Now Available at the Piedmont Police & Fire Departments

Piedmont’s Public Safety Committee has published a handsome, yellow, large format Get Ready, Piedmont disaster preparedness manual. Topics covers include: What to expect, Survivor … or Victim?, How to Store Emergency Food & Water, Structural Hazards and much more.

Importantly, the manual cautions residents to shut off the gas “only if you smell or hear gas and/or you notice a large consumption of gas being registered on the gas meter. Remember, if the gas is turned off, do not turn it back on. Only a licensed plumber or PG & E can turn the gas back on safely once it’s been turned off.” A diagram in the new manual clearly illustrates the on & off positions of gas meters and water meters.

This document will provide comprehensive information on preparation for and response to, earthquakes, fires, landslides, and other emergencies. The manual is 50 pages in length with checklists and illustrations on things like turning off utilities, food and water storage, first aid materials, seismic measures, family communications plans etc.

Also available is the four page checklist which provides a ready reference on steps to take in the event of an earthquake or wildfire as well as general guidance on disaster preparedness and crime prevention. Printed copies are available at both the Police and Fire Departments.

The manual is also available to download by clicking here as well as on the Public Safety Committee and Fire Department pages of the City site.

2. Trees, whether growing singly, in clusters, or in woodland situations, produce a wide variety of significant psychological and tangible benefits for both residents and visitors to the City. Trees contribute to the natural environment of the City by modifying temperatures and winds, replenishing oxygen to the atmosphere and water to the soil, controlling soil erosion, and providing wildlife habitat. Trees contribute to the visual environment of the City by providing scale, color, silhouette and mass, and by creating visual screens and buffers to separate land uses, and promote individual privacy. Trees contribute to the economic environment of the City by stabilizing property values and reducing the need for surface drainage systems. Trees contribute to the cultural environment of the City by becoming living landmarks of the City’s history and providing a critical element of nature in the midst of urban congestion and settlement.
3. Views, whether of the San Francisco Bay with its vistas of the City of San Francisco, the varied bridges of the Bay Area, numerous islands and ships, or of the Piedmont Hills with its vistas of trees and the hills themselves, also produce a variety of significant and tangible benefits for both residents and visitors to the City. Views contribute to the economic environment of the City by substantially enhancing property values. Views contribute to the visual environment of the City by providing inspiring panoramic vistas, and creating distinctive supplements to architectural design. Views contribute to the cultural environment of the City by providing a unifying effect, allowing individuals to relate different areas of the City to each other in space and time.
4. It is recognized that trees and views, and the benefits derived from each, may come into conflict. Tree planting locations and species selections may produce both intended beneficial effects on the property where they are planted, and unintended deleterious effects on neighboring properties of equal or higher elevations. It is therefore in the interest of the public welfare, health and safety to establish standards for the resolution of view obstruction claims so as to provide a reasonable balance between tree and view related values.
5. An objective of the Design Review Element of the 1984 Piedmont General Plan is to “preserve and enhance the aesthetic character of Piedmont”. The policy for implementing this objective is to “encourage cooperation between property owners and/or the City to prevent vegetation from obstructing views”. (Piedmont General Plan, 1984, p. 148)

3.22.2 Definitions For the purposes of this Section, the meaning and construction of words and phrases hereinafter set forth shall apply:

1. Claimant: Any individual who files a bona fide claim as required by the terms and provisions of this Section.
2. Obstruction: Any blocking or diminishment of a view required by the terms and provisions of this Section.

c. Public Agency: Any City, County, district, other local authority or public body of or within this State.

4. Public Utility: Any person or entity supplying power, light, communications, water, sewage or similar or associated services to the public or any portion thereof.
5. Restorative Action: Any specific requirement to resolve a view claim.
6. Tree Owner: Any individual owning real property in the City upon whose land is (are) located the tree(s) that form the basis for the filing of a view claim.
7. View Arbitrator: Any landscape architect registered and licensed by the State of California, or any arborists registered and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.
8. View Claim: The written basis for arbitration or court action under the terms and conditions of this Section, submitted by the claimant, which clearly establishes the following:

1. The precise nature and extent of the alleged view obstruction, including all pertinent and corroborating physical evidence available. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, photographic prints, negatives or slides.

2. The exact location of all trees alleged to cause a view obstruction, the address of the property upon which the trees are located, and the present tree owner’s name and address. This requirement may be satisfied by the inclusion of tree location, property address and tree owner information on a valid property survey or plot plan submitted with the view claim.

3. Any mitigating actions proposed by the parties involved to resolve the alleged view claim.

4. The failure of personal communication between the claimant and the tree owner to resolve the alleged view obstruction as set forth in Section 3.22.12. The claimant must provide physical evidence that written attempts at conciliation have been made and failed. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, copies of and receipts for certified or registered mail correspondence.

3.22.3 Exemptions The following classes of trees are categorically exempted from the provisions of this Chapter:

• Quercus agrifolia (California or Coast Live Oak)
• Umbellularia californica (Bay California Laurel)
• Acer negundo (Box Elder)
• Aesculus californica (California Buckeye) –
• Arbutus menziesii (Madrone)
• Lithocarpus densifloris (Tan Bark Oak)

b. All trees located on property owned or leased by a Public Agency or a Public Utility. View claims relating to trees located on property owned or leased by the City of Piedmont, while exempt from the provisions of this section, shall be subject to the review of the Park Commission acting pursuant to procedures, standards and conditions approved from time to time by City Council resolution. Decisions of the Park Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the view claimant or any interested party filing a written appeal stating specifically the reasons therefore with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the decision of the Park Commission, and the determination of the City Council on such appeal shall be final and non-appealable.

3.22.4 View Protection – A person owning property in Piedmont shall have the right to establish a view claim and obtain restorative action according to the terms of this Section.

3.22.5 Standards for Resolution of Claims The following standards shall apply to measure the quality of the view and the character of the view obstruction for the purposes of determining what, if any, restorative action is necessary.

1. The view claimant shall have no right greater than that which existed in 1980 or at the time of the claimant’s subsequent acquisition of the property involved in the view claim, whichever is later, and shall provide evidence documenting the extent of said view.
2. The character of the view shall be determined by evaluating:
   1. The vantage point(s) from which the view is obtained.
   2. The existence of landmarks or other unique features in the view.
   3. The extent to which the view is diminished by factors other than the treesinvolved in the claim.
3. The character of the view obstruction shall be determined by evaluating:
   1. The amount of the alleged view obstruction, measured to arrive at a percentage of the total view. Measurement of the alleged view obstruction shall be calculated by means of a surveyor’s transit, or by photography, or both.
   2. The quality of the view which is allegedly being obstructed. The quality of the view obstructed shall be determined by comparing the items within the scope of the view with the types of factors listed in the definitions of View set forth above.

d. The extent of benefits derived from the tree(s) in question shall be determined with consideration given to the following factors:

1. Visual screening provided by the tree(s).
2. Wildlife habitat provided by the tree(s).
3. Soil stability provided by the tree(s), as measured by soil structure, degree of slope and extent of tree(s) root system.
4. Energy conservation and/or climate control provided by the tree(s).
5. Visual quality for the tree, including but not limited to species characteristics, size, growth, form, vigor, and location.
6. The economic value of the tree(s) as measured by the criteria developed by the International Society of Arboriculture.
7. Other tree-related factors, including but not limited to: Indigenous tree species, specific tree quality, rare tree species, and/or historic value

e. Where present due to natural regeneration, the trees listed below shall be specifically identified and be given special consideration in the resolution of the view claim:

• Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple)
• Alnus rhombifolia (White Alder)
• Fagus sylvatica (Copper Beech)
• Heteromeles arbutifolia (Toyon)
• Salix lasiandra (Yellow Willow)
• Salix lasiolepis (Black Willow)
• Sambucus caerulea (Blue Elderberry)
• Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood)

3.22.6 Restorative Action. Restorative action shall be limited to: pruning, thinning, minor topping, or tree removal with or without replacement plantings. Each type of restorative action shall be evaluated based on the above findings and with consideration given to the following factors:

1. The effectiveness of the restorative action in reducing the view obstruction.
2. Any adverse impact of the restorative action on the benefits derived from the tree(s) in question
3. The structural and biological effects of the restorative action on the tree(s) in question.
4. The cost of the restorative action, as determined by consultation with a certified arborist.

3.22.7 Mitigation of Action. All restorative actions shall be undertaken with consideration given to the following factors:

1. Restorative actions shall be limited to the pruning or thinning of branches, or both, where possible.
2. When pruning or thinning of branches, or both, is not a feasible
   solution, minor topping shall be preferable to tree removal if it is determined that the impact of topping does not destroy the visual proportions of the tree, adversely affect the tree’s growth pattern or health, or otherwise constitute a detriment to the tree(s) in question.
3. Tree removal shall only be considered when all other restorative actions are judged to be ineffective and may, at the tree owner’s option, be accompanied by replacement plantings of appropriate plant materials to restore the maximum level of benefits lost due to tree removal. Replacement plantings, if used, may be on the tree owner’s or the claimant’s property in
4. In those cases where tree removal eliminates or significantly reduces the tree owner’s benefits of visual screening or privacy, replacement screen plantings shall, at the tree owner’s option, be established prior to tree removal; notwithstanding the provisions of (3) hereinabove, the tree owner may elect tree removal with replacement plantings as an alternative to trimming, thinning or topping.
5. All trimming, topping, thinning and tree removal required under this Section must be performed by a certified arborist.

3.22.8 Resolution Without Action. A view claim may be resolved by the determination that no restorative actions are required.

3.22.9 Apportionment of Costs The cost of all restorative actions, replacement plantings, and arbitration shall be apportioned between the view claimant and the tree owner as follows:

1. The view claimant and tree owner shall each pay 50% of such costs in those cases involving any tree planted by the tree owner subsequent to the effective date of this Section (October 3, 1988).
2. The tree owner shall pay 100% of such costs in those cases where:

1. The tree owner has refused to participate in good faith in the initial reconciliation (Section 3.22.12) or voluntary arbitration processes (Section 3.22.13) and where the view claimant has prevailed at trial or judicial arbitration, or
2. In any subsequent dispute between the same parties, to restore any view obstructed by the same tree or trees or any of the plantings substituted for the original offending tree or trees described in Section 3.22.9(a).

c. In all other cases, the view claimant shall pay 100% of such costs.

3.22.10 Attorney’s Fees. Each party shall pay his/her own costs and attorneys’ fees except in the case where the dispute goes to trial or judicial arbitration. In the event that an action under this Section is resolved after trial or judicial arbitration in Municipal or Superior Court, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

3.22.11 Civil Penalty. A tree owner shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this Section if judgment in favor of a view claimant is obtained after trial or judicial arbitration in either the Municipal or Superior Court. The civil penalty for each violation of the ordinance, which shall be paid to the City, shall be $1,000.00.

3.22.12 Initial reconciliation. A claimant who believes in good faith that the growth, maintenance, or location of trees situated on the property of another diminishes the beneficial use, economic value and enjoyment of views naturally accruing to the claimant’s property may notify the tree owner in writing of such concerns. The submission of said notification to the tree owner should be accompanied by personal discussions, if possible, to enable the claimant and the tree owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution to the alleged view obstruction under the terms and conditions of this Section.

3.22.13 Arbitration. In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails, the claimant and the tree owner may elect binding arbitration to resolve the alleged view obstruction.

The view arbitrator shall be fully qualified under the terms and conditions of this Section and shall be agreed to by both the claimant and the tree owner, who shall indicate such agreement in writing. The arbitration agreement may provide for employment of experts representing the parties or may be limited to an investigation of the view claim conducted by the arbitrator. The view arbitrator shall follow the terms and conditions of this Section to reach a fair resolution of the view claim. The view arbitrator shall submit a complete written report to the claimant, the tree owner and the City, which shall make copies of all view arbitrator reports available to any person who so requests and pays for the costs of reproduction. Said report shall include the view arbitrator’s findings with respect to all standards listed in Section 3.22.5 of this Chapter, a complete listing of all mandated restorative actions, and at least three (3) price bids for said restorative actions received from certified arborists. All mandated restorative actions shall be implemented within thirty (30) days of the filing of an arbitration report to the claimant and the tree owner. The findings of the view arbitrator shall be final.

The current contract with “Code Red,” Piedmont’s emergency notification system, runs through April 2016, but the City began using “AC Alert” in August 2015.  Alameda County cities use a variety of different mass notification systems. For example, Berkeley uses BENS, Berkeley Emergency Notification System. The Alameda County Grand Jury >Final Report <2012 – 2013 mandated the County to obtain a mass emergency notification system. “AC Alert” is the result of this mandate.

The three bomb attacks in Brussels this week are a reminder to prepare for emergencies. In Brussels cell phone service was unavailable much of the day.

The City of Piedmont is transitioning from “Code Red”

to “AC Alert.”

Announcement:  “AC Alert” is a county wide emergency notification system that allows you to opt in to notifications not only in the community in which you reside, but in up to 5 other locations (i.e.-work, daycare, school, surrounding cities).

Click here to sign up – it only takes about a minute to enroll!

How Will You Stay Informed About Emergencies?

Your safety is the top concern – that is why the City of Piedmont wants to make sure you know about emergencies and incidents as they happen.

The City of Piedmont will use “AC Alert” powered by Everbridge to make sure you know about issues that may affect your safety. This system allows the City of Piedmont to contact thousands of residents in seconds so you can find out about an emergency right away.

Residents will receive important messages from city officials via email, phone, and much more!

How Does It Work?

The process begins when the City of Piedmont issues a message about a potential safety hazard or concern. Next, “AC Alert” sends a message through your primary contact path. If you do not confirm receipt of the message, the system will try to reach your second contact path and continues trying to reach you until you confirm receipt.

The success of this service relies on YOU.

You must go to the “AC Alert” sign up page and enroll. Click below.

Click >for sign up – it only takes about a minute to enroll! <

Your information cannot be transferred from “Code Red” to “AC Alert.” Having your latest contact information is the only way to ensure that we can contact you in an emergency.

“Piedmont Respects Your Privacy!!”

“The City of Piedmont will never share or distribute your personal information, unless required to do so by law. Additionally, we will never use your information for any purpose other than to send emergency notifications or information pertaining to Piedmont.”

---

If you are interested in organizing, hosting, or attending a neighborhood safety meeting, please go to the > Public Safety Committee’s page <and enter your information. You will be contacted by a member of the committee who will give you information on setting up a meeting.

---

Why are some properties not taxed for the Piedmont School Support Tax?

Over the last several months, PUSD has received inquiries about our collection of the School Support Tax (Measure A) that was passed with resounding support by the community in spring of ’13.  In question is whether the district is applying the tax to all the appropriate properties.

Let me start by saying, the district administration and school board is appreciative of the overwhelming support we receive.  The community contributes substantially to maintain our excellent schools and we are grateful for that. We do not assume it will be forever thus and we aim to earn your support at every election and with every decision. Where we fail, we hope to learn and improve.

And vigilant community members play a vital role keeping a watchful eye on our performance. It is a healthy process that we appreciate.

The parcels in question fall into four categories for potential assessment or exemption. They include; church parcels, public parcels, “minor” parcels adjacent to existing taxed parcels and parcels straddling Piedmont and Oakland.

Our law firm, Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost has worked closely with district staff, our financial agents NBS and the County Assessor to review the parcels in question and the prevailing jurisdiction.

Having reviewed their opinions, having ourselves investigated the parcels in question and legal precedent, we are convinced of the proper performance of the parties to assess and collect the appropriate monies. It breaks down like this:

-Under the California Constitution and Revenue Code, church properties used for religious worship are exempt from property tax. While the School Support Tax is a parcel tax, it is also a property tax and therefore exempt.

-City of Piedmont properties are similarly exempt.

-With respect to “minor” parcels in Piedmont, the owners of homes including such parcels already pay the School Support Tax on their main parcel–the question is whether they should pay twice. Under Government Code Section 53087.4, parcels created under the Subdivision Map Act are treated as a single tax assessment unit and other parcels are treated as separate tax assessment units only if deeded separate from adjoining parcels. Moreover, property owners can simply combine their minor and principal parcels through the assessor’s office, as they surely would if the District attempted to tax them twice.

-There are parcels sitting astride Oakland and Piedmont. Historically, homeowners have the option to pay one or the other, and are assessed by Piedmont only if they chose to take advantage of our school system.  Those parcels straddling the border with children in the PUSD schools pay our School Support Tax.  One might argue that the option of sending children to Piedmont’s fine schools represents an intrinsic value to their home and should therefore be responsible for the tax. But it goes against precedent and would potentially invite litigation that the district, mindful of ongoing budget constraints, is loath to take on for the modest additional revenue it may represent.

We seek to comply with the law while avoiding potential litigation pitting us against the Piedmont residents we serve.

We hope this makes sense to the community. The Superintendent and the Board will continue to run our schools to the best of our ability with prudence and good judgment. Thank you for your ongoing interest and support in our efforts.

Douglas M. Ireland, Piedmont Unified School District Board Member

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

Read William Blackwell’s opinion here.

Want to know more about our City government?

The City Council will hold a Special Meeting to interview candidates for vacancies on City commissions & committees at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22 in the City Hall Conference Room. It is an open meeting. At the conclusion of the interviews, discussions will take place and appointments may be made to fill the following vacancies:

Ever wonder why one person is appointed and another is not?

 The interviewing of candidates for appointments can prove interesting.  City staff – City Administrator, Public Works Director, Planning Director, or other staff members may participate in the discussions to offer information on the candidates.  Although the applicant names are public information, the City has historically been discrete in not announcing the names of applicants perhaps attempting to not discourage applicants.

Who becomes an applicant?

 This is as varied as the applicants.  Some applicants are asked to apply by a staff member, Council member, commissioner, committee member or friend.  Some applicants self-initiate their applications.  Appointees will volunteer their public service time, as does the appointing body, the City Council.  The commissions and committees have proven to be fertile grounds for advancement to the City Council. The decisions and recommendations made by appointees are essential to our City.

The interviews will not be televised or recorded, but can be observed by all public attendees.  

Read the agenda here.

Schools may follow City in seeking taxpayer approval for new tax funding.

On March 23, starting at 7 p.m. the board of the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) will meet in the City Hall Council Chambers. 

(Read the complete agenda here.) Item VII.A. will be a discussion of the PUSD Facilities Master Plan beginning at approximately 8 p.m.

The Facilities Master Plan process combines the goals of PUSD’s Education Specifications and the information collected by the design team (including facility assessments) into a comprehensive plan for the schools of the Piedmont Unified School District. The main product of the facility needs assessment and Facilities Master Plan is a detailed proposal for renovations and/or additions to be made at each school campus.

On February 10, Mark Quattrocchi of Quattrocchi Kwok Architects presented its $136,800,000 Facilities Master Plan to the PUSD board.  Assistant Superintendent Song Chin Bendib reported the district’s bonding capacity is $38.3 million to $65.7 million. 

The November 2016 election is now the earliest opportunity for a ballot measure to seek voter approval of a school bond for the Facilities Master Plan.

Facilities Master Plan includes:

• Razing Alan Harvey Theater;
• Adding classrooms;
• Demolishing the 10s building;
• Constructing a two-story administration building;
• Building a new, two-story classroom building on the Millennium High and Piedmont High campus.
• Building a new 450-seat theater, drama classroom and office; modifying the amphitheater
• Converting the lower floor of the 40s building to four classrooms; new entry plaza;
• Kindergarten classroom, improved drainage, shade at Wildwood;
• Fencing, a new retaining wall, better climate control, another kindergarten classroom at Beach School;
• Two kindergarten classrooms, more shade, more blacktop and climate control at Havens,;
• Enhanced security.

Meetings of the School Board are broadcast live on Channel 27 and on the City’s website. 

City Council to Discuss Dracena Park Off-Leash Issue

Monday, March 21st – 7:30 p.m.

 City Council Chamber, 120 Vista Avenue