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.

Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan and problems with the wireless communication installation – 

The Piedmont Park Commission met on November 1, 2017 and the major issues were “Approval of Park Commission Minutes for September 6, 2017 and October 4, 2017,” “Consideration of a Recommendation to City Council regarding Proposed Wireless Communication Facilities Permit Installation in Piedmont Park across from 314 Wildwood Avenue,” “Update on the Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan,” “Update and Discussion on a Heritage Tree Program for Trees in Piedmont Parks and Open Spaces by Park Commissioner Jim Horner,” “Monthly Maintenance Report: Park, Open Space and Street Tree Update for the Month of October.”

I stayed for three hours, but I was only there for the first two subjects and a couple minutes of the third subjects.

Eileen Ruby and a few other members of the Commission were upset and confused with Planning Director Kevin Jackson’s opening statement, because they had just been given information at 10 a.m. that morning and asked to decide on it that night. The first topic discussed was anger and confusion expressed by the Commission at the late notice and demands of Kevin Jackson’s new agreement on a wireless communication facility located on City property.

The second topic was heavily discussed for the majority of  time I was there. Basically, there are wireless communications towers trying to be put around Piedmont, but they haven’t been meeting City regulations.

Laura Mazel, a long time Piedmont resident who lives on Wildwood Avenue spoke up to argue against the tower being put up outside the entrance to the dog park near Witter Field. She argued that there was research showing that the radiation coming from the towers would harm wildlife, especially the ancient redwood trees. She also expressed concern about the narrowness of the street and if trucks would be on the street doing work on the tower that would create a problem for drivers.

A former physicist from Berkeley also expressed a lot of concern with the damage the radiation can do. He cited multiple studies and said that flies and bees also can be destroyed by the radiation, soil is affected negatively as well, and birds would have to move nests.

I agree with Laura Mazel and the physicist in that these wireless communication towers are not necessary and they do more harm than good.

The Commission after long discussions and a great amount of staff input hesitantly and with concern made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the communication site while adding new conditions to any approval.

Moving onto the third topic, the City is developing a new Master Plan for the Beach Playfield that involves fixing up the bathrooms and drinking fountains, as well as making the tennis courts full sized. An informational meeting about Beach Playfield will include both parents and kids.

My classmate Jessica Xiong spoke and said it was a good idea to have both adults and children in the meeting because kids are going to be the ones primarily using the field.

I spoke as well and reflected on my younger years as one of the kids playing t-ball and soccer on Beach Field. I remembered how gross the bathrooms by the Field are and let them know that the kids would definitely appreciate a renovation there. I think the plan is a good idea, because it will let kids play and exercise, which is extremely important.

I interviewed Patty Dunlop, a member of the Park Commission. The difficulties she encountered were trying to figure out if the plans for the cell towers were “in harmony with the City Code.” She has learned about the government elements of the cell towers and protocols (making complicated motions), and the delegation of responsibility between the Park Commission and the City Council. The next step concerning her is paying more attention to applications coming forward for additional cell towers/cell antennas, because she thinks they will be coming.

The Park Commission of Piedmont California meets monthly on the first Wednesday at 5:30. They make recommendations to the City Council about the beautification of public parks and the street tree improvement program.

By Emmett Reed, Piedmont High School Senior

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

    On Wednesday November 1, 2017, I attended the Park Commission meeting at Piedmont City Hall. The Park Commission meets monthly, on the first Wednesday of every month at 5:30 p.m. The Park Commission meets to discuss issues relating to the public parks of the city and manage the street-tree improvement program, and make recommendations to the City Council relating to these topics.

I attended the meeting from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; and during that interval, the Park Commission discussed two major topics. The first topic discussed was on behalf of a design plan made for a light post and wireless communication installation “in Piedmont Park across from 314 Wildwood Avenue.” The second topic, which I was only able to stay for the beginning of, was regarding an update of the developing Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan.

To start off the meeting, Kevin Jackson, Piedmont Planning Director, discussed the proposed plans for a lamp post. Crown Castle, the applicant, is a telecommunications contract service based in San Jose.

Jackson wanted the Park Commission to recommend the design and placement of the proposed lamp post, which is proposed to be located in Piedmont Park across from 314 Wildwood Avenue. He revealed that the initial plans were denied due to the fact that it was not consistent in the design of the lamp post and city planning. If the city doesn’t take action by a certain date, the plan will be deemed approved.

Eileen Ruby, a member of the Commission, inquired about the lightpost and its practicality, suggesting that the light post should be in a position to illuminate a pathway or add something of significance in the Park, rather than just a small patch of greenery.

I absolutely agree with Eileen Ruby on this particular topic. It seems like it would be a waste to use these resources and money on a purely decorative utility. The light post should be both practical and nice to look at.

The color of the light post was also discussed by Jim Horner, member of the Commission.

I believe that, in order to fit in with the “look” of Piedmont, it should be dark green or black in order to blend in with the foliage.

Ruby also questioned if the plans were different than those that were originally planned to be discussed, to which Jackson responded that they are in fact new plans from that morning at 10:00 a.m. Jackson reminded that the Park Commission makes the recommendations, and City Council takes action.

Pierce MacDonald Powell, a representative for Crown Castle, told those present that the light fixture is to be decorative, and listed specific conditions that the plans must meet in order for the light post to be approved and built. For example, light pollution and the sound of the light post was a major concern.

Betsy Goodman and Patty Dunlap, both members of the Commission, asked about sound from the installation, what the requirements are, and how to meet them.

Then, a few members of the audience went up to the podium to speak on this issue. Sharon, who was there on behalf of the light post, commented that the reason for the last minute design was due to new options proposed. Their new proposal was based on the lumieres at ‘Ole Miss.

Chairperson Jamie Totsubo shared that she finds this news very frustrating as they spent so much time on the planning already. Commissioner Betsy Goodman shared her concern about the location of the vault, because it is located at a handicap area of the park in the plans. She also requested that the deadline of the Commission’s recommendations be moved to a later date due to the last minute plans.

Sharon from the audience responded that it is very unlikely that this would happen. Then, another member from the audience shared his opinion for the energy vault. He believes it should be above ground, such as a mailbox design, in order to cut the issue of the sound.

Commissioner Jim Horner asked the man about the mailbox design, and if it completely gets rid of the noise issue. The response was yes; it does so because the design will make it allow the heat to be removed.

Peter Harvey, another audience member, spoke on behalf of the environmental impacts of these new installations, sharing previous data that the microwaves produced negatively impact flora and fauna surrounding it. Additionally, he noted the microwaves have affected both the behavior and development of animals.

I agree that this is an issue that must be considered when drafting any new installation plans. Since Piedmont prides itself on its beauty, the City must keep in mind the impact their plans will have on the beauty and wellbeing of the City’s natural surroundings.

Laura Menzel stepped to the podium and stated that she does not want cell phone towers located on Wildwood Avenue, as the road is already very tight and she does not want the beauty of nature around it to be diminished.

The Commission’s consensus was that the vault must be moved to a different location.

City Planner MacDonald proceeded to reiterate the Commission’s recommendations from the notes she made during the discussion. The Commission moved that the light should illuminate the path, have a single arm, be similar to the design of the lights on Oakland Avenue Bridge, be relocated outside of the pedestrian path, and be a dark color. The vote was unanimous on the first motion.

The second motion, to consider communication equipment at an alternative location, and be concealed was not unanimous, but it still passed.

After a short intermission, the meeting moved to the next topic, Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan. Nancy Kent, the Commission Staff Liaison, shared the developing plan and stated that it is fairly new. They have ideas to redo the bathrooms at the Field as well as hold a Public Forum with both children and adults to learn about their opinions and suggestions on what to do.

The Commission asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak on behalf of the Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan. At this time, I went up to the podium to share my thoughts on this particular topic. I commended them on their plan to hold a public forum, because kids are going to be the ones primarily using the field, so having both them and their parents along with other adults participate and give input in the plans is very essential. I also pushed for the remodeling of the bathrooms, as they are barely used since they are not in great condition. Additionally, I also shared that I think they should install more water fountains on the field, as it is used for sports and recreation.

Fellow classmate Emmett Reed went up to the podium and spoke about the Field, and how he agreed with me on the topic of the water fountains and bathrooms. He also shares that he believes having such a place for kids to play is beneficial. After the audience statements, I left the meeting.

During the intermission, I interviewed Betsy Goodman, the Vice Chair of the Piedmont Park Commission. She stated that she was interested in ” the hearing of Resolution PHS 09, which had to do with a telephone antennae, light fixture, and vault at the 314 Wildwood location.”  She noted that since the vault was located in the handicap ramp, the Commission had to come up with an alternative location. There were also sound issues regarding the vault which needed to be resolved. Goodman shared that in this meeting, she learned about the procedural work with the City Council, and how they need to “effectively make recommendations and motions and findings…through a long process to get there.” Goodman revealed that this meeting was a “complicated process” that they must consider in order to meet the requirements of the City and to be able to make the “best recommendation.” Goodman stated that the Commission must always try to do what they believe is “fair and necessary” for the community. In order to get their next concern addressed, Goodman and the Commission will hold further discussions with the City staff to ensure that they have a clear understanding for taking the next steps when making recommendations.

by Jessica Xiong, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the authors.

The workshop will take place on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, from 7:30 – 9:00 pm, at the Piedmont Community Hall, 711 Highland Avenue.

The residential/transportation sector is the largest contributor to Piedmont’s Green House Gas (GHG) so the city is developing it’s next Climate Action Plan with policies that will affect land use, transportation and home construction.  

The meeting is a workshop to provide background on the Plan and obtain input so there will be a lot of back and forth with speakers and the audience

 

And there are special presentations in that regard – Chris Jones of UCB will give a brief presentation on Piedmont’s carbon footprint – this analysis was published in Science and provides new insight into residential GHG sources in Piedmont.  And Council member Tim Rood will provide an update on East Bay Community Energy – this is an energy cooperative that Piedmont joined last year that will give residents the choice to go 100% green in their home energy use.  

 

The workshop  is a great opportunity to learn more about GHG reduction steps you can take in your community.  And to provide ideas for the Climate Action Plan – for residents who want to see the city do more, now is the time to provide comment on the new Plan.

Garrett Keating, Former Councilmember

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

Input is sought.

The Planning Commission will be considering revisions to land use regulations related to cannabis provided in Division 17.48 of the City Code at their regularly scheduled meeting on November 13, 2017. The Planning Commission’s responsibility is to make a recommendation that will be considered by the City Council, which is the decision-making body. The City Council is expected to consider the Commission’s recommendation and conduct a first reading of the proposed ordinance on December 4, 2017.

 Documents on the City Website

The agenda for the November 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the staff report to the Commission are available on the City’s website at www.ci.piedmont.ca.us. Current land use regulations related to cannabis are provided in Division 17.48 of the City Code.

“AGENDA ITEM 3. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE LAND USE REGULATIONS IN CITY CODE CHAPTER 17 RELATED TO CANNABIS The Commission will hold a hearing to consider an ordinance to revise City Code Chapter 17 regarding the land use regulations related to cannabis. The proposed revisions are in response to Proposition 64, which legalizes and regulates the adult use of non-medical marijuana (recreational marijuana) in California and Senate Bill 94, known as the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”), which consolidated state laws regarding medical marijuana and adult-use marijuana and introduced more uniform terminology, replacing “marijuana” with “cannabis” and “nonmedical” to “adult-use.” The Commission may take action to make a recommendation of adoption to the City Council. The proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, sections: 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment); 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378); and 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, this action is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 26055 (h).”

From the staff report to the Commission:

“PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CITY CODE: It is in the City’s best interest to maintain local control over all cannabis land uses to the fullest extent allowed by law. Although, the City Code currently prohibits all cannabis businesses, it will better serve the public and minimize the potential for confusion regarding the City’s policies by providing updated Code provisions regarding the scope of prohibited conduct and of permissible private cultivation that are consistent with State law. Findings H through Q in the proposed ordinance (Attachment A pages 5-10) list a number of findings that cannabis related activities allowed under MAUCRSA would cause adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare in Piedmont.”

Public Engagement

The opportunity for public input is available throughout this process. Interested members of the public are encouraged to attend the regular meetings at which the Planning Commission and City Council will consider this item.

Questions about the project and requests to receive email notification of activities related to Zoning Code revisions should be directed to Planning Director Kevin Jackson at kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov or (510) 420-3039. Written comments to the Planning Commission on this matter may be submitted care of kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov or by mail to 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

Members of the Piedmont Planning Commission

Roster

Council Liaison: Jennifer Cavenaugh – (510) 428-1442
Eric Behrens
Aradhana Jajodia
Jonathan Levine
Susan Ode
Tom Ramsey
Clark Thiel (Alternate)

Wireless Communication Facilities –

On October second, Piedmont City Council had a meeting discussing the installation of wireless communication facilities. The Piedmont City Council meets every two weeks to discuss issues in Piedmont. This particular meeting was mainly devoted to discussing the wireless communications facilities to be installed.

The meeting started with all members of the Council speaking about the issue of wireless communication. They discussed the Telecommunication Act which decides the safe height for the towers, which emit radio fields. They also introduced all seven of the wireless communication facilities locations in Piedmont.

The Council then opened the discussion to the audience. Crown Castle, the company installing the wireless towers, spoke first. They mainly pointed out the benefits of the towers: Increasing the signal strength on cell phones throughout Piedmont and the ability to call 911 anywhere in Piedmont.

The residents of Piedmont then voiced their concerns on the issue of wireless communication facilities. The two main points brought up by the residents were the towers bringing down property values, and the health issues of the towers.

One resident presented a survey from the National Realtors Association saying people are twenty percent less likely to buy a house in front of or across from a cell tower. She also said that the price of her home is likely to decrease twenty percent because of the cell tower.

One of the health issues brought to the attention of the Council was the radiation given off by these towers. These towers have an EMF, electromotive force, of about five to thirteen feet which could cause radiation poisoning. This is a major health concern for people that live close to these towers. Another speaker said the towers cause leukemia and cancer in children and adults.

After listening to the speakers at the meeting, I would have to agree with their concerns. I believe the wireless communication facilities are not needed in the city of Piedmont and the many negatives outweigh the positives for the city. These towers do not seem to be a necessity for all Piedmont families and residents.

Interview:

After the meeting was over I interviewed John Randall. Mr. Randall has been a Piedmont resident for over 20 years. He was at the meeting to listen to the issues about the wireless communication facilities. His main concern was about the health issues the towers bring. He told me, “Some of the health issues are respiratory issues, radiation poisoning, increased chromosome aberrations, cause of cancer in children and adults, and other detrimental illnesses.”

Randall learned about where the towers are being placed around Piedmont, and he will continue to come to meetings to talk about what he thinks is right in the city of Piedmont. He is not afraid to voice his opinion to the City Council of Piedmont.

From what I have observed during the meeting, many people at the meeting agree with Mr. Randall’s position that cell towers are dangerous to have in Piedmont due to health concerns.

by Julian Turner, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

High School student interest in Piedmont Climate Action Plan – 

      In the Climate Action Task Force meeting, we, students, talked a lot about how we can change the cities in the Bay Area for the better. Many of the student speakers in the meeting talked about transportation expenses and recycling better in the park.  Since there is nothing in the park but a big trashcan that the students throw everything in, it would be nice to have recycling, compost, trash, etc.

    For about half of the meeting, one of the presenters talked about light bulb/ light efficiency in many cities ranging from Alameda to southern California.. With 100% renewable energy being a great possibility in the next couple of years, people are on board! From the diagrams and graphs shown, it tends to be a great idea both money and environmentally wise.

     I then asked a question to the people running the meeting about Solar Panels, and if and when is it possible for them to be in the school. Like many people in Piedmont, I have seen tons of panels on people’s houses, which would save them a lot of money each year. The sun is free! We should use it to our advantages!

    Everyone talked and contributed in the meeting, some more than others. It was a very effective meeting. There are about 8-10 more meetings before they will have this issue all figured out (going into February). It was brought up how there is too much water usage in the school with the showers, however there is storage in the showers in both the Middle School and High School. I don’t know how they got that information, maybe due to the sprinkler leaks or with the sink in the bathrooms that are accidentally left on. When it rains, Witter Field tends to be flooded with water, so they are going to try to find a drainer to fix and clean so this won’t happen as often (one of many problems that they are facing in years to come).

Interview Questions:

Name: Cody Ericson ( New graduate from UCLA but excited to start working for the City!)

Q: Why are you here?

A:  ¨I’m a part of a Americorp program called Civic Spark that links up new graduates, young professionals with local governments that help them with suitable issues. And so this is part of the Climate Action Plan passing City Council; we have to get input from the community.¨

Q: What difficulties and problems brought you here?

A: ¨Climate change is a huge issue obviously, and so local governments are in a interesting position, because they can test out new innovative ideas that can’t really be tested out on a federal scale. Cities can do  innovate thing that can be used as a model for the world for other cities in America, so I think there is  a lot of opportunity in local government.   I wanted to try finding climate change issues at a local stage.¨

Q: What did you learn?

A: ¨It takes a lot of patience and work to get this issue across to the public and get people on board, so it might take awhile until we get this plan officially approved.¨

Q: What was your reaction of the meeting?

A: “I thought it was very productive.  It was great to see that a lot of people in the community are involved in this Task Force to help a Climate Action Plan pass. It was great to see everyone have a lot of influence.  It’s great to see that people care.¨

Q: What next step will you take to get this particular concern addressed?

A: ¨To get this concern addressed, we are going to take all the imput that we had today, and try to incorporate as much as we can from the public, We are holding a focused community outreach workshop on November 7th, as we talked about, and yeah, hopefully just to keep the public involved throughout the process, I think is very important. So yes, hopefully it’s an effective workshop on the 7th.¨

by Kyle Deutsche, Piedmont High School Senior  

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

On October 30, 2017, at a Special Council meeting with all council members present, the Council voted unanimously to approve all 3 proposed cell facility sites.

Numerous written comments had been sent to the council members prior to the Special Meeting.  Suggested reasons for Council denial of  the applications included: noise, safety, health concerns, potential harm to trees, aesthetic issues, disruptive maintenance requirements, lack of information on coverage and capacity.

McBain and Rood expressed their concurrence with the staff and attorney’s advice to conditionally approve the installations.  The other three council members indicated less enthusiasm for approval.

After listening to residents, applicants, council members, and the staff in the full Council Chamber, Council member Tim Rood made the motions to approve each of the applicant’s proposed sites.  Hearing no seconds to the motions to approve, Mayor Bob McBain seconded all of the motions for the three sites.

Vice Mayor Teddy King stated it had been her most difficult issue in her 10 years of public service.  However, based on the City’s legal advisement of a potential lawsuit costing $250,000, she felt responsible in saving money, thus she supported approval.

Council members Jennifer Cavenaugh and Betsy Andersen asked many questions and in the end reluctantly voted for approval.

The approval includes requiring the applicant and contractors to meet a number of conditions, one of which is to prove compliance with Piedmont’s noise ordinance prior to construction.

The approved sites are:

1. Site PHS01, a WCF proposed across from 340-370 Highland Avenue;

2. Site PHS03, a WCF proposed at 799 Magnolia Avenue; and

3. Site PHS04, a WCF proposed across from 740 Magnolia Avenue.

Read the prior PCA article on the communication facilities and the staff report recommending approval HERE.

Special Council meeting to consider 3 sites for Wireless Communication facilities. 

Monday, October 30, 7:30 p.m., City Hall. 

AGENDA SUBJECT: Consideration of Applications for Wireless Communication Facilities Permits and Variances submitted by Crown Castle NG West LLC through Beacon Development as well as a determination of CEQA Exemption under CCR 15303(d) as follows (continued from 10/16/17): a. PHS01 – Across from 340 – 370 Highland Ave., PHS03 – 799 Magnolia Ave., and PHSo4 – Across from 740 Magnolia Ave.

City Administrator Paul Benoit’s  RECOMMENDATION:

A. Approve, subject to standard and special conditions, the applications for wireless communication facilities (WCF) permit at the following three sites by adopting the three resolutions included in Attachment A, pages 7-45 of this report:

1. Site PHS01, a WCF proposed across from 340-370 Highland Avenue;

2. Site PHS03, a WCF proposed at 799 Magnolia Avenue; and

3. Site PHS04, a WCF proposed across from 740 Magnolia Avenue.

Read the full staff report including the recommended conditions of approval below >

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2017-10-30/crown-castle-applications.pdf

COUNCIL CONTACT INFORMATION

While Riders Focus on Maintenance, Safety and Comfort Problems, BART Will Pursue Fare Evaders

The BART Board will hear reports from Board members on the maintenance, safety and other issues in the stations of their districts (Agenda Item 8 A) on Thursday, October 26. The public is invited to attend the 5 pm Board meeting in the Kaiser Mall, 344 20th Street, Oakland, on the third floor.  Some BART users have a particular interest in the maintenance and safety conditions in the Civic Center Station, a station where fare evaders are frequently observed.

New proof of fare purchase program

The second reading of a new ordinance (Agenda Item 5 A plus B) will seek to reduce fare avoidance on BART.  BART is very concerned about its estimated annual loss of $15 million to $25 million annually due to non-paying riders.  The proposed solution is requiring passengers anywhere within the paid system area to present proof of fare purchase to a transit official.  For adult violators the fine will be $75 and for juveniles $55.

Prohibition Orders to begin January 1, 2018

Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 730 which will permit BART  authorities to bar persons from BART property for 30, 60 or 90 days if they commit certain acts including violence against riders or BART personnel.

Read BART agenda here.