On November 14th, 2016, I attended the Piedmont Planning Commission from 5:00 to 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission meets once monthly (the second Monday of each month) to discuss and approve the modification and construction of houses and buildings in Piedmont.
During tonight’s meeting, the Commission discussed a variety of proposed modifications and projects, and approved many. The meeting opened, however, with a Public Forum, during which I (being a newcomer to the realm of local government meetings) was able to “Speak Out” in the form of a question. I asked the officials just how an application gets to their desk this evening- the steps each project from tonight’s meeting had to go through prior to the fateful moment of approval or rejection. I followed up with a question and comment about variances. I learned more in the first five minutes of the commission than I could have imagined. Additionally, I was comforted by the use of Robert’s Rules of Order, with which I have been familiar due to ASB’s [Associated Student Body] annual Constitutional Convention held in the City Council Chambers. Following the Public Forum, the Commission approved the Minutes of last month’s meeting and also approved the Consent Calendar.
The meeting agenda then moved on to the main discussions, the first of which regarded a home on Littlewood Drive. Mr. Mohazab, the architect of the project spoke first, describing the addition of a second unit and small deck and window modifications as “benign”. After the homeowners spoke, the Commission Chair brought up an anonymous letter that had been sent by a presumed neighbor, complaining about the project impeding parking availability. The letter was soon discarded and the project approved; however, when it was made clear that a construction project down the street was causing temporary parking issues and anonymous letters are not to be considered as seriously as those with names on them. I agreed with the decision to approve the Littlewood Drive project, especially considering that the homeowner plans to retire soon and will no longer own his corporate car.
The next application, 108 Moraga Drive*, was slightly more tricky. This family had virtually nowhere to expand but up. They only had five feet forward of potential room, not enough for a bedroom, and were already pushing backward toward the neighbor’s yard. Erica Benson, a neighbor upset with the proposed project, spoke on behalf of her husband against the homeowners. While there was a slight discussion of adding a basement bottom floor- mostly proposed by the upset neighbor- this was not feasible as a bedroom living space. The homeowners had been to the Commission once before in July, and had made drastic improvements to their plan in an attempt to comply with the needs of their neighbors. One official asked the architect if she was familiar with the fact that Piedmont prefers smaller homes. This was quickly put to rest when it was made clear that 108 Moraga Drive was by no means a mansion, still below the national average size of new homes. While Ms. Benson expressed understandable concerns for her view and the proximity of 108 Moraga to her home, she was unwilling to compromise and the project was approved considering the impressive modifications made since July to address neighbor concerns.
Following this application was a very simple one- 1106 Warfield Avenue. First, a neighbor, the homeowner of 1102 Warfield spoke in favor of the project, elegantly portraying the supportive neighborhood of their street and her full and utter backing of the application. While the homeowner/contractor/designer did not have anything specific to say, he answered a simple question concerning an issue already addressed. The project was quickly approved.
During a quick break, I interviewed the next man on the agenda- Mr. Paki Muthig, a father of two young children currently living just outside of Piedmont on Trestle Glen. An “architect, as well as the owner of the home”, Mr. Muthig had already presented to the commission and had begun some work on his soon to be home, 306 Magnolia Avenue. This time, he “added modifications to the basement and it’s access to the backyard”. While the construction of the project had already begin on site, the specifics of the basement exterior door were waiting to be finalized, pending tonight’s decision. From his description of the project to me prior to its discussion, it seemed relatively simple. The Commission, however, experienced in the art of potential concerns regarding urban planning, voiced some concerns. Mr. Muthig asked for two variances. After heavy discussion of parking availability (which I, quite frankly, found to be a little too pervasive) the project was approved. I was quite relieved and excited for Mr. Muthig; his young kids were planning on attending my former elementary school and I could tell how hard this architect had worked on his planning. I also had never noticed a lack of parking on Magnolia (excluding Friday night football games, of course).
Overall, the meeting offered me a unique glimpse into the world of urban planning and government meetings. I feel excited to experience government on a local level, and I look forward to exploring law and government more in civics class and in college.
Natalie Stollman, Piedmont High School Senior
On the City Council agenda for December 19, 2016 is an appeal to a Planning Commission decision for expanding the house at 108 Moraga Avenue, owned by S. D. B. Talwatte and L. J. Chandler. Story Poles with red flags have been visible for weeks on the property located opposite from the Mountain View Cemetery wall.
Appellants Charles Constanti & Erica Benson, owners of the house at 115 Ronada Avenue located behind 108 Moraga Avenue, state in their appeal:
“GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – SECTION 17.2S.2 FILING : A significant error occurred in the application of the provisions of City of Piedmont Municipal Code Chapter 17 (“Chapter 17″). Specifically, we believe that the approval of the design for an upper level addition and upper level deck at 108 Moraga Avenue involved a significant error because the decision was made, in part: • Based on misleading statements by the architect for 108 Moraga Avenue. • Without adequate discussion of the violations of Chapter 17, due to the significant adverse effect on neighboring properties’ existing views and privacy (both of which were points of complaints we made to the Planning Commission in letters dated July 2, 2016 and November 9, 2016). • Without appropriate consideration of the reasonable opportunity to reduce the height of the addition with lower level excavation because of misleading statements by the architect of 108 Moraga Avenue. 1 EXHIBIT H Agenda Report Page 55 • Without thorough consideration of the fact that increasing the size of the 1,004-square-foot house at 108 Moraga Avenue by 1,375 and thereby producing a 2,379-square-foot house is excessively large and crowded compared with the existing pattern of neighborhood development given the close proximity to 115 Ronada Avenue because of misleading statements by the architect of 108 Moraga Avenue.”
Constanti and Benson have been joined in their opposition to the Planning Commission approval by neighbors Mark & Melissa Wilk and Kong.
“Although invited in written comments submitted by the appellants on November 9, 2016 to view the proposed project from the rear yard and inside their house at 115 Ronada Avenue, the Commissioners did not take the opportunity to view the proposed project from the rear yard and house at 115 Ronada Avenue.”
Paul Benoit, City Administrator
City Administrator Benoit is recommending that the Council deny the appeal.
Click below to view photos and read full documentation on the appeal.
The hearing can be viewed on Channel 27 or via the City website under videos.
The Council faces a full agenda on December 19, 2016, broadcast will be on Channel 27 and via the City website. The Council will vote on elimination of Recreation Department transport of participants, addition of a full time Planning Technician, and a loan mechanism to pay for sewer work (see separate article.)
Agenda items:
Political appointments chosen by the Mayor to represent Piedmont on various Boards:
12/19/16 – Approval of Council Liaison Assignments through 12/31/17
Piedmont’s Planning Department continues to grow as a full time Technician is added to the Department. At a recent Planning Commission meeting, five Planning Department employees were present.
12/19/16 – Authorization to Add a Full Time Planning Technician Position
Elimination of transport by the Recreation Department of juvenile participants:
12/19/16 – Report from the Recreation Director on the Discontinuation of Transportation Services
With a new Police Chief appointed from within the Police Department, a vacancy has occurred in the Police Captain position:
At their December 19, 2016 meeting, the City Council will consider “borrowing of funds from the California State Water Resources Control Board” to pay for sewer improvements. The State has approved the loan request.
The Piedmont City Charter states:
SECTION 4.13 TEMPORARY LOANS Money may be borrowed in anticipation of the receipts from taxes during any fiscal year, by the issue of notes, certificates of indebtedness or revenue bonds; but the aggregate amount of such loans at any time outstanding shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the receipts from all taxes during the preceding fiscal year; and all such loans shall be paid out of the receipts from taxes for the fiscal year in which they are issued.
SECTION 4.14 BONDED DEBT LIMIT The City shall not incur an indebtedness evidenced by obligation bonds which shall in the aggregate exceed the sum of twenty (20) percent of total assessed valuation for purposes of City taxation, of all the real and personal property within the City, exclusive of any indebtedness that has been or may hereafter be incurred for the purposes of acquiring, constructing, extending or maintaining municipal utilities, for which purpose a further indebtedness may be incurred by the issuance of bonds, subject only to the provisions of the State Constitution and of this Charter. No bonded indebtedness which shall constitute a general obligation of the City may be created unless authorized by the affirmative votes of a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at any election at which the question is submitted to the electors and unless in full compliance with the provisions of the State Constitution, other State laws and this Charter.
Staff reports:
a. Approval of Installment Agreement # D16-01021
b. Authorization for City Administrator to Execute Documents
Hoping a New Agency will Produce Greener Electricity –
On Monday, November 21, the City Council is expected to approve the second reading of the authorization of Piedmont’s participation in a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Authority. State policy permits Piedmont to aggregate electricity demand within our City and prioritize alternative energy supplies from sources other than PG&E. PG&E would continue to bill, transmit and distribute the electricity to Piedmont homes. It would also continue to provide meter-reading, maintenance and outage response services.
PG&E already provides “some of the nation’s cleanest electric power,” said utility spokeswoman Tamar Sarkissian.
The 2015 power mix of PG&E’s energy consisted of 30% renewable sources, and the company is heading toward the state’s 33 percent benchmark at least by 2020. Adding its 23% nuclear and 6% hydroelectric sources, last year 62% of the power PG&E provided was carbon-free.
State regulators allow the utilities to levy a charge on departing CCA customers to compensate them for the cost of the power that the utilities had already purchased to serve anticipated load. Piedmonters will be automatically enrolled in the CCA before allowing them to opt out. However, those who prefer to continue to receive PG&E energy, cannot submit opt-out requests to PG&E.
If you receive notice that your electric service can be served by a CCA, and you want to opt out of the CCA program, you must submit your opt-out request directly to the CCA. Submit an opt-out request if:
- Your area is transitioning to the CCA for the first time
- You start a new electric service within an existing CCA area
The number and type of customers who opt out of the CCA affect the market negotiations and resulting rates for those remaining in the CCA. Some predictions of CCA rates did not figure in impacts from opt out customers. Other analyses assumed less than 10% customer opt outs, according to the Good Energy August 1, 2016 feasibility study. It notes that terms are not subject to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval.
The East Bay Community Energy Authority would come into being after three jurisdictions sign the Joint Powers Agreement. Berkeley and Emeryville joined on November 1. Good Energy reported significant administrative and start-up costs for existing California CCAs. The new public agency would set its own customer billing rates, buy and sell its own electricity and procure its own clean power.
The East Bay Community Energy Authority would set rates. Therefore, rate comparisons for Piedmont are not known at this time. Community Choice Aggregation Piedmonters who choose “Deep Green” (a goal of 100% renewables) CCA electricity may pay more per KWH, while “Light Green” (a goal of 50% renewables) CCA may cost a little less or more. To get an idea of the rate comparisons see existing CCAs:
Rate comparison tables for the first bay area CCA, Marin Clean Energy (MCE).
San Francisco’s CleanPowerSF is offering a mix of natural gas and 35 percent renewable energy from Calpine Corp., as well as a 100 percent renewable option, which comes from Iberdrola Renewables’ Shiloh Wind project in Solano County. Only 220 customers have opted for the “super green” option.
Rate comparison tables for CleanPowerSF (CPSF)
The intent is to speed up the development of new sources of green energy but the means of accomplishing that is unclear and Renewable energy certificates (REM) seem to compromise that goal. REMs qualify as renewable content even if “unbundled,” meaning the CCA is not actually using renewables in their location; simply, there are renewable units somewhere on the grid. This would mean no local GHG (greenhouse gas) reduction due to crediting pre-existing renewable sources.
The matter is not without controversy as some in the community have questioned CCA’s transparency and oversight, unnecessary potential energy cost increases, complicated processes, and the establishment of a parallel new energy agency authorized by the City of Piedmont. Other citizens are enthusiastic, hoping for greener energy from this approach.
The item is number 9 on the November 21 agenda. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers starting at 7:30 p.m. Live and recorded broadcasts of the meeting can be found on Cable Channel 27 and the City website.
Read the staff report here.
City-wide notifications of the significant zoning changes are needed before ordinances are adopted by the City Council in January, 2017.
Piedmont is on the brink of two significant changes that will fundamentally alter how residents maintain and modify their homes. One change is seamless and could go virtually unnoticed by residents. The other change is controversial and could significantly alter how residents enjoy their private and public property.The first change is how you will get the power to run your home.
First, there are two kinds of power sources – non-renewable (fossil fuels, natural gas) that generate green house gas (GHG) and renewable (solar, wind, hydro) that doesn’t. Like most cities in the East Bay, Piedmont gets its power from PG&E and most of that power is non-renewable. And because of global warming, like all cities in California, Piedmont is required to reduce it’s GHG 15% by 2020 and 40% by 2030.To address this urgent need, cities in Alameda County have banded together and formed the East Bay Community Energy Authority, whereby all 14 municipalities decide to direct rate-payer revenue to either buy or develop renewable power for their residents. You will still get a PG&E utility bill and pay for energy transmission but your bill will show that your utilities are provided through the new Energy Authority. Feasibility studies have shown that your utility bill could be slightly cheaper than that provided by PG&E and will certainly have a greater percentage of renewable energy. Piedmont residents will automatically be enrolled in the new Energy Authority but will be given multiple opportunities to decline and stay with PG&E at no charge.By joining the authority, Piedmont will take significant strides towards reducing it’s GHG output. Extensive background information on the new Energy Authority is available athttp://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/east-bay-community-energy/. Three Piedmonters with energy expertise have offered to answer questions from residents: Councilmember Tim Rood (trood@ci.piedmont.ca.us) Alex DiGregorio (ADiGiorgio@mceCleanEnergy.org) and Justis Fennel (justisfennell@gmail.com).The second change deals with how you remodel your home.
If there’s one thing Piedmonters take possibly more seriously than global warming its their home remodel or that of their neighbors, governed by Chapter 17 of the Piedmont Municipal Code. City Council is about to adopt major changes to the code and unlike your energy bill, you won’t be able to decline so you better get your two 2 cents in now.Chapter 17 revisions are being undertaken to modernize the code, reorganize it logically, and address development changes called for in the Piedmont General Plan, a community survey and planning process conducted in 2009 to guide city growth (I was on Council at the time). Over the past year, the Planning Commission has held public meetings on various topics (second units, new technologies and many others) but attendance has been sparse.Proposed changes to the code are voluminous but can be summarized in two words – increased density. For the average resident, the proposed changes should be viewed from two perspectives – that of your property and that of your community. From your property’s perspective, the new code allows accessory structures (structures up to 15 feet high and 400 square feet – garages, hot tubs, patios) within the 5 foot setback so long as it is within 35 feet of the rear property line. As long as the structures are not habitable, you and your neighbor can build right up to the property line. You might also see wireless communication hardware out your front window. The new code allows for co-location of wireless communication facilities in all public right of ways (think street poles) at the discretion of the Planning Department Director. Previously, wireless installations required a hearing at Planning and Council but it is not clear under the new code how or if residents will be notified of wireless installations outside of their homes.From the community perspective, your street may become more crowded. The old rule that you can’t add a bedroom without adding off-street parking is eliminated. The new code allows up to four bedrooms to be added as long as there are sufficient uncovered spaces in the driveway. The code now accepts tandem driveway parking but practically this will increase on street parking in the neighborhood.The biggest community change you will notice is in the Grand Avenue business corridor and Civic Center. Here multi-use, multi-story development is being allowed with no required street setback nor off-street parking for businesses under a certain size. In particular, the Shell Station at 29 Wildwood has been highlighted for this development. Staff’s rationale for these permissive code terms is that they will foster pedestrian-friendly development – if you can’t park there, you’ll walk there. That may be true for the Civic Center but not for the Grand Ave corridor – more Oaklanders will walk to shops there than Piedmonters. Staff cites successful multi-use development just down the street in Oakland but fails to acknowledge the public parking lots and slant parking that support that. Better neighborhood and city planning analysis is needed before these changes are adopted.There are many other changes to the zoning code so visit http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/planning-commission-to-consider-changes-to-planning-code/ to see the full report. The report is lengthy and cumbersome – it may be easier to email Kevin Jackson, Planning Director, at kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us, with your questions. And the city should implement a city-wide notification of these changes before they are adopted by City Council in January.Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member
Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author. Emphasis added for ease of reading.
DRESS BEST FOR LESS
Did you know that Dress Best for Less (DBFL), Piedmont’s own non-profit resale shop, is one of the largest donors to the Piedmont Education Foundation (PEF) every year?
Dress Best For Less – 3861 Piedmont Avenue
Oakland, CA 94611
For decades Piedmont schools have benefited from numerous volunteers and voluminous donations of clothes and resalable items for the thrift store on Piedmont Avenue adjacent to Commis Restaurant. The fund raising effort regularly donates to the Piedmont Education Foundation (PEF), estimating contributions of over a million dollars to benefit the schools.
Recently, the owner of the shop’s property informed Dress Best For Less (DBFL) they would not be renewing the long held lease as Commis Restaurant would be taking over the space to increase the size of its popular upscale restaurant. Most of the clients of the thrift store originate from the Kaiser Hospital facilities making it an ideal location for DBFL.
Since 1982, DBFL, a 501c3 charitable organization, has donated over $1 million to PEF. The resale operation sells and recycles donated goods from local residents. DBFL supports Piedmont schools while helping Piedmonters reduce, reuse and recycle.
Gayle Sells, Chair of DBFL Board stated, “We are currently looking for a place to rent on Piedmont Ave as half our customers are from Kaiser. However, we are open to other ideas.”
The Carriage House Marking Room is proposed to be eliminated for a new Aquatic Center development.
Compounding challenges for DBFL, the proposed Aquatic Center includes destruction of the Carriage House, valued as a quaint landmark of Piedmont’s past. The Carriage House has long served as the DBFL sorting and marking room and a very convenient drop off center for donations. On any day of the week Piedmonters can be seen bringing bags and boxes of toys, outgrown clothes and housewares to the Carriage House.
The elimination of the Carriage House as a marking room is not immediate. However, if a bond is approved by voters for the Aquatic Center, a new marking room will need to be purchased, rented or built in a central Piedmont location for the convenience of volunteer workers and donors, who donate or work at the Carriage House before picking up kids or after swimming next door.
Are there any other City owned properties that could serve as well as the Carriage House for donations and recycling in the community? Perhaps the east wing of 801 Magnolia Avenue or the City garages on Magnolia Avenue?
According to Gayle Sells, Chair of DBFL Board, “We hope that the city and school community can find us another space if the pool gets the go ahead. Our board supports the idea of a new community pool.”
Recycling locally is an important contribution to fulfilling our required reduction of greenhouse gases and reaching the objectives of Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan.
If you have ideas or can help relocate DBFL, let DBFL know at shopdbfl@gmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the last Saturday of the month, there is a $10 bag sale from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Carriage House Marking Room – Bag Day is a popular adventure allowing avid thrift shoppers to stuff a standard brown grocery bag full of items for $10.
DONATIONS:
“DBFL strives to resell only the highest quality donations. Everything on the floor is either in new condition or gently used. If anything is placed on the floor that is found to have holes, stains or looks too worn, it is removed.”
DONATING at the MARKING ROOM Carriage House
Marking Room at Magnolia and Bonita Avenues – 799 Magnolia Ave., Piedmont, CA – 510-653-0221
• All donations are preferred during business hours at the Marking Room, however a new drop box outside of the Carriage House is available at all hours.
• All sporting goods and furniture should be donated here.
• Please DO NOT leave donations outside. They will be stolen.
• We do not take computers or other electronics.
• No skis, cribs or soiled goods.
DONATING at the DRESS BEST FOR LESS store:
3861 Piedmont, Oakland, CA – 510-658-8525
• Small donations are accepted Monday through Saturday 11am-6pm.
• Do not leave items outside
While DBFL greatly appreciates the generosity of all of your donations, please be aware that large furniture, inoperable electronics, car seats, edible products and cosmetics will most likely be discarded automatically.
Cleaning closets? Recycle and reuse with Dress Best for Less! DBFL is always in need of gently used and good condition clothing, books, sporting goods and other small household items that will produce revenues for the schools. (Please no computers, non-working electrical items, or soiled, stained, moldy items!). Donate items at the marking room at 709 Magnolia Avenue, across from Piedmont High School.
Do Piedmonters understand the proposed changes impacting their property, the City’s property, or neighboring properties?
Chapter 17 of the City Code is the controlling legal document for building in Piedmont.
Momentous changes are proposed.
Confusion and some concerns:
- How many parking spaces are going to be required?
- What are the new required sizes of parking spaces?
- Who gets to decide on building applications – permits, design review and variances?
- Are zone uses being changed without a public vote?
- Will roofs and other buildings be allowed to extend further into side yard setbacks?
- Are variance requirements being changed?
- Wireless communication requirements decided by staff?
- Calling application requirements a permit rather than design review?
- Planning Commission decisions on proposals turned over for staff decisions increased from $75,000 to $125,000?
- No building restrictions on Public Property?
On Thursday, November 10, 2016, the City Council Chambers, City Hall, the Planning Commission at 5:00 p.m. will continue their work on changes to Piedmont’s building and zoning code, Chapter 17.
The Piedmont Planning Commission has been meeting for some months on changes to Chapter 17 of the City Code with little public input. Changes to Piedmont building requirements found in Chapter 17 will have far reaching impacts. The latest version of the changes will be considered at the November 10, 2016 Planning Commission “workshop.”
Community Engagement Requested:
A call for community workshops oriented toward expanded public input has been suggested; however, as of this writing none have been scheduled by the City. The Planning Commission meetings have had limited public participation where comments to the Planning Commission have a 3 minute limit, as opposed to an open exchange of ideas with the community.
The usual procedure in proposing changes to legal documents is to strike out language proposed for elimination and color or italicize new language. Following this common procedure would help Piedmonters understand the changes under consideration. The Planning Commissioners, City Council, and public are being asked to comment on changes only hinted at in the Staff’s abstract revision table. The revision table only notes whole sections that have been moved or deleted; but does not indicate precise changes within the sections.
Buried in the moved sections are fundamental changes in single lines, such as moving Chapter 17.6 Zone B: Public facilities to Chapter 17.22 and adding use “by a for-profit commercial entity.” This innocuous single line is a fundamental use change not authorized by the City Charter without a city-wide vote.
The changes essentially amount to a rewrite of Chapter 17 with extensive new language not previously seen. A city wide notification has been noted as prudent before concluding Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council.
- – Page 45 – Chapter 17.6 Zone B changed to Section 17.22 Zone B: Public facilities Section 17.22.030 – Conditional Uses. The following are allowed as Conditional Uses in Zone B: A. City building used by a for-profit commercial entity. Comment: this is not highlighted.
- WCF (wireless communication facilities). This is one of the many topics taken up in the “public meetings” relative to Chapter 17. The proposal recommends that the City Council only review WCF in Zone B, all others in right of ways around town are decided on by the Planning Director. WCF is getting put on poles rather than towers so it is likely that many homes may see one of these out their windows. The Planning Department and the wireless company would agree WCF locations. There appears to be no mention of a process for a resident to object. http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/publicworks/docs/planning/ch17revisions/2016-08-30_report.pdf
- Control of what citizens can build on their property has migrated from the Planning Commission to decision-making by City staff as the threshold for review by the Commission increased to $75,000. In June Planning Director Jackson suggested the cost threshold for review by the Planning Commission should be increased from $75,000 to $125,000.
To understand where changes are being proposed to the existing ordinances, a lined through and changed version would help readers.
Staff report for the November 10 meeting can be read here.
The volume of planning documents can be read here.
Notice regarding the meeting from the Planning Director Kevin Jackson is below:
Activity by the Planning Commission or City Council related to revisions of City Code Chapter 17, the Zoning Code.
Item 1, and the only item on the agenda for the Planning Commission’s special meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2016 is the Consideration of a Resolution Recommending Updates to the Planning and Zoning Provisions in the City Code and City Council Policies, as well as Actions to Update Planning Commission Policies.
You can find more information on this ongoing project by visiting the City’s website. It is there that you can also find links to past reports and meeting minutes as well as a link to the staff report for the November 10, 2016 Planning Commission special meeting.
You are encouraged to provide your comments on the topics under discussion by attending the meeting and/or by submitting written comments by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. You can submit your comments to the Commission by sending an email to me, kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us or on paper to 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Kevin Jackson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Piedmont
The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and from the City website under videos, Planning Commission. A video recording will be made of the meeting for future viewing.
The City Council on November 7, 2016 will consider joining a program to procure electricity for Piedmonters. The following is a staff notice describing the program.
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is a program that enables local governments to aggregate electricity demand within their jurisdictions in order to procure electricity for its customers while maintaining the existing electricity provider (e.g., Pacific Gas & Electric Company or PG&E) for customer billing, transmission and distribution services. By the end of 2014, CCAs were serving nearly five percent of Americans in over 1,300 municipalities in seven states, including California. CCA’s offer local governments the opportunity to aggregate regional energy demand, set local energy goals, develop energy efficiency and demand reduction programs, and negotiate directly with energy suppliers and developers rather than the traditional utility business model that relies more heavily on fossil fuels.
The State of California passed legislation in 2002 (Assembly Bill 117) that permits local agencies to form CCA programs. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in June 2014 authorizing the Community Development Agency to investigate the implementation of a CCA program for Alameda County and its cities and authorized the formation of a Steering Committee to advise the Board in this effort.
The Steering Committee has held monthly public meetings since June 2015 to direct and review consultant work on a Technical Study, Joint Powers Agreement, and other elements of the proposed CCA program in Alameda County, known as East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). On October 4, 2016, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors formally took action to create the East Bay Community Energy Authority and requested that each of the cities that are considering joining the JPA to schedule the item for consideration by their respective City Councils by the end of November 2016. This schedule allows time for the necessary steps for the Authority to begin delivering power to customers in the fall of 2017.
Piedmont’s City Council has been actively interested in considering membership in a CCA since its 2010 adoption of the City’s Climate Action Plan, in which Measure BE-6.2 directs the City to research the feasibility of joining a Community Choice Aggregation. On May 5, 2014, during its discussion of the City’s Climate Action Program, the City Council directed staff to explore the feasibility of a CCA in Piedmont. On April 6, 2015, the Council appointed Council Member Tim Rood to represent Piedmont as a member of the Steering Committee providing guidance to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors regarding the formation of a CCA forAlameda County. On April 18 and October 17, 2016, the City Council received an update from County staff and consultants on the progress of the CCA formation, a technical/feasibility study and a joint powers agreement.
On November 7, 2016, the City Council is expected to consider authorizing the implementation of a Community Choice Aggregation Program in Piedmont and the Joint Powers Agreement for the East Bay Community Energy Authority.
Here is the November 7th Council meeting > agenda and > staff report.
You are encouraged to attend the City Council meeting and participate in the public hearing. If you would like to submit any written comments to the City Council, please send those to: City Clerk John Tulloch at jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us or 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.
Current and previous reports to Council and videos of the Council meetings are available on the City’s website, http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/citycouncil/
For more information about CCA in California and how it works, visit the “Frequently Asked Questions” at www.acgov.org/cda/planning/cca/index.htm.
You can also find more information on the website of East Bay Community Energy,http://www.ebce.org/
Written by: Kevin Jackson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 Tel: (510) 420-3039 Fax: (510) 658-3167
A Piedmont resident makes a request for the City Council and residents to receive more information prior to Piedmont joining a potentially costly new energy Authority.
On Monday, November 7th, the City Council will consider the First Reading of an ordinance authorizing the City to join the Alameda Clean Energy Joint Powers Authority. This is called CCE East Bay establishing a Consumer Choice Aggregation for the electric bills of all Piedmonters.
Regardless of your wishes, you will be switched to the Alameda Consumer Choice Aggregation (CCA) for the source of your electrical supply and its cost. Your contract with PG&E will be terminated and you will have a new supplier for your electricity if the City Council passes this and you do nothing. You will continue to receive a bill from PG&E (which will still operate the grid and transmission lines & maintain them). But the actual electrons for your house will be purchased for you by the CCA and billed to you as a new line item on your bill without your consent.
The rates and sources of supply of the Alameda CCA are not regulated by the California Public Utility Commission (as PG&E’s are).
Once the City Council agrees to join this Alameda County CCA, you will be sent letters for opting-out of the CCA and remaining with PG&E. But if Piedmonters don’t know what all of this is about, there is a risk we will just ignore the letters sent out (as 75% of Richmond residents did with the Marin CCA) and they will automatically be switched to this Alameda County CCA. At later dates, customers will be able to pay the CCA an administrative fee to get out of the deal.
Is this the best course for our environment? Piedmont, as a city, has already achieved its goal of a 15% reduction by 2020 of GHG emissions. According to numbers released by the California PUC (and independently verified), PG&E’s GHG emissions will be reduced to 209 co2/MWh by the year 2020.
PG&E is doing an admirable job in increasing electricity from renewable sources (Their success in this has been a 7% contributor to Piedmont’s 18.7% GHG emissions reductions.). As of this time, 33% of PG&E’s electricity is from renewable sources; by 2020 (3 years from now), they project it will be 50%. PG&E has started a Solar Choice Program under which consumers can elect to receive 50% or even 100% of their electricity from solar panel fields installed in Lodi, Manteca, Sacramento, among other locations, for an added cost to the consumer choosing this plan of 3.5 cents/KWh.
Have the City Council’s considerations of joining the Alameda County CCA included a presentation by PC&E? Other cities considering joining the Alameda County CCA, including Hayward, have arranged such presentations for their City Councils. As a matter of procedure, it seems odd not to have the major player here address the Council.
And what will obtaining power from a local Alameda CCA cost? They claim the new power will only cost one penny more per KWh than what PG&E charges, but this opinion is based upon many assumptions and the rates are basically unregulated. The expense of establishing a new, large bureaucracy (start-up costs estimated by Alameda County at $3.25 million; their plan is to raise $50 million for working capital, to be paid back in 5 years from rate revenue.) and the ongoing costs of paying them to administer the CCA program seems not to be justified by the claimed small reduction in GHG emissions
They claim that this CCA will bring many jobs to Alameda County, but, other than the Administrative jobs, the Feasibility Study points to non-Alameda county-located wind and solar farms.
The independent Feasibility Study commissioned by Alameda County cites many variables (such as the PG&E exit fee, the “PCIA” which must be charged to all CCA customers when they exit PG&E–so that their departure cannot cause the rates of the remaining bundled utility customers to go up), which they say could have an effect on the electricity rates charged by the CCA for our electricity (and such rates are not subject to PUC regulation as are PG&E’s). Neither the benefits, costs nor projections of joining this Alameda CCA are clear, making the risks considerable.
For more information, I urge you to check out these internet sites:
www.ci.piedmont.ca.us Council ( Search agenda and report)
www.acgov.org/cda/planning (What are CCA’s?)
apps3.eere.energy.gov (What are CCA’s)
pge.com
resource-solutions.orgNancy Lehrkind, Piedmont Resident
Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane