000 more in cost savings over the 25-year period studied as compared to the natural gas option.

The estimated greenhouse gas emissions from each option stand in sharp contrast: The natural gas-fired facility will generate 260 MT CO2e and will make greenhouse gas emissions from the new facility 1.5 times greater than those from the old Community Pool, which generated approximately 75% of municipal emissions from natural gas. The all-electric option, however, will reduce the pool facility’s emissions by 100%.Opting for natural gas would thus make it impossible to meet Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan’s targets for reducing emissions in municipal facilities, reductions that are important not only in and of themselves but also as an example for residents to emulate in reducing emissions in their homes.

The decision to choose the all-electric system appears to be a no-brainer. But there’s a catch: The Staff Report accompanying the preliminary energy use report goes out of its way to frame emissions from the pool in the context of the municipal sector and Piedmont’s overall emissions, making the point that, when emissions from employee transportation are taken into account, the old Community Pool contributed less than 20% of municipal emissions and less than 1% of total emissions from Piedmont’s residential sector. While these numbers may be largely true for the old pool, the Staff Report fails to note that, given that a new natural gas-fueled facility will generate 1.5 times more emissions than the old facility, its portion of municipal emissions will also increase. These numbers also don’t take into account that emissions from employee commutes will decrease with the EV adoption that will likely accompany installation of EV charging stations near City Hall. The important point here is that referencing these numbers appears to be in service of providing a rationale for choosing natural gas for the pool.

Choosing natural gas would be very short-sighted, however. As the preliminary energy analysis points out, natural gas prices have become very volatile and are trending upwards at a faster rate than electricity prices. As California moves towards phasing out natural gas, a natural gas-dependent facility could become obsolete before the end of its expected lifetime. It is wiser to construct an energy system for the future now, than to face the cost-prohibitive prospect of having to re-do the system later. Choosing natural gas would also be imprudent from a financial perspective; while it may be tempting to choose a system with a lower up-front cost and shorter payback period, we need to keep in mind that the actual cost savings over 25 years of an electric system will be approximately $1,000,000 more than a natural gas system. A $600,000 up-front cost differential is really not that large in the larger picture, nor is an additional 7.4 years until payback.

Choosing natural gas would be irresponsible from a climate perspective. No matter how small the pool’s emissions are in the context of total Piedmont and world emissions, we all know that it’s important that each family, city, state and nation work to reduce its emissions in as many ways as possible, in order for us to collectively bring emissions down. Cities and other government bodies have an additional mandate of serving as role models for the citizens they represent; if governments don’t wholeheartedly attempt to reduce their emissions, saying that what they do doesn’t matter, citizens will follow suit. If we chose an all-electric pool, Piedmont will become one of the first California municipalities to do so, and we will be on the map as a model for other communities. If we chose a natural gas-fired facility, we will be taking the position that we are exempt from needing to tackle climate change on all possible fronts – an assertion of privilege that many in the community deeply wish us to move beyond.

Margaret Ovenden, Piedmont Resident

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

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

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

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

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

HOW IS THE MONEY FOR THE POOL BEING SPENT?

Agenda and participation information for March 17, 7 p.m. Teleconference Meeting >   PCA2022-03-17 Bond Oversight Committee Agenda

Pool Bond Measure UU Campaign Information >

https://ballotpedia.org/Piedmont,_California,_Measure_UU,_Bond_Issue_(November_2020)

Actual Pool Bond Measure UU Ballot Language  >

https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/Departments/City%20Clerk/Elections/2020-11-03%20General%20Municipal/UU-Full-Text.pdf

Document to be considered at the meeting PCA 2022-03-17 Bond Oversight Committee Presentation

The Council heard from City staff, the City attorney, residents, non-residents, the Recreation Department, representatives from arts groups, and performers addressing an Agreement with the Piedmont Center for the Arts, a local non-profit organization, regarding the City owned property at 801 Magnolia Avenue.

Between 7:30 p.m. and almost midnight on Monday, March 7, 2022, there was a lively discussion of the proposed Agreement with the Piedmont Center for the Arts organization for their continued use of the City facility across from Piedmont High School.

Issues discussed were:

• Length of Agreement  – 5 years – Accepted
• High fees Arts Center might charge for usage of their time – Undetermined
• Lack of review by Recreation Commission – True
• Problematic process and insufficient information to community 
• Excessive number of dates and times reserved for Arts Center group
• Control over City facility by external group – To be reviewed
• $200,000 + in Arts Center current reserves derived from fees
• 90 day deadline for Arts Center to advise the City of non-use of their allotted time slots – Accepted
  
• City review of Agreement and usage after  18 months – Accepted
• City review of Agreement on an annual basis – Accepted
• End to sub-leases of the property – Accepted
• Adequate opportunities for other groups to use the facility 
• Revenue not captured by the City
• Compromises by all involved to reach Agreement
•  Desire to continue the successful activities of the Arts Center 
•  A provision for potential use of the property for housing – Accepted

Council members expressed sincere appreciate to the many volunteers from the Piedmont Center for the Arts in establishing a successful and regionally recognized arts venue in Piedmont.

Three Council members supported the Agreement not wanting to delay the matter further and approved the staff proposed Agreements with minor changes.   Those approving were King, Andersen and McCarthy.

Two Council members voted no desiring additional information, a more transparent process, shorter term to the Agreement, and guaranteed equitable access for the entire community; these were Council members Cavenaugh and Long.

Since the lease with the Arts Center will end, sub-tenant, The Piedmont Post, was given an extension of 60 days from time of notice to vacate the Arts Center building. The City will use the space for expanded recreational programs and Recreation Department staff needs.

See prior article on the proposed Agreement. 

Council to Consider Use of 801 Magnolia Avenue –

Staff Recommendation:

a. Approve a Facility Use Agreement between the City of Piedmont and the
Piedmont Center for the Arts (PCA) for use of the Main Hall at 801 Magnolia,Avenue (Main Hall);
b. Authorize the City Administrator to provide written notice of termination of the 2011 Lease Agreement between the City and Piedmont Center for the Arts on March 25, 2022; and
c. Establish user fees for community use of the Main Hall as set forth in the fee schedule listed in this staff report.

Proposed Use Agreement:

Under the proposed Facility Use Agreement, the City would manage the use of the Main Hall under the auspices of the Recreation Department, which manages other City facilities and event spaces. The Department of Public Works will manage maintenance of the building. The Agreement specifies that the City will reserve for itself the annual use of the Main Hall on all weekday mornings, two weekday evenings each week, and sixteen weekends. In turn, Piedmont Center for the Arts [PCA]  would have access to program the space for art related use on weekday afternoons, two weekday evenings each week, and up to thirty-six weekends each year. Hours not scheduled for use by PCA will be released for City use. The proposed agreement designates and assures at minimum, 2,492 hours (45% of the useable time) each year for City use of the Main Hall.

Key Provisions:

Approved Use: PCA use is limited to arts programming only
User Fee: PCA will pay a monthly user fee of $1,000 with an annual Consumer Price
Index (CPI) increase.
Calendar: Annually, PCA will be provided right of first refusal for 36 weekends,
weekday afternoons and two evenings per week within which to schedule
arts related events and programs. This allocation is intended to provide
flexibility for advance scheduling. It is expected that PCA will not utilize
all of this time and there are systems in place to allow for unscheduled
time to be released back to the City for broader community use.
Term: Six years
Termination: The proposed agreement allows the City to terminate the use agreement immediately if the Main Hall is needed for City operations due to an
emergency or unforeseen circumstance as well as with one year notice if
statutory requirements necessitate City use of the facility or if City facility
renovations require relocation of City Staff to 801 Magnolia Ave.
Parking: One parking place in the driveway located on Bonita Avenue will be
reserved for the Main Hall user group at any given time.

In the event Council approves the Facility Use Agreement, the next step would be for the City to formally provide notice to PCA that the current month-to-month tenancy is to be terminated with 30 days’ notice. In order to allow the Recreation Department time to organize implementation of this significant transition, Staff recommends issuing a notice of termination of the existing lease agreement on March 25, 2022, and upon expiration of the 30-day period, the proposed Facility Use Agreement would take effect on April 25, 2022.

User Fees:
Staff further recommends Council approval of a fee schedule for the Main Hall so that
community users can begin accessing the space as soon as possible. The fees as proposed are intended to provide relatively low-cost access to the Main Hall for meetings and small events and to serve needs not met by Community Hall or the Veterans Memorial Building. If approved these fees will also be incorporated in the annual review process for Recreation Department facilities undertaken during the approval of the annual budget.

Proposed Fees

• PUSD [Piedmont Unified School District] sponsored event with onsite supervision No Charge
• Piedmont Community Based Organization $30/hr
• Community Based Organization (CBO) $50/hr
• Private Rental Resident $80/hr
• Private Rental Non-resident $125/hr
As with the City’s other rental facilities, all uses will be subject to capacity and compatibility constraints. As a reminder, 801 Magnolia Avenue is a relatively small space without any kitchen facilities.

Community members are invited to attend the meeting virtually via Zoom or by coming to the City Council chambers. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. 

• Meeting Agenda (Including Participation Details)

• Agenda Report  Lease and Diagram of Spaces at 801 Magnolia Avenue.

Community members can provide comment on this topic by sending email to citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov. If you have questions about the report, please email City Administrator Sara Lillevand. 

Now is the time !

by March 21, 2022

to volunteer for City of Piedmont Committees and Commissions –

Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee, Civil Service Commission, Park Commission, Planning Commission, Public Safety Committee, Recreation Commission,  Mosquito Abatement Representative

Information  is linked below:

Residents wishing to apply must take one of the following two actions on or before the posted deadline of Monday, March 21, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. Postmarks will not be accepted for paper applications.

1) Apply online OR

2) Complete and return the paper application form A link to the electronic application and a downloadable application for paper submission are available on the city’s website at https://piedmont.ca.gov or from the office of the City Clerk, Piedmont City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, or by telephone at (510) 420-3040.

All applicants must be available for an interview with the City Council the evening of Monday, March 28, 2022, at which time appointments may be made.

Read links below:

PCA Commission Application 2022

PCA Commission Description of Duties 2022-02-28

PCA2022-02-28 Volunteers for Commissions-Committees

PCA Notice of Appointive Vacancies 2022