Dear Piedmont City Council Members,

In addition to questions of propriety and potential tricky First Amendment issues with the City being the Landlord for a press organization, and the potential optics of the Council being seen to essentially provide a subsidy to a news organization, both of which are very important to consider, I have some core public policy concerns around the decision to allow the Piedmont Center for the Arts  (PCA) to sublet City space to any commercial entity at market rates.

1. The PCA has apparently stated to the Council that it cannot survive without this Sublet Rent

This in itself raises some very troubling questions about the financial stewardship and oversight by the Board of the PCA.  If this is true, it begs the question of whether the City needs active oversight of the PCA.  Here are the facts sourced from the Form 990 filings of the PCA, all which would seem to indicate that it is more than financially viable:

–          In its first 4 years of operations, the PCA was more than self-sustaining with income of $10,000 – $33,000 a year (average of $19k a year from 2012 – 2015)

–          Since its inception, the PCA has had an annual fund raising campaign with active solicitation letters and mailers sent out broadly to residents; the most recent one that I am aware of was in Oct/Nov 2015

–          The PCA has raised, on average, approximately $20k a year in donations from the community, separate and distinct from any revenue from program events, i.e. pure charitable contributions

–          During these years, its rental income from subleasing the space, was not that substantial: Bay Area Children’s Theater was paying $7,200/ year (through 2015)

Therefore, if something changed dramatically in 2016 that no longer makes the PCA financially viable, it begs the question as to what has changed so dramatically in programming and/or community support (donations)?  Either should be cause for concern for the City because one of the main contentions of the PCA when it was established was that it would be self-sustaining and would require no further support from the City.

2. The PCA received a very generous donation of $100,000 in 2012, which more than guarantees its financial independence

In 2012, the PCA received $100,000 from the Thornborrow Foundation, in the form of an unrestricted grant.  This grant was invested and, to the best of what I can gather from the 990s, has over the years grown to $135,000 plus.

Given this more than generous endowment, and the fact that most of the PCA’s programming is self-sustaining (and if it is not, that raises the question of what has changed in the PCA’s mission), does it not raise the question of why the City of Piedmont should be further subsidizing the PCA to the tune of $50 – $70k a year?

In other words, if the PCA needed $x a year to be financially viable, they should have put that in the original lease and the City would then have considered the implications of giving that additional subsidy to the PCA.  The whole reason that was not necessary was that it was part of the original deal that the PCA made with the City, and what the City’s (and the public’s) understanding of the terms were: give us the building, we will raise funds to renovate it and then we will be completely independent from the City and self-sustaining.

[Extra information on the PCA’s programs: Artists’ rentals (raises revenue), Music recitals (pay for themselves through ticket sales), Juried Art Show (more than pays for itself through entry fees), Theater (??)]

3. Allowing the PCA to sublet the space to a Commercial Renter is in effect the City increasing the PCA’s subsidy substantially

The financial terms of the original “contract” of the City with the PCA can best be summarized as: you, the PCA will renovate and maintain 801 Magnolia and use the space exclusively to bring Arts to the community.  In return, the City grants you use of the property for 10 years for a nominal rent.  Any way you look at it, this was the City subsidizing the PCA, albeit for a very community-beneficial cause, a cause that I fully support.  (God knows, there should be more set aside for the Arts everywhere!)  The subsidy in this instance being the rent the City could otherwise have obtained from renting out the space itself to a commercial renter for 10 years.

Now the PCA has come to the City and said that the best use for a part of the space is for it to be rented out commercially.  The City’s rationale in providing a heavily rent-subsidized property to the PCA was to facilitate the bringing of Arts to the community, which the PCA has done an admirable job of.  That was the underlying rationale for the economic subsidy (rent-free for 10 years).  Hence the initial sublet clause in the original lease was that any rental would be aligned to the mission of PCA, i.e. bringing arts to the community (and which was the case from 2012 – 2106).  If that whole use condition is removed, and the space can now be sublet to any commercial renter, the entire public policy rationale of giving subsidized rent to the PCA, on that portion of the property, goes away.  Put another way, by allowing the PCA to sublet out space that it is receiving from the City at a heavily subsidized rate (under one pretext), to a commercial entity (whose purpose is completely unrelated to the PCA’s mission), at market rates, is tantamount to the City providing the PCA a substantial, additional subsidy. 

The question for the City Council then is this: shouldn’t the revenue that the City could obtain from itself renting out this portion of 801 Magnolia (and other parts of the building which it has exclusive use of), be part of the City’s overall budget and spending priorities?  Why is a decision to grant the PCA a further subsidy of $50k – $70k a year being taken outside of the context of several other more crucial spending priorities of the City?

My issue is not whether or not the City should be subsidizing an arts organization – God knows we need more of that!  The issue is that this is taxpayer money, valuable revenue that could be used to defray the cost of other City services. Whether or not it is appropriate for the City to spend that much to subsidize the Arts is a question that is most appropriately considered along with other budget priorities of the City, in a more considered process, open to public comment like any other spending priority.  If fact, the very decision by the City to allow a tenant to lease space commercially is an economic decision that the Council and Staff should have vetted no differently than they vet any other spending decision by the City.  Secondly, given the size of the subsidy here, if the PCA is no longer financially viable as they now claim, should there not be oversight of how this money is spent?  Essentially, the City is handing over $50 – $70k worth of potential taxpayer monies to the PCA Board, without any accounting for how that money will be spent.

4. Any appearance that the Piedmont Post is not paying Market Rent implies that the City is Subsidizing a News Organization

Is Council aware of the actual terms of the sublease between the PCA and the Piedmont Post?  If the Post is not paying what would be considered “market rent” for use of space in the heart of the city, with two parking spaces, then essentially the City, as the landlord, would be subsidizing the Post, which exposes the City to a potential First Amendment lawsuit and the Council members to potential accusations of conflict of interest.  The same holds to a lesser degree to any other commercial lessee, i.e. the City will be subsidizing the entity if it is not paying “market rent”.

Respectfully,

Gautam Wadhwani

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

The following public documents are published to help readers consider the issue of a sublet of the Piedmont Center for the Arts to the Piedmont Post newspaper that is before the City Council on their Monday, December 18 agenda:

Original City lease with the Arts Center Section 14:

Tenant shall not voluntarily assign or encumber its interest in this lease or in the premises, or sublease all or any part of the premises, or allow any other person or entity (except Tenant’s authorized representative) to occupy or use all or any part of the premises, without first obtaining Landlord’s written consent. Any assignments, encumbrance, or sublease without Landlord’s consent shall be voidable and, at Landlord’s election, shall constitute a default. No consent to any assignment, encumbrance, or sublease shall constitute a further waiver of the provisions of this

paragraph.

“The lease amendment before you tonight is drafted to allow for more flexibility in the terms of usage of the premises. The intent of the revised language is to allow the PCA to manage the facility with a higher degree of independence and to accommodate reasonable requests for facility usage without first having to obtain the written permission of the City Council. Given the PCA’s proven ability to professionally and responsibly manage the leased premises, I believe that this amendment is in the best interests of both the City and the PCA.It allows the PCA to more nimbly respond to requests from outside groups to use the facility, and allows for greater control in the scheduling of events and activities. For the City, the amendment acknowledges our confidence in the PCA’s abilities and keeps minor, operational issues from having to be acted upon by formal Council action.”

 

Section 14 – Of the Lease is hereby modified and restated as follows: Tenant shall not assign, transfer, convey, encumber or sublease (collectively, a “Transfer”) its interest in this lease or the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord, which consent shall be within the sole discretion of Landlord. For purposes of this provision, a Transfer shall be considered to include any assignment to an entity related to Tenant or a change of ownership or control of Tenant. Any Transfer without Landlord’s consent shall be voidable and, at Landlord’s election, shall constitute a default. Prior written consent of Landlord is required for all Transfers. Consent to a prior Transfer shall not be construed as consent to any future Transfer.

Comment about Peter Harvey’s opinion on the danger of cell towers.

Peter Harvey, a scientist at the Space Science Lab at UC Berkeley, has publicly expressed his opinion on the potential negative health effect of long term exposure to the electromagnetic radiations emitted by cell towers. In the piece published in the Post, he refers to two websites that report on the preliminary results of a study made by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) on rats. Several scientists claim that the NTP results provide “strong evidence for the genotoxicity of cell phone radiation”.

I am personally not concerned at this point in time for three reasons:

1. Why should cell radiations harm the male’s brain and not the female’s, as reported by the study?

2. As far as I could find out, the study has not yet been reproduced by another lab. Reproducibility and replicability together are among the main principles of the scientific method. There is an on-going crisis in research with regard to reproducibility as reported by the Journal Nature on May 25, 2016 : 70% of researchers surveyed have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.

3. I trust the American Cancer Society’s opinion on cell towers.

If you are still concerned and want to minimize risk, there is a solution to shield yourself and your family from radiation: the Faraday cage. A Faraday cage is an enclosure used to block electromagnetic fields; it is formed by a mesh of conductive materials. It is very effective if the holes in the mesh are significantly smaller than the wavelength of the radiation. Cell towers wavelengths range from 6 to 15 inches. Best is to use a mesh made out of copper, but other conductive metals such as used in chicken wire would do. A shield can be built around a bed, a room, or a house. Conductive paint and conductive soft fabric are commercially available. Use the “bars” on your cell phone to check effectiveness.

On my side, I am thrilled by the enormous benefits that the cellular technology has brought to the third world. I just hope that research will someday establish a measure of the risk associated with the technology in a way that enables comparison with all the other environmental health hazards in our daily life. Then I may change my mind.

An entry in the blog of Joel Moskowitz (PhD in Social Psychology and Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley) provides a useful comparison of the potential lifetime risk of cell phone radiations relative to the lifetime risk of death by accidents (that is unintentional injuries, such by car, fall, gun fire, …).  The first one is estimated at between 1 in 200 and 1 in 250 after 20 years of cell phone use, as per the peer-reviewed study of glioma (http://www.saferemr.com/2017/02/long-term-cell-phone-use-increases.html). The second one is around 1 in 34 as documented by the Information Insurance Institute (https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk).

So one would be about 6 times more likely to die from an accident than from a brain cancer induced by 20 years of cell phone use. True, the study used in this comparison only focus on glioma. But may be Joel can provide a better estimate using his knowledge of all the potential ill-health effects of cell radiations that have been investigated.

For those interested, this is the textbook on shielding: “Architectural Electromagnetic Shielding Handbook: A Design and Specification” by Leland H. Hemming”. It is available at UC Berkeley. A single conductive flat surface between a nearby cell tower and a bedroom can offer some shielding. Outlets are a simple way to ground the surface.

There are also websites that offers products for the home: https://www.lessemf.com/faq-shie.html. Their effectiveness is for sure enhanced by their placebo effect.

 by Bernard Pech,  Piedmont Resident

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Code Violation Fees:

On December 4th, 2017, I attended a City Council meeting at the City Hall in Piedmont.  The meetings begin at 7:30 p.m. and conclude when all topics on the agenda have been covered. However, I only was able to attend the meeting from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

During the hours I attended, the meeting centered around discussion on the renewal of a sanitation and waste contract. Before that, the Mayor declared December 4th to be Piedmont High School Cross Country Appreciation Day.

The Council briefly went over plans to increase fines for violations in relation to disturbance of peace in Piedmont. The primary topic the Council spoke on that I witnessed was the sanitation and waste contract renewal, and this took up the bulk of the time.

On the topic of the Sanitation and Waste Contract Renewal, the council members inquired about the reasoning behind the fee increase – originally a 50% increase, but was reduced to 30% in an attempt to meet in the middle on negotiation.

The reason given for the fee increase to begin with was stated as having stemmed from a disproportionate amount of citizens in Piedmont that request backyard trash pickup services rather than curbside trash pickup services. Backyard service requires additional labor and costs – primarily due to increased likelihood of injury resulting from needing to transport the garbage receptacles from backyards. This, along with the general geographic terrain pattern in Piedmont – it being generally hilly – further increases the likelihood of injuries being sustained to workers and thus, in-turn, overall overhead costs to the sanitation department.

The council members were all in favor of reducing the proposed new rate increase, which was ultimately how the 30% rate was settled at the time that I’d needed to leave. No members from the public were able to speak during the extensive staff presentation, so the sentiment held by the members of the public that were present was unknown, though it seemed as though the Mayor as well as the Council were of the belief that they were generally representing the public’s opinion accurately in supporting the need for a renewal on this sanitation contract.

Aside from discussion on renewal of the sanitation contract, very brief discussion was held on the proposed fine increases for violations regarding disturbance of the peace. The majority of the members of the Council were in favor of the increase, with the bulk of any actual discussion being held more on the logistics of how the fines would be judiciously carried out. Council members wanted to ensure that members of the public were in fact given a warning before being issued the increased fine, thus ensuring that the members of the public who continue to violate the policy had received ample notice warning them of their inappropriate behavior, before being subsequently required to pay an increased fine. No Council members in opposition to this (voted Nay) nor did they voice their opinion vocally.

INTERVIEW

While I was at the Piedmont City Council meeting, I interviewed a local resident by the name of Ray Cornejo, who mentioned he wanted to be there to understand what issues were facing the City of Piedmont, as well as what is being done to rectify them. He stated that he learned a bit about the negotiation process between a city and a company on what is really something of a necessity for it – sanitation.

His reaction to the meeting was overall positive, as he was  able to witness the City of Piedmont hold a thoughtful, and productive discussion on various topics that do and would in-fact affect the residents of Piedmont. The Council’s consideration of the elderly citizens was appreciable, and  the Council fought to represent them by trying to come up with ways to avoid additional financial stress on these members simply because of their physical situation. This was further appreciated and respected. The next step that Ray is taking to continue to have his concerns addressed, is to continue his participation and attendance at future City Council meetings.

My personal opinion on increasing the fines for disturbing the peace is that it is appropriate to have the fine in general, and that preceding the fine with a warning seems appropriate as well. I believe that people in general know that they are doing something wrong – such as disturbing the peace – so the very fact that they continue to do so, in my opinion, justifies a punishment. The increased revenue generated from the punishments could potentially be used to fund local projects.

by Teddy McKenna, Piedmont High School Senior

Staff Report with fines HERE.

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

The Piedmont City Council consists of five members, including newly elected Mayor, Robert McBain, and Vice-mayor, Teddy Gray King. The purpose of these meetings is to govern the city by holding elections, proposing bills, and passing laws. There is a set agenda for each meeting, including a short period of public forum.

The meeting on December 4th discussed important issues such as the approval of fines for violations of Code Enforcement and Nuisance Abatement provisions of the city code. Fines for these code violations were previously set at tremendous $1,000 a day. However, because the authority for setting fines has recently been shifted to the City Council, Council members have voted to reduce these to a maximum  of $500 after the third violation. It was clearly stated by Councilwoman Jennifer Cavenaugh, that these extreme fines were out of the normal range for Bay Area cities.  All members of the Council voted to approve this motion.

Next, the Council members discussed resolutions related to the City of Piedmont’s Limited Obligation refunding bonds. Council members moved to approve three different motions related to this issue, such as creating new districts for the reassessment bonds.

The last topic of discussion for my period of attendance at the meeting was regarding policy adjustments with the waste removal company, Republic Services. Republic Services has requested an increase in compensation due to the unique circumstances of Piedmont’s topography as well as extra services. The City of Piedmont requested a policy that enabled those residents unable to take their carts to the curb the option for on-premise collection services with no increase in charge. A Republic Services employee made it understood that almost half of  Piedmont residents requested on-premise collection services as opposed to about 10 percent of residents in surrounding cities.

In the period designated for public forum, many different students spoke out. Most students spoke out about issues regarding traffic safety near their homes. However, student Abigail Wilson made the suggestion of officially making Piedmont a sanctuary city, meaning it would limit its cooperation with the government’s immigration efforts. This would serve little benefit to immigrants as very few call Piedmont home, but it could help set an example for surrounding cities. Many cities around the Bay Area have agreed to become sanctuary cities, including San Francisco and Oakland. This is a very controversial topic, as the President has previously reclaimed funding from cities after refusing to cooperate with immigration officers. I am personally in favor of Piedmont becoming a sanctuary city, because it helps create a precedent for other communities in the United States that are having a similar debate. Declaring Piedmont a sanctuary city would also help create a more friendly living environment for minorities in the Bay Area.

After the meeting, I spoke with concerned resident, Paul Pappas. Paul Pappas is a sophomore at Piedmont High, who attended the meeting “for Boy Scouts.” Mr. Pappas was particularly concerned with the lack of street signs in the community. “One problem that was brought up that I cared about was the lack of necessary street signs on certain streets. I think this is a bigger problem than a lot of people realize.” Mr. Pappas is working so hard to make a difference in the community that even after speaking at the City Council meeting he will “bring it up with parents and see what they can do.”

by Jordan Cortes, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.

Residents have raised issues in the past regarding City buildings not being appropriate for political activities nor for allowing businesses with potential conflicts of interests.

The Piedmont Post is an independently owned private newspaper supported by donors, advertisers, official City notices, and subscribers.  The for-profit business entity is currently located in Oakland on Boulevard Way. The Post, contrary to City laws, uses a Piedmont residential address on Oakland Avenue as the business address.

There is no information available as to a business license in Oakland, Piedmont, or a Piedmont Home Occupation Permit as a business location on Oakland Avenue.  There are no published documents available indicating the financial status of the newspaper. The application states a gross income of $380,000 per year.

The application indicates a need for more Art Center income to support the activities of the Center, however no documentation or audit has been publicly released to show the financial status of the Art Center.

A 35 gallon cart with curbside pick-up will annually cost over $1,000 per residence and over $1,500 annually for on premises or backyard pick-up.

Council to consider 10-year waste disposal contract Monday, December  4, 2017

Council Chambers, City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and on the City website under videos. 

In an off-camera presentation to the City Council in a special study session on November 27th in the Emergency Operations Center, Piedmont’s consultant and City staff  advised approval of the large increase in rates proposed by waste disposal company, Republic Services.

According to those who attended the study session few members of the public were present.

Numerous suggestions have been made regarding the proposed contract.  The final proposal was unknown to the public until the recent meeting.

No attempt was made by the City to make the waste disposal fee tax deductible by including it in the Municipal Services Tax.

Much of the increased cost results from the resident fee covering the City’s own significant waste disposal needs, a municipal service.  

Unlike other cities, Piedmont’s proposed contract fees will not be tax deductible.  The City of Piedmont takes money from the fees to cover the cost of the City’s municipal waste disposal and City staffing costs.  It has been suggested that if the City needs the money to pay for its own waste disposal, the funding should come from the City of Piedmont’s lucrative tax funds and numerous reserve funds garnered from property taxes, utility user fees, real property transfer fees, etc.

Public suggestions have been made to send out another Request for Proposals (RFP) that is more appropriate for Piedmont or ask for the same rates and service contract as the City of Oakland. Many have compared similar Oakland services provided by Waste Management, as more inline with services needed in Piedmont at dramatically lower costs.

Seniors, who can no longer navigate getting their carts to the curb and back to storage, will be tremendously disadvantaged unless they obtain an annual disability medical release from their doctor.  The City professes an “age in place” goal to help seniors remain in their homes, however policies to implement this goal have been few and the large increase in waste disposal fees or the physical challenge of dragging heavy carts to the curb pose barriers for seniors who to wish to remain in Piedmont.

Concern has been raised regarding disability privacy issues and the City’s Disability Qualification processes.  Some individuals who have a hidden disability do not want their health information and physician’s name held in City records.  Additionally, the laborious task of certifying on an annual basis each household’s qualifying disability adds additional staff cost to Piedmont’s administrative overhead – pensions, benefits, office provision and technical expenses. 

Read the physical limitations qualifications for backyard service at curbside rates > – b. Consideration of a Policy Allowing Residents with Certain Physical Limitations to Receive “On-Premise” (Backyard) Service at Curbside Rates 

The following are some of the comments and suggestions made by residents.

1. The proposed rate increase is outrageous.  If Oakland’s rates are substantially less, then maybe Piedmont needs to go in on the Oakland contract instead of going it alone and missing out on economies of scale.
2. The published City of Oakland rates for July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 for the basic three cart 32 gallon service is $44.93 for curbside and doubles to $88.21 for backyard. The Piedmont service does include some extras such as unlimited green and recycling pickup that are extra cost with the Oakland service.Backyard service at curbside rates for Seniors is a common practice in the region, as stated by the City’s own consultant. The City has declared this common practice legally questionable and disallowed it.
3. The staff report has a projection showing that Waste Management is actually cheaper than Republic in 2018-2019. WM did not bid, claiming worker comp costs associated with backyard service were too high but based on the projection and asssuming 50% backyard service, approx $865,000 would be available to get backyard cans to the street for WM to pick up (131-91 x 12 x (3600 x 0.5) – see table in staff report. That’s a lot of funds for a sub-contracting service to get the backyard cans to the street.

   Judging from staff report, it is not clear whether staff and a select sub-committee considered this option:

   “An evaluation panel comprised of the Directors of Public Works and Planning, community members John Chiang and Patty Siskind, and former City Council Member Jeff Wieler met on
   June 15, 2017 and June 27, 2017 to discuss Republic Services’proposal and options for moving forward for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council. The evaluation panel considered the two primary options for moving forward with the procurement process, either: 1)
   canceling this RFP and issuing another RFP(s) with parameters that would encourage submittals from additional proposers, or 2) accepting Republic Services’ proposal and proceeding with contract negotiations.

   The possible parameters to encourage greater responses by means of a new RFP that were considered included:

   A modified backyard service requirement that would reduce or eliminate the provision of backyard services. The high proportion (~50%) of Piedmont residences currently receiving backyard service, as well as input from the community indicating a high degree of support for backyard service, suggested that this option would not be preferred.

   Splitting a new solicitation into two RFPs separating the collection component of services from the disposal component of services. Considering the efficiencies achieved by having
   one provider of all the requested services, this approach would be unlikely to result in lower rates even if it resulted in additional proposals. ”

   Based on the projections, it seems the “splitting” option should be investigated as an alternative.

4. The aspect of all this that I find most disturbing is the opaque “evaluation panel.” The community was not consulted and past ballot arguments show two of the three panel members, Wieler and Chiang, to have never seen an increase in taxes and subsequent resident cost they didn’t love and support. Perhaps a more even toned panel would have come to a different conclusion and been more open to other than the single bidder contract with Republic Services that the Council is about to pass.To be very clear, Waste Management, Oakland’s provider, had two issues. The first is the backyard service and Waste Management does provide that in Oakland; perhaps Waste Management would have wanted more than a higher markup in Piedmont. The other Waste Management issue, not named in the City documentation but contained in the Waste Management response letter, is whether the City was willing to go to an automated lift system. This is simply a different type of collection cart that mates to a lift on the truck. As the City is expecting Republic to provide new trucks, this was already baked into the cake.
5. Certainly any documents or supporting materials used by the evaluation panel should be made public, attached to the two staff reports leading to this option. R3, the consultant, participated in the evaluation committee – they likely presented materials to the community members.
6. Was Garrett Keating contacted by the City to be on the Evaluation Committee? Keating was on the Council for 8 years and the Council Liaison to Stopwaste providing more experience in this particular field than the other three Committee members.
7. Keating was not asked to be on the Committee.  Why did Councilman Rood not participate in the Evaluation Committee? He is the city’s current representative to StopWaste and would seem a logical choice.The evaluation committee cites the efficiencies of one provider but all that is needed to enlist Waste Management (VM) is to get the bins to the street – all other efficiencies that WM would bring could then be achieved. Lacking any substantive report from the committee, it seems the city may have lost an opportunity for some real savings here. Can anyone from the committee or city staff explain why WM can provide curb and backyard service in Oakland at such lower rates? Did anyone from staff or R3 inquire about this?

Piedmont Staff Reports:

12/04/17 – Consideration of the Following Actions Regarding the Granting of a Franchise for Solid Waste Collection Services

a. Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 737 N.S. Granting a Franchise to Republic Services for Solid Waste Services and Approval of a Collection Services Agreement 

a1. Introduction and 1st Reading of Ord. 737 N.S. Granting a Franchise to Republic Services for Solid Waste Services and Approval of a Collection Services Agreement (Supplemental)

b. Consideration of a Policy Allowing Residents with Certain Physical Limitations to Receive “On-Premise” (Backyard) Service at Curbside Rates 

Read the Dec. 4, 2017 meeting agenda HERE.

The long awaited garbage/solid waste contract will be presented to the City Council off-camera in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) on November 27. 

Every property owner in Piedmont must subscribe to the contracted services. 

Residents eager to learn what the City Council has in store for them may want to attend a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, November 27, 2017, in the Police Department, Emergency Operation Center (EOC), 403 Highland Avenue.

Public meetings held in the EOC, do not lend themselves to video recordings and broadcasting, making the important information and subsequent Council discussions not easy to be observed or to be understood by the vast majority of residents.

Residents complained when the preliminary waste collection service cost estimates indicated substantial increases of 60% for curbside service and 120% for backyard service. 

Of great concern to many following the contract development has been the high cost of the proposed service compared to other cities. Those needing backyard/side yard service, such as the elderly, will face significantly higher fees and cumbersome government reviews.

The City of Piedmont budget gains from the mandatory fees under the proposed contracted. The fees are used to pay for City services and staffing.  In some cities, municipal garbage services are factored into the overall cost of running their city, making the garbage collection costs tax deductible for property owners.  This has not been proposed in Piedmont, nor was tax deductibility of the service considered for inclusion in the recent voter approved municipal property taxes.

Read previous articles here and here and here.

The City notice states:

The Piedmont City Council will consider adopting a Solid Waste Services Agreement with Richmond Sanitary Services (dba Republic Services) at its regular meeting scheduled for December 4, 2017.

Prior to the December 4, 2017 Regular meeting, the City Council will hold a study session on November 27^th to be briefed on the terms of the agreement.

Please visit the City’s website, where you will find more information and links to copies of the staff report, to which the proposed agreement is attached, and a slideshow presentation for the Council’s study session.

Relevant Documents:

• December 4, 2017 City Council Staff Report regarding a Solid Waste Services Agreement with Republic Services

• November 27, 2017 Slide Presentation regarding a Solid Waste Services Agreement with Republic Services

To learn more about current solid waste services in Piedmont visit: www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/recycling-waste.shtml

If you have comments about the solid waste services agreement, please send them to the City Council at citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov.

If you have questions about the agreement or approval process, please contact Assistant Planner Chris Yeager at (510) 420-3067 or cyeager@piedmont.ca.gov.

Special City Council Meeting Agenda

Monday, November 27, 2017 6:30 p.m.

Open to the public

Emergency Operations Center (EOC), Police Dept., 403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA

 1. Presentation on the Proposed Franchise & Solid Waste Collection Services Agreement with Republic Services 

Piedmont Climate Action Plan Meeting – Students provide input! 

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017, I attended a Piedmont Climate Action Plan meeting at the community hall, led by the Piedmont Climate Action Task Force.  This meeting was to discuss the second Piedmont Climate Action Plan.

Presenters, included City Council members and representatives from clean energy companies, spoke in detail about what Climate Action Plan #2 and the intent to reduce Piedmont’s fossil fuel emissions by 40% by 2030. Additionally, Piedmont’s progress towards this goal was reported, as positive.  The continuation of a multitude of methods to reach goals were presented. Methods included reducing transportation emissions through carpooling and converting housing and transportation systems into clean energy (“electrifying”).

“Putting Action Into Climate Action” was a large topic discussed during the meeting. Many speakers emphasized cultural change in Piedmont, and encouraging members to make changes in their behavior in order to reduce the town’s emissions. One speaker mentioned the option of walking to the bus stop every morning instead of driving, even though it requires 15 more minutes, and how choosing this would make a large difference.

Audience members were also allowed to participate, but minimally for the sake of time. It was apparent that attendees wished for more discussion time, as people occasionally talked over each other in expressing their opinions. I also noticed that some attendees felt somewhat defensive when learning of staggering, embarrassing statistics.

When a graph was presented of Piedmont’s electricity use, it was revealed that our town uses three times the amount of natural gas as the average PG&E customer, and that our carbon footprint is twice the size of Oakland’s. Many audience members picked apart the graph and questioned the source, bringing up the fact that statistics like these are easy to pose on Piedmont because of our average income.

Though it may be true that Piedmont is stereotyped into being excessive because of wealth, I interpreted these responses to be defensive. It is true that not all Piedmonters are excessive in their gas and electricity use, but I do believe that all Piedmonters must at least check themselves in their environmental habits. Defensive attitudes like these will keep people from even checking to see if the stereotype of being excessive is at least a little bit true. It takes extreme statistics and statements like these to make people really question themselves, and if people do so, many will realize that they can cut down on transportation or energy use.

At the end of the presentations, audience members were sorted into discussion groups with Climate Action Plan Task Force Committee members. I was put into a group with two other students and three adults. We discussed matters such as where used water ends up, how to make drastic changes in lifestyles we are used to, and how the schools have been taking up green education.

I interviewed one of the adults, Jen Cavenaugh, about her attendance at the meeting. She is a City Council member, and a PHS parent. Cavenaugh was at the meeting because as a City Council member, she wanted to gauge the community feedback on the Climate Action Plan. She kept mentioning the importance of community involvement, otherwise it would only be “worth what’s on pen and paper.” In other words, all the planning at the multiple meetings would mean nothing, if the community was not completely enthusiastic for the plan. It pleased me to hear her say that at the meeting she realized how “thoughtful and engaged” Piedmont students are.  She was hopeful in the fact that “students can change families.”  According to Cavenaugh, the next step to getting the community involved is organizing events such as a community-wide competition that could be block by block, or an education campaign.

I agree with Cavenaugh about the importance of community involvement, because members of Piedmont are very capable and outspoken when passionate. If the community became as passionate as the people at the meeting, a massive difference would be made

Unfortunately, because of limited time at the meeting, I did not have the opportunity to speak to the whole group. However, in my discussion group at the end, I mentioned my opinion of how environmental classes should be required at Piedmont and Millennium High Schools, as they are at the Middle School. I believe this is one of the best ways to make a change.

My personal experience with an environmental class is important to mention: I took AP Environmental Science (APES) last year and came out with a new lens through which to see the world. Because of my new deep understanding of how the environment works with a multitude of topics, I realized the amount of fixing that needs to be done on this planet. I am now inspired to stand up for the environment in as many ways as possible– even if it is a small gesture. For example, I learned about the impact of air pollution on disastrous weather, and it inspires me to make a change in my lifestyle: to replace at least one car ride a week with a walk, and to eat less beef.

Furthermore, I studied trees in APES: how to identify them by their subtle characteristics and Latin name. Though tree identification seems like a small, useless skill, it has opened my mind to see the beauty of the world, and it makes me more passionate to save and take care of it. I realize that only the students who choose to take APES as their elective have the opportunity to open their mind up like me. If all students took APES, we would have an entire student body with that mentality, and we could change the world by storm.

I am glad that I attended this meeting, not only because I learned that many members of Piedmont are quite active in climate change, but also because my fervor for making a change in the world was replenished. It was mentioned that methods of achieving Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan 2 will not be presented to the City Council until December or January. I hope to be there when it is presented so I can show my support.

by Kay Sibal, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~~~~

    On November 7th, the Piedmont Climate Action Task Force Committee held a meeting at the Piedmont Community Hall. The meeting’s purpose was to inform community members of Piedmont’s proposed, new Climate Action Plan and future endeavors regarding green initiatives in the community.

    Since the beginning of 2017, the Climate Action Task Force Committee has scheduled monthly meetings for ideas on how to reduce Piedmont’s carbon emissions. The main product of the meetings is the Climate Action Plan 2.0. It’s a revamped version of a past climate initiative proposing ambitious changes. The plan boasts a projected 20% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2040 and an 80% reduction by 2050. The committee’s membership is comprised of community members, scientific heads of industry, and devoted climate activists.

The Committee and participants have created unique solutions toward Piedmont’s emission trend.

    The presentation began with Mr. Christopher Jones, a UC Berkeley research associate and the Cool Climate Networks Program Director, presenting Piedmont’s footprint in recent years. Jones presented the majority of information on Piedmont’s footprint. He showed how energy consumption’s been broken up and where the most wasteful are. Jones introduced the Cool California Challenge, “a competition between California cities to reduce household carbon footprints” and a few people were genuinely receptive to it. During the presentation a man asked, whether Jones’s data was specific to Piedmont or if it was modeled and if so how. Jones stopped his presentation to answer, explaining how the numbers were modeled after similar cities in size, wealth, and tendency to Piedmont and that he could say with some certainty that the numbers are quite fitting. The majority of community members holding doubt, were satisfied with this response. As well as Jones’s presentation, a few other Climate Action Committee members spoke.

    Ms. Margaret Ovenden, Ms. Sarah Moe, and City Council member Tim Rood, all spoke on the issue as well, and shed additional light on various parts. Ms. Ovenden spoke more specifically about how Piedmont is heading towards electricity. She explained how, in time, all of our energy will come from electricity because it’s the most sustainable source. Many times, she reiterated the term “electrification.”

   Then, Council member Rood spoke about the current East Bay Community Energy plan set to go into action over the next few years. He explained how implementation would work seamlessly and potentially save Piedmont residents some money. He outlined specifically the 75% green plan as well as the 100% green plan and the implications of both. Rood added how the city would  buy the energy initially from plants and citizens would then buy it back from the city at a cheaper price, effectively removing PG&E from the equation.

    Finally, Ms. Sarah Moe spoke about specific appliances that would dramatically impact electricity usage in the home. She enlightened the participants on types of heaters, how they work, and which are most sustainable and efficient for the home. The presentation ended around 8:30 p.m. with time for each attending member to find their way into a small group.

    Mr. Cody Harrison, a member of the staff, spoke briefly with me afterward about his feeling on the meeting. First, he gave me his background working with Americorps and explaining his civic passion after completing college. The conversation progressed through his motivation to become sustainable. As for the meeting, he said, “of all things, I am proud to see the EBCE transition being received really well, and having so many people turn out to see it.”  Harrison is confident about the future of the plan and Piedmont’s trend in carbon emissions taking an overall decline.

by John Jogopulos, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~~~

On Tuesday November 7th, the Climate Action Plan Task Force hosted a workshop at Piedmont Community Hall. The Climate Action Plan Task Force has met monthly since March to advise staff and Piedmont citizens about improvements and updates to Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Piedmont’s CAP was completed in 2010 and has goals all the way through 2020. The CAP consists of measures that Piedmont residents, business owners, and schools can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Piedmont.

The meeting started off with Sarah Isabel Moe introducing what will be discussed such as updates to Piedmont’s CAP. One of the main updates was that Piedmont residents will be automatically switched from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to the East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

After the introduction, Chris Jones of University of California, Berkeley gave a presentation about the sources Piedmont’s Carbon Dioxide emissions compared to that of the United States and Oakland. Jones presented this information through graphs found on coolcalifornia.org. In the United States, motor fuel is the biggest source of CO2 and electricity production comes second. In Piedmont, vehicle emissions are the biggest source of CO2, but air travel comes in at second. Jones explained that Piedmont has a smaller carbon footprint than the national average when it comes to electricity because many Piedmont houses have little heating and no cooling along with utilizing solar panels.

After showing graphs, Jones proceeded with showing a color coded map of the Bay Area; the redder the color, the larger carbon footprint. Unfortunately, Piedmont was a big, red dot. To reduce Piedmont’s carbon footprint, Jones suggested that residents replace their cars with electric ones, use solar heat pumps to decrease natural gas emissions, focus on local services, and reduce meat and dairy consumption.

Shortly after Jones’s presentation, Council member Tim Rood spoke about Piedmont’s upcoming switch from PG&E to EBCE. EBCE is an electricity company that will buy electricity on the market and will sell it to Piedmont. Rood explained how the consumer still will have many choices with EBCE and will spend the same amount of money as they did for PG&E. In fact, EBCE might be cheaper than PG&E. In addition to all of this, adopting EBCE in Piedmont homes will reduce Piedmont’s greenhouse gases. In 2018, all Piedmont residents will be automatically enrolled for EBCE, but may opt out and stay with PG&E. This automatic enrollment will make it more likely for people to stay with EBCE since it will be more work to opt out of it.

Sarah Isabel Moe came up to speak one more time about what residents can do in their own homes to reduce their carbon footprint. The presentation started off with a picture of a triangle with four terms: reduce demand, electrify, increase resilience, and 100% renewable. Piedmont has some of the oldest homes, which calls for renovations for becoming more green.

Moe emphasized the importance and benefits of installing heat pumps. Heat pumps basically take heat or cold out of the air and can work both as a heater or as an air conditioning unit. Installing heat pumps will be cheap in the long run and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Moe also talked about how residents should think about installing solar rooftops. If every Piedmont house had a solar rooftop, it would be very beneficial to the environment and greatly reduce Piedmont’s carbon footprint. She also suggested that people switch to using electric cars if they haven’t already, since motor fuel is the greatest source of CO2 in the United States and Piedmont.

The presentations brought a lot of questions and comments, but only three people were allowed to speak. The first was a man who was concerned with Piedmont’s electrification. He asked that since electrifying is going to use about 2.5 times as much electricity, where is it going to come from? Jones answered that along with using more electricity, Piedmont should invest in more storage and build resiliency.

The second person to speak up was a Piedmont High School student who asked what teenagers can do since they don’t have much influence on their parents. The response was that there should be a formal engagement program where teens and adults can discuss how to be more environmentally conscious and that teens should push their parents to help the environment.

Lastly, another PHS student made a short speech about how there should be more green education in high school and students should be encouraged to walk to school instead of drive because she knows people who drive to school when they are completely able to walk. Her speech resulted in applause and nods of approval.

After the presentations and questions, everyone was broken up into groups to discuss what else residents can do to reduce their carbon footprint. Our discussion facilitator worked on how to use less water and talked about how it takes energy to move water up to Piedmont since Piedmont’s water comes from below. People input ideas on how to use less water like saving the cold water that comes from the shower when waiting for it to warm up.

We also discussed how the school should have more mandatory classes and electives so students can become more aware of global warming and the environment. My classmates and I also brought up how the high school should have more environmental clubs such as a vegan club. Someone else suggested that people should plant more native plants and that there should be a law banning the use of sprinklers during a drought since Piedmont seems to have a problem with that.

It was great to be an active citizen and hear and discuss ideas on how to make Piedmont a more environmentally conscious city.

Afterwards, I was able to interview Pam Hirtzer, a resident of Piedmont. Hirtzer has gone to many Climate Action meetings in the past and is part of CCL. She has been interested in climate change for fifteen years. To help the environment, Hirtzer is planning on buying an electric vehicle to replace her gas powered car. Before the meeting, Hirtzer didn’t know anything about the future switch from PG&E to EBCE, but said she thinks “it’s a great idea”.

Attending this meeting was very enlightening because, like Hirtzer, I didn’t know anything about the new environmental plans for Piedmont. I think what the Task Force is planning is going to be very beneficial to the environment and will definitely reduce Piedmont’s carbon footprint.

However, there are more things Piedmont residents should be doing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. I think that since air travel is a large source of CO2 in Piedmont, people should be more aware of how damaging frequent traveling can be to the environment. I’m not saying that people should limit their traveling, but that they should know the harmful effects of it and maybe plan a trip somewhere reachable by car since the West Coast has so many great vacation spots. I also think that Piedmont has a big sprinkler problem and that there should be some type of law implemented to limit how people use sprinklers.

by Brina Bodnar, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~~~~

    I attended the Climate Action Plan (CAP) Task Force meeting on November 7th from 7:30 to 9:10 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Piedmont Climate Action Plan 2.0, which outlines what steps need to be taken in order to meet the goal of 80% less emissions than 2005 by 2050.

    At the meeting, we also reviewed what improvements and changes have already been made, and what more can be done. The CAP Committee meets much more frequently by themselves than they do with the public. This public forum/informational meeting was to receive feedback from citizens, and answer questions about what the CAP will mean for lifestyle in Piedmont.

    One of the main topics of discussion was Piedmont’s greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to the Bay Area, and the country. Piedmont, being a largely residential, wealthy community, had staggeringly higher emissions from transportation and energy than many other cities in the Bay Area and the country.

   Piedmont is doing well at composting and recycling compared to the rest of the United States, but the recycling of paper and food waste does not offset the emissions from transportation and energy. Piedmont has a huge emission from transportation because many families own more than one car, and many individuals drive to work or school. The energy emissions are so high because houses have heating and cooling systems, as well as cooking and cleaning appliances, and lights to power.

    A large portion of the meeting went to discussing solutions to clean energy, and energy conservation. Sarah Moe, a Senior Consultant in the Sustainability Buildings and Communities sector of DNV-GL, discussed alternatives to in-home heating, and more sustainable ways to heat and cool a home, like a heat pump. A heat pump uses the air already in your home and pushes warm air out, keeping cool air inside during the summer, and keeps warm air in and pushes cool air out in the winter.

   Another way Piedmonters can conserve energy, is to find better ways to store it. In a place like the Bay Area, where our days are relatively sunny year round, by harnessing solar energy and storing it for cloudy days or cloudy months, homes could begin to completely power their houses from their solar panels alone, as well as sell their energy back to energy companies like PG&E, who could get the clean energy to more homes.

    Many of the older folk who were in the audience were concerned with cost and labor of installation of these new environmentally friendly technologies, and a few students asked questions about how they could make a difference, not being homeowners, and having little control over the energy sources and consumption in their home.

   One student, Hanna Hohener, raised the issue of many Piedmont and Millennium High schoolers driving to school. I have always walked to school, until my dad moved to lower Piedmont, but I still walk everyday when I am at my mom’s house. It is a little ridiculous that high school students who have walked their entire life decide that once they get their license, they are too cool to walk. There are environmental and health benefits to walking more, and Piedmont is so small that there should definitely be more initiatives to get more upperclassmen to walk to school. I think as far as sustainable energy in the home, this is something that could greatly reduce Piedmont’s and the country’s carbon footprint. Though shutting off the water when brushing your teeth, or biking instead of driving to work have an impact on an individual’s carbon footprint, by making a home be powered by entirely clean energy, the unseen byproducts of emissions in drilling for coal, refining oil, and unclean energy are eliminated.

    At the end of the meeting, I interviewed Councilwoman Jen Cavenaugh. She was at the meeting because “this is one of the City initiatives we have going on right now … and the most important element of that is community engagement.” We discussed how without community action, the Climate Action Plan is “only worth the paper it’s printed on.” Cavenaugh commented that she was very pleased to see so many high school students present and engaged, especially in the small group discussions.

    The meeting broke up into groups of about 10 participants and we got to discuss solutions and other ways for Piedmont to strive for sustainability. Councilwoman Cavenaugh said, “She would have loved a lot more detail,” because issues of changing habits and lifestyle are very complicated, and it is hard to pinpoint solutions for such complex issues. She sees the next step as a “deep dive in community engagement” whether that by educating people, or creating an incentive for individuals to be motivated to go green.

    There was no opportunity for community members to speak in the official meeting, but as we broke out into smaller groups,  I got to voice my opinions to some fellow students as well as community members, who I did not know.

    Here is what I would have said if there were a speaking portion of the meeting. I wish I had been in a group with fewer students, because it felt like somewhat of an echo chamber talking to my peers about issues we had already discussed in APES (Advanced Placement Environmental Science).   Many students were APES students like myself. I would have loved to hear more opinions from adult community members.

What I would have said:

    Hello, my name is Ko Narter, and I am a senior at Piedmont High School. Students make up a huge portion of Piedmont residents, so by starting at the schools, we can greatly reduce the town’s carbon footprint. One of the easiest ways to do this, is to stop selling plastic water bottles at food service. I have seen students purchase two bottles in one day, and this practice is ridiculous as well. If a student is going to purchase a water bottle, there should be more encouragement to have them keep that water bottle for the day, and fill it up. We now have water bottle filling stations in multiple locations on campus, which makes it easy for kids who bring a water bottle to school everyday, like myself, to access drinking water and bring it back to class. If students really protest over not being able to buy water bottles, we could start a reusable water bottle return system where kids take bottles for the day and then return them to be washed, or just sell reusable water bottles at food service, which would sort of force students to have to bring reusable water bottles to school, if they want water in class. This is a fast and easy way we can minimize the school’s and the town’s carbon footprint.

by Ko Narter, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.

On Tuesday, Nov. 7, the City of Piedmont Planning Department and the Climate Action Plan Task Force held a community meeting in the Piedmont Community Hall from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

At the meeting, speakers discussed Piedmont’s new Climate Action Plan, including the reasons it will be introduced and how it will change the city. These speakers included Climate Action Task Force members, a program director at a UC Berkeley research energy lab, an East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) board member, and others. Attendees asked these speakers questions, and at the end of the meeting, attendees got into small groups for discussion.

According to the first speaker, a member of the Climate Action Task Force, Margaret Ovenden, Piedmont’s first Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2010, with the goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15% below the 2005 levels by 2020. Piedmont has met this goal.

The new plan, Climate Action Plan 2.0 as Ovenden calls it, is specially tailored to Piedmont’s needs, hoping to have the city meet the new California goals. The Task Force has been meeting since March to create the plan, which includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions 40% below the 2005 levels by 2030, and 80% below the 2005 levels by 2050.

The Climate Action Task Force expects to act on November 28 to recommend to the Piedmont City Council an adoption of the draft plan.  The Task Force will present a final draft of the plan to the City Council in mid December. After having the public review the plan, it will again be presented to the City Council for final adoption in January 2018.

Several attendees of the Nov. 7 meeting asked questions concerning when the public could see and comment on the plan. When I interviewed Ovenden after the meeting, she explained the importance of hearing the public’s opinions.

“I’d like to condense [the plan] and get it out to the community more,” Ovenden said. “It is really important for people to understand it, especially as we are heading more towards electrification. We will be bringing [the plan] out for public comment, encouraging people to comment.”

Another new development discussed at the meeting was East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). Board member of EBCE and City Council member Tim Rood said that Piedmont will soon switch to get their electricity from renewable sources. EBCE will allow public agencies to purchase electricity for residents and business, providing an alternative to the usual investor owned utilities.

All Piedmont residents will be switched over to the new energy plan hopefully by the spring of 2018, Rood said. Residents will be provided with three options, with the cost of one option being almost identical to the PG&E program.

Another speaker, Chris Jones, who is a program director at a research energy lab at UC Berkeley, presented data from Piedmont. The data taken from 2015 showed that Piedmont’s main greenhouse gas emission sectors include home energy, buildings, and transportation.

Piedmont’s average carbon footprint is higher than the typical global household. For example, Oakland residents have a footprint about half the size of Piedmont residents, according to data Jones presented from PG&E. In Piedmont, Jones said the highest greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation, due to high amounts of air travel. However, Piedmont’s electricity emissions are below the global average, since some residents can afford solar panels.

Jones said that ways to reduce Piedmont’s emissions include electrifying homes, reducing transportation, getting goods from local sources, and eating less meat.

Jones’s suggestions caused me to ask a question at the end of the meeting. Many of the suggestions outlined in the plan are geared towards adult homeowners, so I asked what teenager students can do to reduce emissions. The speakers responded that students should stop driving to school. Considering how small Piedmont is, it is very easy to walk from place to place, so I agree that this is a good option for students.

One speaker, Sarah Moe, said that teenagers can influence their parents, by discussing these issues with them, pushing them to change. I agree with this response, since in discussions with my parents, I can persuade them towards becoming greener.

Piedmont’s plan, Ovenden said, is truly a community plan that requires residents to take initiative. Unlike other cities, Piedmont lacks major industry and commercial areas, so the greenhouse emissions are primarily from residents themselves. “[The task force] just realized that this plan would not be successful unless we got the community more involved,” Ovenden said. “Even though we are not quite done with the plan, we wanted to start sharing the main points and directions that this is going to be heading.”

Moe discussed the importance of shifting cultural norms in Piedmont in regards to climate change. When implementing the plan, she hopes that by working together, it will create safer, more resilient neighborhoods, boost neighborliness and social cohesion, and preserve the future for Piedmont’s children.

In the small discussions at the end of the meeting, my group talked about how important it is for the community to understand how to implement the plan in their lives. We also discussed the importance of people globally understanding climate change, which is best implemented through education. I brought up the issue of the lack of uniform education on human caused climate change. My group agreed that the best way to make steps towards all communities having climate action plans is through education.

 I am glad that I attended the climate change meeting since it opened my eyes to the ways Piedmont works towards becoming greener. All community members should attend these Climate Action meetings so they can understand how the City’s changes will affect them. For this plan, Ovenden said that it will take time to be fully implemented, so residents have time to learn about it. People can join the mailing list to hear about more meetings in the future.

“The state of the climate is so desperate,” Ovenden said in the interview. “It is very, very serious, and it is kind of shocking that the majority of the people aren’t getting it. We have an opportunity still to change things, to not have such terrible effects of climate change.”

by Margo Rosenbaum, Piedmont High School Senior

~~~~~~~~

On November 7th, a Climate Action Committee Meeting was held at the Piedmont Community Hall. The meeting was open to the public and was organized by the Climate Action Task Force with the goal to educate residents on Climate Action Plan 2.0 and its schedule for ratification.

Climate Action meetings have been occurring monthly since March of this year. The Climate Action Plan 2.0 is Piedmont’s framework to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2040.  This plan ¨2.0¨ is customized to the emission patterns of Piedmont, which are entirely unique from any other city in the Bay Area.

Task Force member Margaret Ovenden voiced that because Piedmont is almost entirely residential, the plan is very tailored to empowering the community as a whole to change its habits. The draft plan is in line with California’s goal of reaching an 80% emissions reduction by 2050. Tentative dates were set for the plan’s review by the city government, the public comment period, revision period and the hopeful ratification. The Task Force hopes the plan would be in effect by 2018.

The first speakers capitalized on the benefits of acting now and identified the community’s main sources of emissions. An analyst, Christopher Jones, from Cool Climate Network provided data showing that Piedmont’s leading emissions source is from transportation with air travel being a factor significantly higher than in other cities. The analyst clarified that the data wasn’t actual data collected from the City of Piedmont directly but were estimates created from other American cities that receive similar incomes. This upset some audience members who asked how achievable benchmarks could be created for Piedmont with information that is not about the city’s emissions specifically. Jones claimed he understood the concern, but the data was a good starting point. Jones applauded the city’s popular use of solar energy, but revealed our emission levels were far greater than our much larger neighbor, Oakland.

Many solutions were discussed from carbon offsets to counter the air travel discrepancy, heat pumps to utilize our strength in solar power, and an upcoming opportunity for residents to get up to 100% renewable energy with East Bay Community Energy. East Bay Community Energy is a service that would be selected by default for all Piedmont residents starting in 2018. There are multiple options with varying percentages of renewable energy. EBCE is predicted to be less expensive than PG&E services and more eco-friendly with PG&E being only 30% renewable. EBCE allows an entire city to purchase energy from a renewable source, rather than have a private company, like PG&E, be a middleman allowing residents little choice in where their power comes from.

Pam Hirtzer, a resident of Piedmont for over twenty years, was adamant about EBCE and claimed she would get it immediately. Hirtzer stated she has been interested in climate action for 10-15 years and shared that just days ago she had tried to purchase an electric car; however, it was too expensive. Looking for other ways to invest in green energy, she attended the meeting. She expressed excitement about the Climate Action Plan 2.0 and was eager to see it in full when it is released for public comment in late December.

The meeting concluded with a workshop in which the attendees got into groups and shared ideas about how to make Piedmont a more environmentally-friendly and climate-conscious city. Residents young and old spoke with Task Force members on ways they wished their schools, homes, and business could be more eco-friendly. Ending the meeting in a hopeful dialogue, I mentioned that environmental education should not be an elective but should be ingrained in the curriculum. Piedmont Middle School maintains a ¨Green Team¨ class for all students but that requirement does not continue to the High School.  I have faith that it soon will.

by Claire deVroede, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.