An intense heat wave can require rotating power outages when increasing use of air conditioning causes electricity demand spikes.

Power traded on Friday for Monday jumped to $151 per megawatt hour (MWh) at Palo Verde in Arizona and $95 in SP-15 in Southern California. . . the highest since the February freeze.

California is the U.S. region most at risk of power shortages this summer because the state increasingly relies on intermittent energy sources like wind and solar,        Reuters reports.

If rotating outages are needed, PG&E will post information at this page to show the order in which PG&E will likely proceed, if ordered by CAISO to turn off power. Estimated restoration times are 2-3 hours after the outage actually starts. The situation remains dynamic and shutoff times may change.

As Piedmont attempts to find housing locations to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA ) of 587 new housing units within 1. 7 square miles in our built-out city, other Bay Area cities are being questionably assessed fewer housing units.

Atherton, certainly a fine city and one that adds significantly to the Bay Area, has over 4 square miles with a very low housing density of 7,168 high income people.  Yet, it is being assessed to provide only 298 new housing units, while Piedmont is being assessed to provide 587 new units.

For this cycle, the town [Atherton] is required to plan for the development of 298 new housing units. Some 74 would need to be very low-income housing, 43 low-income, 51 moderate-income and 130 for above moderate-income, according to the report.

Atherton is in the midst of Silicon Valley where housing demands have rapidly multiplied,  especially for hotel maids, restaurant dishwashers, gardeners, office cleaners, and other low income workers.  Why is their assessment less than Piedmont’s? This is merely one example of the questionable methodology being used when assessing and allocating housing units to various cities and communities.

Many cities, as Piedmont, have barriers to safe and appropriate increases to population including: open space, roadway widths and designs, infrastructure, limited public transit, fire safety issues, pandemic impacts, etc.  Yet, these factors appear not to have been considered when the Association of Bay Area Governments assigned allocations.

Cloverdale, CA’s population before the pandemic in 2019 was 8,754,  three-quarters the population of Piedmont.  It’s proposed RHNA for 2023 -2031 is only 278,  less than half the allocation to Piedmont despite Cloverdale’s available open space  (more than 3 sq miles compared with 1.7 sq miles).

The New York Times May 30, 2021 reported that 36,000 people moved out of San Francisco in the final quarter of 2020.  Many moved several hours away from the Bay Area, especially east to the Sacramento area or the Sierras or north to wine country or beyond. 

The LA Times wrote that Fresno is the hottest real estate market in the US, and rents are skyrocketing .   A new 255 unit rental development opened in 2020 and all units were taken within months, despite it’s high rents “one-bedrooms go for as much as $2,600 a month — a price rivaling those in Los Angeles beach communities.”  Since 2017, average rents in Fresno have increased nearly 39%, the fastest in California.   Read the Los Angeles Times article here

Fresno’s population is reported as 525,010 as of 2019.  In 2020 Fresno had 11 units of affordable multi-family rental housing constructed, falling 503 units short of its RHNA allocation.  An enormous shortfall in the current assigned housing production to be completed by next year.   Read Report here.

Piedmont resident Michael Henn points out that Oakland created an Area Specific Plan that “protects” Rockridge from high densities, despite its excellent walkability to  the BART station and major bus lines. 

“In the last housing cycle, Piedmont was asked to plan for 60 new homes and the city fell short, issuing permits for just 37 units*. This cycle, the city is expected to plan for nearly 600 new homes.  …

Piedmont’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)

Jumps from 60 to 587 housing units in the next

Planning Cycle that begins in 2023

An “equity adjustment” formula was proposed that increases the allocations of lower-income units for some jurisdictions identified as having racial and socioeconomic demographics that differ from the regional average. Five jurisdictions that met the formula were excluded.  These jurisdictions were excluded from the equity adjustment to avoid directing additional lower-income RHNA units to jurisdictions with racial demographics that are different than the rest of the region but that already have a high share of lower-income households.

[See the equity adjustment tables which begin on page 31 of this report.}

The equity adjustment identified 49 jurisdictions in the Bay Area that exhibit racial and socioeconomic demographics that differ from the regional average using a composite score developed by several members of the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC). The purpose of the equity adjustment is to ensure that each of these 49 jurisdictions receives an allocation of lower-income units that is at least proportional to its share of the region’s total households in 2020.

For example, if a jurisdiction had two percent of existing households, it would receive at least two percent of the very low- and low-income RHNA units. The composite score is calculated by adding together the jurisdiction’s divergence index score (which measures segregation by looking at how much local racial demographics differ from the region) and the percent of the jurisdiction’s households with household incomes above 120 percent of the area median income (AMI).

Jurisdictions with a composite score greater than the median score for the region are included in the group of “exclusionary” jurisdictions. Accordingly, a jurisdiction does not necessarily need to have an extremely high divergence score or percent of households above 120 percent AMI to be considered “exclusionary,” as a jurisdiction’s composite score only needed to be in the top half for all Bay Area jurisdictions.

The equity adjustment excludes five jurisdictions who have composite scores above the region’s median, but median incomes in the bottom quartile for the region. These jurisdictions were excluded from the equity adjustment to avoid directing additional lower-income RHNA units to jurisdictions with racial demographics that are different than the rest of the region but that already have a high share of lower-income households.

The equity adjustment is the last step in the allocation methodology, and is applied after the methodology’s factors and weights are used to determine a jurisdiction’s allocation by income category. If the allocation of lower-income RHNA units to one of the 49 jurisdictions identified by the equity adjustment’s composite score does not meet the equity adjustments proportionality threshold, then lower-income units are redistributed from the remaining 60 jurisdictions.

Understanding the formula by reading the long tables is challenging.  Piedmont residential locations were rated virtually identical (18, 19) in terms of very low income job proximity via auto (18) and very low income job proximity via public transit (19), and low income job proximity via auto (10) and low income job proximity via public transit (11) despite the fact that most of Piedmont is more than a quarter mile pedestrian path walk from public transit with service for work schedules.

In comparison, Pinole scored 13, 13 low income job proximity via auto, transit. Portola Valley scored 7, 5 very low income job proximity via auto, transit, and 4, 3 low income job proximity via auto, transit.   Ross scored 2, 3 very low income job proximity via auto, transit and 1, 2 low income job proximity via auto, transit.  Tiburon scored 14, 15 very low income job proximity via auto, transit and 8,8 low income job proximity via auto, transit.  After adding other factors, low density Tiburon with a land area of 4.4 square miles for a population nearly as large as Piedmont, was assigned an RHNA of 639, slightly more than Piedmont.

Often lost in the local enthusiasm is the fact that the planning cycle is 2023 through 2031 and the State law explicitly does not require local jurisdictions to produce or pay for the new housing units it is asked to plan for.

Zoom meeting details 2021-05-25 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Agenda

1. Election of a Chairperson
2.  Fiscal Year 2020-21 Financial Update
3.  Review Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget and Consideration of FY 2021-2022 Budget Report
4.  Review Long Range Financial Plan

Distributed presentation >2021-05-25 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Presentation

The Piedmont Energy Codes “reach” above and beyond the minimum requirements in the State Energy Code.  Comment period for State Code is open. 

On February 1, 2021, Piedmont City Council adopted two amendments to the Building Energy Code that affect both sales and transfers of real estate and the construction of new and existing residential buildings.

To read Ordinance 750 N.S., please click here.
To read Ordinance 751 N.S., please click here.

For renovation projects that cost more than $25,000, at least one from a series of energy efficiency measures must be included in the project.

For renovations costing more than $100,000, two energy efficient measures must be included. It is up to the homeowner which option(s) to choose.

Options range from less expensive options, such as switching out light bulbs, to more expensive ones, like replacing water heaters.

This is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions stemming from natural gas appliances.

Ordinance 750 N.S. was approved by the California Energy Commission on May 12. This ordinance will go into effect for Piedmont projects on June 1. Ordinance 751 N.S. (home energy assessment policy) went into effect on March 3, 2021 and affects homeowners and real estate agents.

When selling a property or transferring the title, the seller must provide potential buyers with a Home Energy Score or Home Energy Audit prepared in the past five years, in addition to the normal disclosure information.

For any questions about these ordinances, please visit the website linked above, or email adykman@piedmont.ca.gov or nredinbo@piedmont.ca.gov.

CEC’s new California Energy Code Draft open for public comment period.

Every three years, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approves a new Energy Code, which impacts how structures are built and renovated during that code cycle. Two weeks ago, the CEC released their proposed changes to the 2022 Energy Code, to take effect January 1, 2023. This is what’s called the “45-day language” meaning that everyone has 45 days to review and provide comments, which are due June 21, 2021.

If members of Piedmont want to comment on the proposed Energy Code, you can make comments on their website (https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/EComment/EComment.aspx?docketnumber=21-BSTD-01).

There are also three days of Zoom hearings on May 24, 27, and 28. The Energy Code helps dictate the work that the Planning and Building Department completes in Piedmont. For instance, the Piedmont reach codes came to pass because they “reach” above and beyond the minimum requirements in the State Energy Code. The new California Energy Code will go into effect in 2023.

AGENDA and Ways to participate in the May 19th meeting of the Housing Advisory meeting.  Click below.  https://piedmont.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/Commissions%20and%20Committees/Housing%20Advisory%20Committee/current_agenda.pdf

On May 3, 2021, the Piedmont City Council approved a proposal from Lisa Wise Consulting (LWC) for approximately $700,000 to prepare updates to the Housing Element of the Piedmont General Plan.

State requirements have challenged City officials to find sites and policies to promote the construction of 587 new houses and apartments by 2031.

The cost of the next Housing Element policy document and associated General Plan amendments is estimated at $691,000, with $172,000 earmarked for public engagement and outreach.

Planning and Building Director Kevin Jackson stated, “With approval of LWC as the lead housing consultant, the City moves forward with planning to meet the mandates set by the State of California, starting with meetings of the new Piedmont Housing Advisory Committee on May 19 and June 15, 2021. We are confident that the Piedmont community will come together to share ideas and expertise to solve the region’s housing crisis.”

The May and June Housing Advisory Committee meetings will feature results of the citywide fair housing survey and pinnable map tools, which closed for public comment mid-April. The citywide fair housing survey and pinnable map were funded through a $160,000 grant awarded to Piedmont by the State of California SB2 planning grant program.

LWC is expected to present their analysis of Piedmonters’ ideas, design preferences, and understanding of new housing laws, as well as LWC’s recommendations for guiding principles for new tools to accelerate Piedmont affordable housing production.

The Piedmont community is invited to attend. The agendas and instructions for participating in the meetings on May 19 and June 15, 2021 , which start at 5 pm, will be posted at https://piedmont.ca.gov/government/commissions___committees/housing_advisory_committee

The May and June Housing Advisory Committee meetings will be televised live on KCOM-TV, the City’s government TV station and will be available through streaming video on the City’s web site https://piedmont.ca.gov/services___departments/kcomtv/live_content_and_video_archive

For more information and project updates, please visit the City of Piedmont’s web site at https://piedmont.ca.gov/

52021 Revised City of Piedmont Press Release May 4 2021

Housing Element Consulting Services $691,230

City Council Meeting Monday, May 3. 2021

On March 1, 2021, the City Council approved the issuance of a Request for Proposals for Professional Services to Update the Piedmont Housing Element for the 6th Cycle/2023-2031. Only one firm submitted a proposal of services.

The City Administrator recommends an agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) in the amount $691,230 for services related to a Housing Element update.

State law requires every city and county in California to adopt a housing element of its general plan. The law also provides for periodic updates of the housing element. Piedmont has updated its Housing Element on five previous occasions.  Piedmont did not contest its housing allocation of 587 new housing units.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) upcoming “round six” Housing Element update covering the time frame 2023-2031 began with the adoption of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).  Piedmont’s allocation jumped to 587 housing units, compared to 60 units in RHNA 5, the 2014-22 planning period.

The next step is preparation of the Housing Element Update, the environmental documentation, and the Update’s submittal and review for certification by HCD. The deadline for adoption of the Update is January 31, 2023.  State law provides a penalty if the update is not adopted within 120 days after the deadline. That penalty is a requirement for an update every four years rather than every eight years if the update is adopted on time.

Consideration of a Consulting Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., in an Amount Not to Exceed $691,230 for Services Related to a Housing Element Update

AGENDA

Comments to the City Council – citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov

• Consideration of a Consulting Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., in an Amount Not to Exceed $691,230 for Services Related to a Housing Element Update
• Consideration of Traffic Calming Improvements to the Intersection of Grand Avenue and Lower Grand Avenue

See opinions on this proposal. https://www.piedmontcivic.org/2021/04/30/opinion-reconsider-use-of-taxpayer-funds/

• Approval of cell tower lease on city property at Red Rock Road/near Coaches Field.  https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17657597

Agenda –

https://piedmont.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/City%20Council/Agenda/council-current-agenda.pdf

Comments may be sent to the City Council at citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov

Piedmont City Council

Dear Mayor King and Council,

.

          Spending funds on a Grand Ave – lower Grand bicycle improvement is a curious option for public funds as only beautification and limited bike safety will be addressed. In contrast improving the Fairview – Grand intersection accomplishes many concerns: bicycle safety, pedestrian Safety, significant traffic calming and significant Green Infrastructure (“GI”) compliance as this intersection is at the bottom of the hill and a bio-swale can be installed. The GI element is essentially very limited or not possible at Grand – lower Grand. Importantly, more beautification then the small project proposed at Grand and lower Grand is possible at Fairview – Grand as the multitude of traffic turning up Fairview off Grand is indicative of this intersection as a significant City Gateway and there will be  beautification of one of the two small commercial zones in Piedmont. Lastly the unsightly “gateway” of white plastic bollards will be eliminated.

.

          The 2014 Piedmont Bike Pedestrian Master Plan (“PBMP”) at p. 77 listed Grand/Fairview as a priority project and the report states “many requests from the public, creates sense of gateway into the city.”  The current Staff Report notes the PBMP as to Grand/Lower Grand intersection as “one needing additional traffic calming measures.” The PBMP places the Fairview Grand intersection as a higher safety priority; a permanent solution at this important intersection addresses multiple issues unlike the limited possibilities at Grand – Lower Grand.

.

          I urge Council to reconsider and use taxpayer funds in a more efficient manner that serves many more in town and accomplishes multiple needs by improving the Grand – Fairview intersection. Minimally, I ask Council to direct Staff to place a higher priority on the Fairview – Grand intersection.

.

Respectfully,

.

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

April 30, 2021

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