Do you know who is going to be interviewed by the Council for Piedmont’s important Commissions and Committees?

Frequently, Piedmont residents have heard the City Council expound on the need for inclusion and transparency, yet the Council does not provide transparency or inclusion in some proceedings.  

On Monday, March 28, 2022, at a “Special Meeting,” the Piedmont City Council will once again perpetuate a long-held practice of interviewing candidates for appointments to volunteer positions on Piedmont public committees and commissions away from public broadcasts and records.  Although an “official” notice announces the public interview sessions, the meetings are either held in a small conference room, or, as in this case, the Police Department Emergency Operations Center (EOC) making public participation and observation of Council decision difficult. 

The March 28, 2022 meeting has:

• No cameras for a record of the meeting (due to lack of funds)

• No broadcasts for remote viewing (due to lack of funds)

• No publicity of  the applicant’s names or positions they seek

• No listing of the order of the interviews

• No timely release to the public of the applications provided to the Council

• No opportunity for meaningful public participation in the selections

• No record of Council member priorities

• No record of individual Council member preferences

The Agenda for the March 28, 2022;  (see Full Agenda > 3:28:2022 Appointees) states:

“Special City Council Agenda Monday, March 28, 2022 6:00 p.m. EOC, Police Dept., 403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA

Special Session

1. Interview of Candidates for City Commissions and Committees to be Followed by Possible Appointment to Posted Vacancies 0085″ 

[No applicant names, no order of interviews, no positions are noted.  There is no staff report for public information. ]

California’s sunshine law, the Brown Act, requires interviews for appointed public positions to Committees and Commissions to be done in public. Not only should the law be followed by word, but by spirit, allowing the public to readily observe and participate in Piedmont government decisions. 

If the Council is true to a desire for inclusion, transparency, and public participation, the Agenda needs to list the volunteer positions to be filled in addition to the applicants’ names, and the “Special Meeting” would be broadcasted to the public and recorded.

Decades old hidden appointment processes are being perpetuated.  Under current procedures residents of Piedmont cannot know why individual appointments are made.  Applicant information provided to Council members is by law to be timely provided to the public.  Once appointments have been made appointee names have been withheld “until the appointee was notified. “

Past practices of placing the public at arms length from important Council appointments, processes and decisions have been allowed to continue unquestioned by the Council.  For Piedmont to become inclusive, the old ways need to end in favor of accessible, transparent meeting processes.

During the heart of the pandemic, appointee interviews were of necessity held on Zoom allowing the public to view the appointment procedures remotely. However,  Council members indicated during the Zoom selection process that the open broadcasted interview sessions made the process challenging for the public was able to view and hear the decisions being made.  A social club atmosphere prevailed in selecting  the appointees, as Council members privately sent  phone texts to the City Clerk to indicate their appointment preferences.  The Council never asked the City Clerk which Council members favored which applicants, consequently the public could not know the preferences.. 

For Piedmont to become a truly inclusive City, decision processes should be readily and easily available to all Piedmonters in a transparent manner.

Ironically, the City Council is currently paying a contractor thousands of dollars to advise the City on “transparency” in regard to adding 587 new housing units in Piedmont. Expensive banners have been erected by the City at strategic locations on Piedmont light poles to inform Piedmonters of the impending changes to Piedmont’s Housing Element involving zoning changes and 587 new housing units.

Piedmont Civic Association asked Piedmont City Clerk, John Tulloch, for an explanation on the lack of a recording and broadcast of Council appointment processes. A response is copied below:

“The interviews were conducted in a noticed, open, public meeting, consistent with the City’s past practice for Council vacancy interviews. The meeting was conducted in the EOC to allow for a space in which interviews could be conducted in an open, public, COVID safe way that allowed the Councilmembers to interact with applicants in person.”

Piedmont Civic Association Editors’ Comment:  The size of the Council Chamber (City Hall) 120 Vista Avenue, where Piedmont’s cameras are located and broadcast originate, has a high ceiling making it more airy than the Police Department Emergency Operation Center, EOC.   

During the Commission and  Committee interviews,  the Council has asked candidates  to not be present when other candidates are interviewed. The Brown Act allows all public members to be present for public decision making processes. Volunteers for appointed positions can learn from one another during the interview process, which is an advantage for Piedmont. 

Importantly, many candidates who seek appointed positions might be potential candidates for Piedmont elected office. Interview processes allow residents to observe both the Council and the candidates engendering greater participation, inclusion, and interest in Piedmont policy making.

Various staff members have participated in the appointment processes by advising the Council during their selection process on the pros and cons of some applicants.

Open broadcasted meetings encourage the greatest public participation and strengthen our democratic government.

March  25, 2022 – City notice states:

Special City Council Meeting Agenda – March 28, 2022

The Ralph M. Brown Act Requires that all agendas be written clearly and in sufficient detail to allow the public to understand the question to be decided by the City Council. Piedmont makes every attempt to comply with both the letter and spirit of this law. If, however, you have questions concerning an item on a City Council agenda, please call the City Clerk’s office at (510) 420-3040. Also available are the Staff Reports for each item of business on the agenda. 

[When going to the link for Staff Reports, there is no Staff Report for the March 28, 2022 Agenda. There are no names or positions.]

To send comments to the City Council as a whole, and/or regarding a City Council agenda item, please email citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov. To send via U.S. Mail, please use the following address:

City Council
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611

To send an individual Councilmember a message, please find their contact information on the Councilmember page. Any correspondence sent to the City may be considered a public record.

Editors’ Note:  The comments made here in no way express an objection to the specific choices made by the City Council to fill positions. 

Watch the video on Piedmont Heritage Trees!

The Piedmont Heritage Tree Program was created by the City Council, acting upon a recommendation from the Piedmont Park Commission, on January 16, 2018

The overall intent of the Heritage Tree Policy is to:

• Recognize and identify special and distinctive trees that are noteworthy by their size, unique species, prominent location or historical context in our parks or open spaces.
• Encourage residents to visit City parks and open spaces to find trees eligible for heritage tree designation.
• Promote the study of nature through the use, enjoyment, and greater awareness of our public parks, streets, and medians.

Applications for heritage trees are sought each year and the application period well publicized.

Since its inception, the Park Commission has designated 19 trees (or groups of trees) as City of Piedmont Heritage Trees. The map below, created by Park Commissioner Patty Dunlap, highlights Piedmont’s Heritage Trees. 

Video >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sHHQ_AXflY

Click on the icons below to view the Heritage Trees.

The Piedmont Puzzle, hosted on the Balancing Act app, is an online tool that let’s you pick where Piedmont grows in the future and what form that growth takes. Is it ADUs, apartments over ground-floor commercial, triplexes, fourplexes, tiny homes – or a mix of building types? .

. Chris Adams is president and co-founder of Balancing Act, which is a company that offers government transparency tools and which has been named to GovTech 100 every year since 2017. He is also a Senior Fellow at the University of Colorado School of Public Affairs.

Confused about RHNA? Watch these short videos for 10 things you need to know about the Housing Element. Topics covered in the videos include: •What is the RHNA? •What is the Housing Element? •What are the components of the Housing Element and General Plan?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  THOSE UNABLE TO USE OR MANIPULATE A SMARTPHONE OR COMPUTER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS  HOUSING ELEMENT POLICY MAKING PROCESS.

For more information call:

CITY OF PIEDMONT, CITY CLERK  (510) 420-3040

PIEDMONT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (510) 420-3050

For more information and future meetings click below:

PCA2022-03-21 Housing Element Workshop 3-24

“..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

“Can American Democracy Survive?”

An International Perspective” Fireside Chat with Dr. Fiona Hill, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution; formerly US National Security Council Official Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. Pacific (Zoom, YouTube streaming)

Please join the League of Women Voters of Piedmont on Wednesday, March 30th, 2022, at 4pm for a fireside chat with Dr. Fiona Hill. She will speak about the current state of American democracy, from both domestic and international points of view.

What is likely to happen in Ukraine? Is the crisis likely to spill over into other neighboring countries?

Learn what the current situation means for the international security order we have known since the end of the Cold War and what the implications are for our own democracy.

Dr. Fiona Hill is the Robert Bosch Senior Fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution and member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Her most recent book, There is Nothing for You Here, draws on her personal journey out of poverty, as well as her unique perspectives asan historian and policy maker, to show how we can return hope to our forgotten places.

From 2017 to 2019, Dr. Hill served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council. From 2006 to 2009, she served as national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council. She has researched and published extensively on issues related to Russia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, regional conflicts, energy, and strategic issues.

Coauthor of Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin and The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners Left Russia Out in the Cold, Hill  holds a master’s degree in Soviet studies and a doctorate in history from Harvard University and a master’s in Russian and modern history from St. Andrews University in Scotland.

This event is part of the Piedmont League’s 2022 Defending Democracy Speaker Series and is co-sponsored by local Leagues in Oakland, CA; Santa Barbara, CA; Solano County, CA; Portland, OR; Gunnison Valley, CO; Pueblo, CO, Pike’s Peak Region, CO; and Collier County, FL.

This talk will be held live on Zoom and YouTube and will include an audience question and answer session. Please visit the Piedmont website (lwvpiedmont.org) to learn more about the series and register for this event. Once you have registered, you will receive the Zoom link by email.

The event is free and open to the public.

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.