Now that H1 has passed, let us refocus our efforts on seeing that our new facilities are fastidiously maintained.  A certain amount of the tackiness, general seediness and carpet smell in certain areas comes from a low level of janitorial care.  Smudgy windows and chipped paint take very little effort to correct.

The slightest nick in the indoor trim at the White House has somebody with a tiny paintbrush, the size found in a child’s watercolor paint box, meticulously dabbing on a swoosh of white paint.  All the trim in the White House is white and of the same shade to facilitate this low-tech remedy.  If it’s good enough for the White House, it should be good enough for the schools of Piedmont.

With the tens of millions of dollars that are going to be spent, it’s not too much to expect, that our new facilities will have somebody assigned to administer the “white glove” test to every room the way they do at the Ritz. Our students and faculty deserve the best, as well as the generous citizens of Piedmont that are paying for it.

   Sunny Bostrom-Fleming, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Do Piedmonters understand the proposed changes impacting their property, the City’s property, or neighboring properties?

Chapter 17 of the City Code is the controlling legal document for building in Piedmont. 

Momentous changes are proposed.

Confusion and some concerns:

• How many parking spaces are going to be required?
• What are the new required sizes of parking spaces?
• Who gets to decide on building applications – permits, design review and variances?
• Are zone uses being changed without a public vote?
• Will roofs and other buildings be allowed to extend further into side yard setbacks?  
• Are variance requirements being changed?
• Wireless communication requirements decided by staff?
• Calling application requirements a permit rather than design review?
• Planning Commission decisions on proposals turned over for staff decisions increased from $75,000 to $125,000?
• No building restrictions on Public Property?

On Thursday, November 10, 2016, the City Council Chambers, City Hall, the Planning Commission at 5:00 p.m. will continue their work on changes to Piedmont’s building and zoning code, Chapter 17. 

The Piedmont Planning Commission has been meeting for some months on changes to Chapter 17 of the City Code with little public input. Changes to Piedmont building requirements found in Chapter 17 will have far reaching impacts.  The latest version of the changes will be considered at the November 10, 2016 Planning Commission “workshop.”

Community Engagement Requested:

A call for community workshops oriented toward expanded public input has been suggested; however, as of this writing none have been scheduled by the City.  The Planning Commission meetings have had limited public participation where comments to the  Planning Commission have a 3 minute limit, as opposed to an open exchange of ideas with the community.

The usual procedure in proposing changes to legal documents is to strike out language proposed for elimination and color or italicize new language. Following this common procedure would help Piedmonters understand the changes under consideration.  The Planning Commissioners, City Council, and public are being asked to comment on changes only hinted at in the Staff’s abstract revision table.  The revision table only notes whole sections that have been moved or deleted; but does not indicate precise changes within the sections.  

• – Page 45 – Chapter 17.6 Zone B changed to Section 17.22 Zone B: Public facilities Section 17.22.030 – Conditional Uses.  The following are allowed as Conditional Uses in Zone B:  A. City building used by a for-profit commercial entity.  Comment: this is not highlighted.

• WCF (wireless communication facilities). This is one of the many topics taken up in the “public meetings” relative to Chapter 17. The proposal recommends that the City Council only review WCF in Zone B, all others in right of ways around town are decided on by the Planning Director. WCF is getting put on poles rather than towers so it is likely that many homes may see one of these out their windows. The Planning Department and the wireless company would agree WCF locations. There appears to be no mention of a process for a resident to object. http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/publicworks/docs/planning/ch17revisions/2016-08-30_report.pdf

• Control of what citizens can build on their property has migrated from the Planning Commission to decision-making by City staff as the threshold for review by the Commission increased to $75,000.  In June Planning Director Jackson suggested the cost threshold for review by the Planning Commission should be increased from $75,000 to $125,000. 

To understand where changes are being proposed to the existing ordinances, a lined through and changed version would help readers.

Staff report for the November 10 meeting can be read here. 

The volume of planning documents can be read here.

Notice regarding the meeting from the Planning Director Kevin Jackson is below:

Activity by the Planning Commission or City Council related to revisions of City Code Chapter 17, the Zoning Code.

Item 1, and the only item on the agenda for the Planning Commission’s special meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2016 is the Consideration of a Resolution Recommending Updates to the Planning and Zoning Provisions in the City Code and City Council Policies, as well as Actions to Update Planning Commission Policies.

You can find more information on this ongoing project by visiting the City’s website. It is there that you can also find links to past reports and meeting minutes as well as a link to the staff report for the November 10, 2016 Planning Commission special meeting.

You are encouraged to provide your comments on the topics under discussion by attending the meeting and/or by submitting written comments by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. You can submit your comments to the Commission by sending an email to me, kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or on paper to 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611

Kevin Jackson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Piedmont

The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and from the City website under videos, Planning Commission.  A video recording will be made of the meeting for future viewing.

Congratulations to all who participated in the Piedmont election!

Elected to the City Council:

Jen Cavenaugh 

Bob McBain

Elected to the School Board:

Sarah Pearson

Cory Smegal

Andrea Swenson

Piedmont School Bond Measure H1 was readily approved by voters.

Official final election results will not be available for days, however the final election results are unlikely to change.

Updated election results can be viewed at:

http://acgov.org/rov/current_election/230/

Click on City – Piedmont – Members, City Council and Members, School Board.

Click on Measures – Bond Measure H1, Piedmont USD. 

Dear Piedmont:

The last three months have been an incredible experience. Running for office has been exciting and exhausting, sometimes both at the same time, but always enjoyable.

 I’ve loved meeting new friends and neighbors throughout Piedmont, residents who care deeply about our community and are willing to invest the time and energy to continue to make it a better place to live for all of us. Piedmonters are thoughtful and sincere and full of great ideas and suggestions to consider. The desire to connect with that passion is part of why I decided to run for City Council in the first place.

 I want to thank my fellow candidates for their energy and commitment to our city.  It was really a pleasure and an honor to campaign with such committed community volunteers.  And I want to thank the many community volunteers who work tirelessly on behalf of Piedmont. Thank you for all you do to make our city great.

 I’m grateful to my family, my campaign committee, and my team of volunteers, donors, letter writers, door knockers and others who’ve helped in so many ways big and small — I couldn’t have completed this journey without you. Please know that I have given this effort my all.  Win or lose it’s been an amazing experience, and I feel very confident about the future of our hometown.

 Sincerely,

Jen Cavenaugh, Candidate for City Council 2016

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.  PCA does not support or oppose candidates for public office. 

TIME TO VOTE!

If you return your Vote-by-Mail Ballot through the US Postal Service, it must be postmarked on or before Election Day, November 8, and received by the Registrar of Voters office no later than 3 days after Election Day. Postage is required.

Options for returning your Vote-by-Mail Ballot without postage:

1. Deposit your ballot in any ballot drop-box location: There is one in central Piedmont at Highland Way and Mountain Avenue next to the postal boxes (see photo below), also 1221 Oak Street in Oakland or 1333 Park Avenue in Emeryville.

2. Turn in your ballot at any polling place in Alameda County, including Piedmont, from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.on Election Day!

3. Take your ballot to the Registrar of Voters office, located at 1225 Fallon Street, Rm. G-1, in downtown Oakland, during business hours; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

If you plan to vote in person on November 8, but are not sure where to vote, enter your  address here to find out where and when to vote on Tuesday.

Official Ballot Drop Box on Highland Way in Piedmont. 

The City Council on November 7, 2016 will consider joining a program to procure electricity for Piedmonters.  The following is a staff notice describing the program.

Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is a program that enables local governments to aggregate electricity demand within their jurisdictions in order to procure electricity for its customers while maintaining the existing electricity provider (e.g., Pacific Gas & Electric Company or PG&E) for customer billing, transmission and distribution services. By the end of 2014, CCAs were serving nearly five percent of Americans in over 1,300 municipalities in seven states, including California. CCA’s offer local governments the opportunity to aggregate regional energy demand, set local energy goals, develop energy efficiency and demand reduction programs, and negotiate directly with energy suppliers and developers rather than the traditional utility business model that relies more heavily on fossil fuels.

The State of California passed legislation in 2002 (Assembly Bill 117) that permits local agencies to form CCA programs. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in June 2014 authorizing the Community Development Agency to investigate the implementation of a CCA program for Alameda County and its cities and authorized the formation of a Steering Committee to advise the Board in this effort.

The Steering Committee has held monthly public meetings since June 2015 to direct and review consultant work on a Technical Study, Joint Powers Agreement, and other elements of the proposed CCA program in Alameda County, known as East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). On October 4, 2016, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors formally took action to create the East Bay Community Energy Authority and requested that each of the cities that are considering joining the JPA to schedule the item for consideration by their respective City Councils by the end of November 2016. This schedule allows time for the necessary steps for the Authority to begin delivering power to customers in the fall of 2017.

Piedmont’s City Council has been actively interested in considering membership in a CCA since its 2010 adoption of the City’s Climate Action Plan, in which Measure BE-6.2 directs the City to research the feasibility of joining a Community Choice Aggregation. On May 5, 2014, during its discussion of the City’s Climate Action Program, the City Council directed staff to explore the feasibility of a CCA in Piedmont. On April 6, 2015, the Council appointed Council Member Tim Rood to represent Piedmont as a member of the Steering Committee providing guidance to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors regarding the formation of a CCA forAlameda County. On April 18 and October 17, 2016, the City Council received an update from County staff and consultants on the progress of the CCA formation, a technical/feasibility study and a joint powers agreement.

On November 7, 2016, the City Council is expected to consider authorizing the implementation of a Community Choice Aggregation Program in Piedmont and the Joint Powers Agreement for the East Bay Community Energy Authority.

Here is the November 7^th  Council meeting > agenda  and > staff report. 

You are encouraged to attend the City Council meeting and participate in the public hearing. If you would like to submit any written comments to the City Council, please send those to: City Clerk John Tulloch at jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us or 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

Current and previous reports to Council and videos of the Council meetings are available on the City’s website, http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/citycouncil/

For more information about CCA in California and how it works, visit the “Frequently Asked Questions” at www.acgov.org/cda/planning/cca/index.htm.

You can also find more information on the website of East Bay Community Energy,http://www.ebce.org/

Written by: Kevin Jackson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611    Tel: (510) 420-3039  Fax: (510) 658-3167

A Piedmont resident makes a request for the City Council and residents to receive more information prior to Piedmont joining a potentially costly new energy Authority.

On Monday, November 7th, the City Council will consider the First Reading of an ordinance authorizing the City to join the Alameda Clean Energy Joint Powers Authority.  This is called CCE East Bay establishing a Consumer Choice Aggregation for the electric bills of all Piedmonters.

Regardless of your wishes, you will be switched to the Alameda Consumer Choice Aggregation (CCA) for the source of your electrical supply and its cost.  Your contract with PG&E will be terminated and you will have a new supplier for your electricity if the City Council passes this and you do nothing.   You will continue to receive a bill from PG&E (which will still operate the grid and transmission lines & maintain them).  But the actual electrons for your house will be purchased for you by the CCA and billed to you as a new line item on your bill without your consent.

The rates and sources of supply of the Alameda CCA are not regulated by the California Public Utility Commission (as PG&E’s are).

Once the City Council agrees to join this Alameda County CCA, you will be sent letters for opting-out of the CCA and remaining with PG&E.  But if Piedmonters don’t know what all of this is about, there is a risk we will just ignore the letters sent out (as 75% of Richmond residents did with the Marin CCA) and they will automatically be switched to this Alameda County CCA.  At later dates, customers will be able to pay the CCA an administrative fee to get out of the deal.

Is this the best course for our environment?  Piedmont, as a city, has already achieved its goal of a 15% reduction by 2020 of GHG emissions.  According to numbers released by the California PUC (and independently verified), PG&E’s GHG emissions will be reduced to 209 co2/MWh by the year 2020.

PG&E is doing an admirable job in increasing electricity from renewable sources (Their success in this has been a 7% contributor to Piedmont’s 18.7% GHG emissions reductions.).  As of this time, 33% of PG&E’s electricity is from renewable sources; by 2020 (3 years from now), they project it will be 50%.  PG&E has started a Solar Choice Program under which consumers can elect to receive 50% or even 100% of their electricity from solar panel fields installed in Lodi, Manteca, Sacramento, among other locations, for an added cost to the consumer choosing this plan of 3.5 cents/KWh.

Have the City Council’s considerations of joining the Alameda County CCA included a presentation by PC&E?  Other cities considering joining the Alameda County CCA, including Hayward, have arranged such presentations for their City Councils.  As a matter of procedure, it seems odd not to have the major player here address the Council.

And what will obtaining power from a local Alameda CCA cost?  They claim the new power will only cost one penny more per KWh than what PG&E charges, but this opinion is based upon many assumptions and the rates are basically unregulated.  The expense of establishing a new, large bureaucracy (start-up costs estimated by Alameda County at $3.25 million; their plan is to raise $50 million for working capital, to be paid back in 5 years from rate revenue.) and the ongoing costs of paying them to administer the CCA program seems not to be justified by the claimed small reduction in GHG emissions

They claim that this CCA will bring many jobs to Alameda County, but, other than the Administrative jobs, the Feasibility Study points to non-Alameda county-located wind and solar farms.

The independent Feasibility Study commissioned by Alameda County cites many variables (such as the PG&E exit fee, the “PCIA” which must be charged to all CCA customers when they exit PG&E–so that their departure cannot cause the rates of the remaining bundled utility customers to go up), which they say could have an effect on the electricity rates charged by the CCA for our electricity (and such rates are not subject to PUC regulation as are PG&E’s).  Neither the benefits, costs nor projections of joining this Alameda CCA are clear, making the risks considerable.

For more information, I urge you to check out these internet sites:
www.ci.piedmont.ca.us  Council ( Search agenda and report)
www.acgov.org/cda/planning (What are CCA’s?)
apps3.eere.energy.gov (What are CCA’s)
pge.com
resource-solutions.org

Nancy Lehrkind, Piedmont Resident

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.