Don’t Go to Grizzly Peak to Watch Fireworks

Grizzly Peak is a popular viewing spot for Bay Area fireworks but the Fire Risk is too great to allow non-residents to gather there on the 4th of July.  In response to significant regional concerns about fire safety and emergency vehicle access, Grizzly Peak Blvd. between Skyline Blvd. and Centennial Dr. will be closed to all thru automobile traffic along the following roads from 5 am July 4th through 5 am July 5^th. Additionally, the following intersections will have electronic signage and personnel on hand to prevent thru traffic from entering:

• Grizzly Peak / Centennial Dr
• Grizzly Peak/ S Park Dr
• Grizzly Peak/ Lomas Cantada
• Grizzly Peak/ Claremont
• Grizzly Peak/ Skyline

Fireworks are illegal in Piedmont.

PIEDMONTERS ARE REMINDED OF THE FIRE DANGER FROM FIREWORKS.

 The Piedmont Police and Fire Departments stand ready to handle calls related to the use of fireworks within Piedmont.  

Safety for all is paramount on July 4th.

HAPPY JULY 4TH!

Typically a July 4th Pancake Breakfast has been served in the Piedmont Veterans Hall; however, this July 4th, 2021, the Piedmont Community Service Crew (PCSC) will serve pancakes to the community on:

Waldo Avenue between 9 a.m. and 12 noon on Sunday, July 4th.

Children’s games, generous full breakfasts, arts and crafts will be a part of the “block party” open to the public.  Servers will be fully vaccinated and wear masks and gloves.

Tickets are $15 for people age 14 and older.  Younger children are $10 each.

Funds raised will be used by the PCSC toward community efforts. 

– Parade Caravan –

Note:  There is no parade this year on Highland Avenue due to Covid complications.  A caravan of a select group of vehicles and a band will snake around Piedmont streets starting at noon.  

Paul Benoit, Piedmont’s prior City Administrator, has partially stepped into the role of Sara Lillevand, Piedmont’s current City Administrator.  Lillevand has taken a leave of absence, utilizing her vacation and other time off to attend to family matters.

Benoit, already under contract with the city to advise on the new Municipal Pool project, was granted by the City Council an increase in his hourly compensation from $111 to $116 per hour with a maximum additional amount of $4,800.   Staff report > https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17755781

The Council did not give Benoit the full authority and power afforded the City Administrator under the Piedmont City Charter, as he will be assisting Lillevand.

While assisting Lillevand, Benoit will be residing in Piedmont.

Following the Sunday, 4th of July Holiday, City Offices will be Unavailable and Regularly Scheduled Public Meetings of the City Council (July 6) and Park Commission (July 7) are Cancelled.

The next City Council meeting will be Monday, July 19.  The next Park Commission meeting will be Wednesday, August 4.

The City of Piedmont plans to reopen City offices to the public on Monday, July 12th

We look forward to serving Piedmonters again in person. In consideration for the health of our community, when entering City buildings, masks are required for people who are unvaccinated and appreciated for those who are. There may be some changes to the way our facilities operate, but Piedmonters can continue to expect the same high level of customer service they’re used to.

Services which have been made available online during the pandemic will continue to be available electronically. We look forward to announcing some additional ways the community can conveniently access and schedule city services in the near future!

City of Piedmont Announcement

Alameda County Grand Jury points to Piedmont as an example –

Piedmont Measure TT was identified by the Grand Jury as problematic.  Piedmont’s City Council, responsible for the ballot question language, proposed an increase to the city’s real estate transfer tax. The measure was rejected by voters by 48% yes to 52% no.

The question placed on the Piedmont ballot read as follows:

“Shall the City of Piedmont, to be in alignment with neighboring East Bay  Cities, increase the real estate transfer tax from $13.00 to $17.50 per $1,000  of transfer price, generating $948,462 annually until ended by voters, to provide general tax revenue for city services and to repair and maintain city facilities including police and fire stations, parks, and recreation facilities, and other city infrastructure, be adopted?”

The Grand Jury stated:

“Piedmont’s Measure TT recited a list of possible expenditures, including ‘to repair and maintain city facilities including police and fire stations, parks, and recreation facilities, ‘ yet none of these expenditures was required by the  proposed ordinance. That such spending might occur does not make the question an accurate and impartial synopsis of a measure, which may not result in any additional spending on the mentioned repair and  maintenance. Piedmont’s measure also included the statement that a purpose of the measure was ‘to be in alignment with neighboring East Bay Cities.’   The grand jury did not see how this statement related to a description of the measure or to its purpose.”

The Grand Jury Report notes Ballot Questions [Language found on ballots asking for a yes or no vote] often fail the accuracy, transparency and impartiality requirement.

Several key points:

• Alameda County Grand Jury investigation focused exclusively on the accuracy, transparency and impartiality of ballot questions.
• Ballot Questions are required by law to be Brief, Accurate and Impartial.
• Ballot Questions suffer from a “proponent’s bias.”
• Ballot Questions fall short of what voters have a right to expect in terms of transparency and impartiality, even when satisfying minimum legal standard.
• The Grand Jury declined to prosecute violators, instead urging governments to improve their behavior within the requirements of the California Elections Code.

Click the link below to READ the full 2020-21 Alameda County Grand Jury report: http://grandjury.acgov.org/reports.page?

– Need for more action, Climate Action Committee, net zero carbon Pool  –

City Council: The report on the 2019 Green House Gas (GHG) Inventory is alarming for two reasons. First there has been virtually no change in city’s GHG emissions from 2018 to 2019 which indicates the city is not making progress towards the reduction targets. Second, the inventory indicates the transition to renewable energy provided by EBCE will not provide sufficient GHG reduction for the city to meet those targets.

The report shows the only way for Piedmont to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets is through reduction (and possibly elimination) of the use of natural gas and the transition to electric vehicles.

The report may lead some to suggest there has been progress in that the GHG contributions of the residential sector have been reduced as a percentage of Piedmont’s total GHG emissions (figure 2 from the GHG report). That change is based solely on the assumption that all electricity currently provided to Piedmont from EBCE is renewable.

The reductions assigned to in the residential and municipal facility sectors in the 2019 GHG report have yet to be achieved although it may be appropriate to account for them at this time. Doing so now means that the City will achieve no further GHG reductions through ECBE’s greening of the grid and will need to find reductions in other ways.

This is evident in Figure 17 (from Attachment A) – electricity emissions are now essentially zero while natural gas emissions have gone unchanged for 3 years now. EBCE renewable energy has produced a reduction of only 2000 MT.

There is much greater reduction to be achieved through natural gas. This “reduction” in the residential sector may also lead some to think we need to focus instead on transportation. While transportation is important, market forces are driving the adoption of EV’s and in fact the city can do very little to affect this change. Instead, the City needs to focus on reducing the community sector GHG emissions through more REACH Codes, incentives and bans on use of natural gas in new construction and residential additions. On this last point, the City is in an excellent position to lead by example for the community.

Adoption of EV’s in the municipal fleet would be a visible statement by the city on its commitment to reducing GHG. But a city action of even greater relevance would be the building of a net zero carbon pool. The current pool is the largest municipal user of natural gas in the city and the conceptual design for the new pool will at least double that usage.

During the upcoming public engagement on the pool design, the city should advocate for a ZNC pool and provide designs and cost estimates of a ZNC pool during the public process. It is a stated goal of CAP 2.0 for the City to have net zero carbon operations by 2050.

Finally, staff suggests Council consider the establishment of Climate Action Committee to provide technical advice to the City on implementing the CAP and to serve as a liaison to the community. Virtually every other Bay area municipality has done this. Given that the city’s GHG reduction has stalled, innovative ideas will need to be vetted and Piedmont as a wealth of energy expertise that can assist staff. And as we saw with the REACH codes, the community wants these new proposals from staff presented at public hearings and a Climate Action Committee would provide that venue. Give direction to staff to report back to Council with concepts for such a committee in the near term.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member

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

IMPORTANT DECISION ON ADDITIONAL HOUSING BY PIEDMONT CITY COUNCIL JUNE 21.  

AGENDA DETAILS: SCHEDULE AND PARTICIPATION

The Piedmont City Council has for many months strongly and philosophically supported the ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), allocation of 587 new housing units for Piedmont between 2023 -​2031.  The allocation is referred to as RHNA  (Regional Housing Needs Assessment). 

Moving ahead of the schedule, in May the Piedmont City Council approved $691,230 for Consulting Services with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.,to plan for acceptance of the 587 new housing units.   As Councilmember Cavanaugh opined, Piedmont should be preemptive and not wait until 2023 to start efforts to accommodate these new units.

While numerous cities have appealed their particular allocation of new housing units, the Piedmont City Council has been steadfast in planning for and accepting  587  new housing units.  By 2023 when the 587 new housing units are required to be in place, the current City Council members will no longer be in office.

To achieve this significant increase in housing units could require rezoning properties, adding more multiple housing areas, building housing in City parks and properties, dividing existing parcels into smaller parcels, condemnation of private property, reconfiguration of streets, adding new services, etc.

City Staff and Council unite against appealing required 587 additional housing units allocation.

July 9, 2021 deadline: the RHNA Appeal deadline, is fast approaching. 

The May 25, 2021 release of the suggested 2023 -​2031 RHNA allocations initiated the period in which a local jurisdiction or Housing and Community Development (HCD) can submit an appeal to ABAG requesting a change to any Bay Area jurisdiction’s allocation.  Piedmont  has no plans to appeal.  The City Council and staff intend to accept the 587 new housing units in Piedmont between 2023  and ​2031.

Key dates in the RHNA Appeal process are:

 May 25, 2021: official release of draft RHNA allocations.

 July 9, 2021: deadline for a jurisdiction or HCD to submit an appeal of a jurisdiction’s draft allocation.

 August 30, 2021: deadline for comments on appeals submitted.

 September and/or October 2021: ABAG conducts public hearings to consider appeals and comments received.

 October or November 2021: ABAG ratifies written final determination on each appeal and issues final RHNA allocations that adjust allocations as a result of any successful appeals.

 November or December 2021: ABAG Executive Board conducts public hearing to adopt Final RHNA Plan.

The ABAG website provides more information about the appeals process. The ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeals Procedures includes details about the statutory requirements for the appeals process and how ABAG will conduct the public hearing to consider appeals. In the event an appeal is approved and a jurisdiction’s RHNA is lowered, the net difference in units are allocated proportionally to other jurisdictions across the region. Thus, a jurisdiction may see its RHNA increase as a result of other appeals (if they are successful).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ACCEPT PIEDMONT’S 587 ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS or RHNA.

As noted in the Executive Summary, City staff recommends that no appeal of the RHNA should be filed and that the City accept the RHNA assigned to Piedmont. Although City staff raised concerns during the development of the RHNA methodology, these concerns do not form the legal basis to appeal Piedmont’s RHNA. As explained in this report, an appeal would only be considered on the three possible grounds per Government Code Section 65584.05. In staff’s assessment, the case for an appeal is unlikely to be meritorious, including because ABAG possesses fairly significant discretion in deciding appeals under the law. Staff’s assessment that an appeal would unlikely prevail are also based on the following considerations:

 the approved RHNA methodology is not related to a jurisdiction’s capacity to accommodate growth under its current zoning limits or City Charter;

 the approved RHNA methodology does not adjust a jurisdiction’s allocation based on natural hazards such as fire, flood, or landslides; Agenda Report Page 4 of 33

 the record for appeals filed in other regions, such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), shows that an appeal is likely to fail.

In the SCAG region, which includes Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties, 49 jurisdictions appealed their much larger RHNA assignments. Of the 47 appeals that continued to hearing, only two were partially approved. In the SANDAG region (San Diego) Council of Governments, there were four appeals filed out of the 18 cities in the region. One appeal was partially granted and the other three appeals were denied; and

 the RHNAs for other jurisdictions throughout California, including the San Francisco Bay Area (in the ABAG region), are all significantly higher than in years past, and ABAG member jurisdictions are unlikely to be swayed by any arguments made by a jurisdiction’s officials to lower its RHNA and reallocate the units to other jurisdictions.

Piedmont’s Contract City Attorney, Michelle Kenyon, “concurs with staff’s assessment regarding the City’s likelihood of success in pursuing an appeal, given all of the aforementioned legal and practical factors and reasons outlined herein.”

Read the full staff report below:

Update on 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the City of Piedmont and Possible Direction to Staff

Given the City Council’s support for adding 587 new housing units in Piedmont, the Council formed a committee to make recommendations on  new housing units in Piedmont. 

On June 15, 2021, after reviewing the draft Guiding Principles and considering the public comments received, the Housing Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend the following Guiding Principles for adoption by the City Council:

1. Support equitable distribution of affordable units across the City. A diversity of housing choices, including new affordable multi-family housing, new mixed-income multifamily housing, new residential mixed-use development, converted units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs, should be considered throughout the City’s neighborhoods, corridors, and zoning districts.

2. Promote and enhance community design and neighborhoods. Infill development should be compatible with the neighborhood context. Development and design standards should ensure that new construction enhances the area in terms of building scale, placement, and design; and is sensitive to impacts on the neighborhood, including impacts related to sunlight access, privacy, and roadway access. Each building must exhibit high-quality design and play a role in creating a better whole.

3. Remove barriers to development and access to housing through clear and objective standards. Development standards and procedures should guide development that is equitable and feasible and that lead applicants through procedures that are transparent and predictable.

4. Facilitate the development of new housing units through strategic partnerships between the City and the broader community. Partnerships to facilitate development include striving to reach community consensus for desired designs; and achieving community support for new incentives, standards, and tools to meet housing goals.

5. Social equity. Work with the Community to proactively facilitate greater social equity by considering City incentives and programs that will enable new homes and apartments for a range of income levels, creating opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, ethnic background, or financial ability.

The goal of the guiding principles is to guide the development of ADU programs and development of objective design standards for multi-family apartment buildings, as directed by the current 2015 Housing Element, recognizing that state regulations and social conditions today are different than those in effect in 2015. The Guiding Principles are not intended to be a broad mission statement guiding the far-reaching policy discussions that must occur as part of the next Housing Element Update.

READ THE STAFF REPORT for Council action on June 21, 2021.

2021-06-21 2015-2023 Housing Element Guiding Principles

June 21 – AGENDA DETAILS: SCHEDULE AND PARTICIPATION

“In reviewing the City’s long term projections and considering the current economic situation, the Committee reminds the Council of several things:

• The financial projections seek to maintain, over the long term, an 18% General Fund balance (which, the Committee thinks is prudent). Achieving this target, however, requires that the City eliminate or reduce transfers to the Facilities Maintenance Fund, which addresses ongoing and deferred maintenance of city facilities, and eliminate supplemental funding for street and sidewalk repairs beyond the current budget year. Current projections indicate the Facilities Maintenance Fund will be depleted by FY 27-28. Even without incorporating the yet to be determined costs of major capital projects referenced above, the Facilities Maintenance Fund is inadequately capitalized for the duration of the 10- year projections. This underfunding is not sustainable; it will severely affect repair and replacement expenditures within this decade.

• The Committee supports the conservative approach used to establish the budget for transfer tax revenues given their historic volatility. The Committee also supports the modest increase in projected transfer tax revenue, from the $2.8 million consistently used in the recent past, to $3.2 million annually beginning in FY23. This increased budget amount could still be attained with a recessionary pace of sales and/ or drop in sales prices given substantial gains in Piedmont home values over the past decade. The Committee recommends that to the extent actual transfer tax revenue exceeds the conservative estimate, such funds be used to fund the Facilities Maintenance Fund, consistent with prior years.

• The projected pension expenses have increased based on an updated actuarial study completed earlier this year, which assume CalPERS 2 Piedmont Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee investment returns decline to 6.0% over the next 20 years. However, future pension costs could still rise should CalPERS investment performance be below target due to a sustained downturn in financial markets.

• The prior funding of the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Fund, supplemented by the proposed capital transfer from the current budget surplus, will provide the City much needed flexibility in managing future pension cost increases, as the City’s obligations are expected to increase substantially over the course of this decade. However, this flexibility may be adversely affected by stock market fluctuations to the extent there is significant decline in values during the withdrawal years.

• As in prior years, the projections continue to show that the long term financial health of the City is dependent on property-related taxes, especially the continuation of the Municipal Services Parcel Tax. The projections assume that the MSPT continues with a standard CPI adjustment each year, and the Committee supports this approach.

• The City continues to benefit from a robust economic recovery and rising Bay Area housing prices. Given the uncertainty as to how long such favorable economic conditions will persist, it is important to continue with conservative property tax and transfer tax assumptions.”

READ the entire Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Report 2021-2022

June 21 – AGENDA DETAILS: SCHEDULE AND PARTICIPATION

Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee members:

Deborah Leland, Chair

Andrew Flynn,

Cathie Geddeis,

Robert McBain,

Paul Raskin,

Frank Ryan

Vanessa Washington