City/School Liaison Committee to Discuss Tobacco Grant Funding Possibly for a School Resource Officer or Other Purposes.

Monday, April. 22nd – 4:00 – 5 p.m. open to the public in the Piedmont Unified School District Offices, 760 Magnolia Avenue.

Nothing since Borikas has removed the risk that a Piedmont “per square foot” tax under Section 50079 will be ruled invalid. In 2014, SB 1021 was introduced in the California Legislature to amend Section 50079 to expressly authorize a “per square foot” tax—it did not pass. In 2018, the Legislature adopted AB 2954, which amended Section 50079 to allow school districts to tax unimproved property “at a lower rate than improved property,” but did not authorize a “per square foot” tax.  While the reference to a “rate” rather than an “amount,” provides an argument that uniformity refers to “rate” also, there is no ruling on point.

Mr. Schiller notes that the Alameda Superior Court has twice upheld Alameda School District’s later parcel taxes, which impose a “per square foot” taxes. However, the Alameda Superior Court also upheld Measure H, and the lawsuits against Alameda’s later taxes were settled before the First District Court of Appeals, which issued Borikas, ruled on appeal.

Mr. Schiller also relies on Dondlinger v. Los Angeles County Regional Park, No. B284932 (2019), but that case addressed Pub. Resources Code § 5566, a different statute, which expressly states that a park district may establish a “rate” which “is to be applied uniformly.” Further, Dondlinger is a Second District decision; Piedmont is in the First District, which is governed by the Borikas decision.

Until the First District Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court upholds a “per square foot” school parcel tax, or the Legislature amends Section 50079 to expressly allow such a tax, I do not think it is prudent for PUSD to take the litigation risk of asking Piedmonters to approve such a tax. Litigation could cost $100,00 to $500,000, depending upon motions, trial and appeals. PUSD does not have that to spare. Moreover, to feel secure in spending the tax revenue, PUSD would have to file a validation action, but that simply ensures any litigation starts quickly.

While it is possible that no Piedmont property owner would challenge such a tax, there is no way to remove the risk. (Note that Alameda’s parcel taxes have been challenged three times). PUSD could not spend the tax revenue until any litigation is resolved, as PUSD would have no way to pay back the taxes collected if the tax ultimately were held invalid. Further, because PUSD cannot fund its school budget without a parcel tax, if the tax was challenged, PUSD would have to run another parcel tax election immediately, at additional significant expense. Under Mr. Schiller’s proposal, PUSD (and every Piedmont family with school children) would take this risk so that owners of small homes could pay less than owners of large homes. There are times when accepting litigation risk is necessary. This is not one of them.

I also believe that the School Support Tax must be fair to Piedmont residents. The Piedmont schools benefit every resident. For nearly everyone, our children have gone, are going, or will go to school. Piedmont residents have shared the cost of public education no matter where they are in this cycle. Moreover, the excellence of the Piedmont schools is why Piedmont homes are so valuable. Further, an available and excellent public education is fundamental to civil society, and we all have a civic duty to ensure it. Asking the owner of each taxable parcel to pay the same amount seems fair to me. I include unimproved parcels as the Piedmont schools make those parcels valuable.

A “progressive” tax generally is perceived as taxing wealthy people more by increasing the tax rate at higher levels of wealth or income, and is supported by the notion that those who have more money can afford to pay more tax toward community needs. In claiming his proposed tax is “progressive,” Mr. Schiller equates a building’s “square feet” as equivalent to wealth or income, and assumes that owners with more “square feet” can afford to pay more. That may be true in some cases, but certainly not all.

Extensive New Recreation Projects May Call for a New Piedmont Tax Measure

Projects being considered by the City are the Aquatic Center with expanded new pool and facilities, Coaches Field reconfiguration and night lighting, Linda Beach Park improvements, and updating of the Recreation Building and Veterans Hall.  

Volunteers with support primarily from sports and recreation enthusiasts may be knocking on your door to learn about your funding ideas for the numerous recreation projects through a voter approved bond measure.  Door knocking, a common election tool used to estimate specific approval or rejection of potential ballot bond measures, is underway in Piedmont. 

Some Piedmont leaders have indicated gaining more knowledge about Piedmont voter preferences for recreation facilities is needed to learn where support or opposition lies. The volunteer knocking on your door may be a neighbor. 

Larry Tramutola, a Piedmont resident and widely known political consultant on taxing issues involving cities, special districts, school districts, etc., volunteered to advise on methods for approaching and convincing voters to support a new recreation bond measure.

Consultants, planners, recreation enthusiasts, commissioners, and the City Council have for years been fashioning various plans for improved or enhanced recreation facilities throughout Piedmont. The City has expended a significant amount of money and time towards the plans.

To date, no bond proposals have reached the City Council. 

Consideration of voter acceptance of a bond measure was studied by the Council over a year ago resulting in insufficient voter support by polled voters for bond funding of the recreation projects. For approval, the bond measure would require approval by 2/3rds of those voting on the measure.

New Internal Revenue Service laws may impact Piedmonters willingness to further tax themselves, as there is a recent limitation of $10,000 on deductibility of state and local taxes.

– Public Safety (Surveillance) Cameras Frequently Asked Questions Answered –

The Piedmont Police monitored surveillance cameras program will be considered by the Council for adoption in June, 2019.  To understand the issues involved, see the frequently asked questions, important dates for public meetings and the police department’s existing Public Safety Camera Policy > here.

“The City of Piedmont is in the process of evaluating and considering a Public Safety Camera program.  The evaluation has taken the form of a pilot which has been in process since September of 2017.  While the Piedmont Police Department has experienced successes with the pilot, the City is seeking to engage the public to provide information on a proposed program, seek input and answer questions the public may have.”

Reducing Traffic Speed on Oakland Avenue, Magnolia, and Fairview Avenues with Bulb-Outs, bright flashing Beacons, Bioswales and relocated Crosswalks.

The city consultant, Coastland, prepared preliminary designs for proposed bulb-outs and other changes at several intersections on Oakland Avenue plus other streets.  The consultants will discuss their concepts at the Piedmont City Council meeting on Monday evening, April 15, 2019, in City Hall, 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 27 and from the City website under videos/City Council.  See links to staff reports showing locations and photos at the end of this article.

Before proceeding to the final designs and construction documents, the City wants to ensure that the Council and the community have full awareness of the proposed improvements and have an opportunity to have any questions or concerns addressed.

Oakland Ave. at El Cerrito Ave. This is a fully developed, 4 corner bulb out design that will achieve the following: •shorten the pedestrian crossing distances on Oakland Ave. and El Cerrito Ave., •bring the pedestrian access points into greater visibility

• include hard-wired, double sided, bright rapid flashing beacons (brighter than the current beacons) at each corner with user activated buttons •include all new pedestrian ramps for each direction on each corner•refreshed street paint at the intersection Similar to the previously constructed bulb outs on Linda Ave.,

Staff is proposing to next install landscape improvements wherever possible in place of impervious concrete. In addition to the improved aesthetics, these landscaped areas will be planned as bio-swales wherever possible to capture and slow down the storm drainage on Oakland Ave. (See staff report Exhibit B for a photograph of the existing intersection and Exhibit C for the proposed improvements.)

Oakland Ave. at Jerome Ave. While very similar in features to the Oakland Ave. at El Cerrito Ave. bulb outs, the Jerome Ave improvements will have a slightly different configuration due to the intersection geometry.

Grand Ave. at Fairview Ave. In the Piedmont Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (PBMP), this intersection was identified as No. 8 in the High Priority Projects. The basic issues related to this intersection are that it is a very wide crossing for pedestrians, and motorists traveling northbound on Grand Ave. and wanting to turn slightly right to proceed up Fairview Ave. are difficult for pedestrians to see. See staff report Exhibit C for photographs of the existing intersection. Furthermore, because of the ease of this slight right turn and the uphill nature of Fairview Ave., there is a tendency to accelerate through the intersection. The configuration was driven by creating traffic calming and increase pedestrian safety, but also preserving the existing street parking. Thus, the use of street paint still allows parking in front of 1250 Grand Ave., which fronts on Fairview Ave. See staff report Exhibit D for the proposed configuration of improvements.

Oakland Ave. at Greenbank Ave. This intersection was not identified on the PBMP, but is, due to its configuration and topography, problematic for the local residents and pedestrians. The basic issues related to this intersection are similar to those described at Grand Ave. at Fairview Ave. These include compromised visibility for both pedestrians and motorists, downhill grades creating increased speeds, and the existing geometry of the intersection fostering unsafe conditions. See staff report Exhibit E for photographs of the existing conditions at this intersection. The driveway to 1203 Oakland Ave. will cross over a portion of this bulb out, but the nature of this installation will maintain access to this driveway. (See staff report Exhibit D for the proposed configuration of improvements.)

Magnolia Ave. at Nova Drive Previously identified in the PBMP as No. 17 in the High Priority Projects, this intersection poses issues for pedestrians, especially when walking on the northern side of the street (left side going uphill). Along Magnolia Ave. at the intersection with Nova Drive, the throat of the intersection is extremely wide. See attached Exhibit F for a photograph of the existing intersection. Since the 2018 Paving Project includes this portion of Magnolia Ave, Staff wants to take the opportunity to implement the recommendations of PBMP and install logical measures to create traffic calming and a safer environment for pedestrians. The proposal is to create an island refuge with street paint, lane delineators, and signage. This would be connected to the existing sidewalks with new crosswalks of considerably shorter length. Besides creating an island refuge for pedestrians, this will visually narrow the westbound lane of Magnolia Ave. which should promote slower speeds.

Read staff reports by clicking below:

04/15/19 – Receipt of Report on Preliminary Design of Traffic Calming Measures at the Intersections of Oakland and El Cerrito Avenues and Oakland and Jerome Avenues 

04/15/19 – Receipt of a Report on Proposed Traffic Calming Measures at the Intersections of Fairview & Grand Avenues, Greenbank & Oakland Avenues, as well as Magnolia Avenue & Nova Drive

For the first time since 2011, the entire state of California has been noted as drought free on the U.S. Drought Monitor map released March 21, 2019.  The drought status analysis is produced jointly by the National Drought Mitigation Center, the US Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and updated each Thursday.  It is calculated through the analysis of satellite- and model-based observations of conditions that influence drought with a 1-kilometer spatial resolution.  [Visit the National Drought Mitigation Center here.]

Berkeley Environmental Advisory Commissioner Michael Goldhaber encouraged maintaining water conservation habits, but noted that personal water consumption is dwarfed by agricultural and industrial consumption.

Stranger Danger !

Piedmont Police Department Announcement:

An incident involving a young student this past Monday morning, April 8, serves as a reminder that parents should be vigilant when it comes to teaching kids about stranger danger.

Around 7:40 am Monday, in the area of Crocker and LaSalle Avenues, a middle school student was approached by a man in what we believe was a gray SUV. The stranger asked the student if he needed a ride to school. The student was alert enough to quickly call his mother who then called our department.

Officers immediately went to the area, but the suspected man and his vehicle had already left the area. We are currently following possible leads that may lead us to the man in question. Thankfully, the student is okay, and we have not heard of any other incidents.

Piedmont Police Department – 420-3000

City announces:

On Wednesday April 10th, upper Dracena Park will be reopened after emergency tree removal operations that began in late February. The entirety of the path running from Artuna Avenue to Park Way will be reopened. A small section of path which runs parallel to Park Way is still under construction. Until that area can be regraded and the new path installed, temporary fencing will remain around that small section of the path until weather conditions allow for installation to be completed.

If you have any questions about this project, please contact Parks & Project Manager Nancy Kent at (510) 420-3064 or via email at nkent@piedmont.ca.gov.