The Mercury News Editorial –

Editorial: Reject Piedmont property tax hike for pool repairs

The Mercury News editorial is copied below:

“Piedmont residents tax themselves to ensure that they have the best schools and premier city government. The average homeowner pays $4,400 in extra taxes for schools and another $635 for city services.

But those taxes also drive up the cost of housing in the exclusive city surrounded by Oakland and further ensure that those with average means will not be able to crack the city’s residential market.

Voters in Tuesday’s election will face two tax hikes. Measure TT, which we have previously recommended voters reject, would increase the city’s tax on property sales to state record-high levels. Now we look at Measure UU, a $19.5 million bond proposal to pay for replacing three old community pools with two new ones. Voters should reject that, too.

Based on the city estimates provided to voters, Measure UU would add an average $263 annually to the tax bill for a home assessed at the city average of slightly over $1 million.

It a bit of a tricky calculation for voters because city officials in the ballot wording obfuscated the projected average tax rate as 2.6 cents per $100 of assessed value rather than an easier-to-understand $26 per $100,000.

It turns out that the city overstated that rate, especially for the latter part of the 30-year tax. The firmer number is that city taxpayers would collectively pay about $1.3 million annually to retire the bonds needed to finance the construction.

To put that number in perspective, the city spends more than that – nearly $1.7 million to be precise – just to cover the interest payments on public employee pension debt. Put another way, most of the pool bond payments could be covered by Measure TT, which is expected to add about $948,462 annually to the city’s transfer tax revenues.

Individually and collectively, the two measures raise a question of, how much is too much? Rather than throwing multiple tax measures at voters, city leaders need to prioritize and look for savings elsewhere.”

High Fire Danger Remains

Pacific Gas and Electric Company has reduced the number of homes in Piedmont which are slated to be affected by the Public Safety Power Shutoff scheduled to begin on Sunday evening, October 25th.

The PSPS will be focused on the eastern portion of Piedmont. Residents can look their address up on PG&E’s web site to see whether they are slated to be affected by the planned outage. Extreme fire danger remains for the entire City.

The National Weather Service has predicted sustained winds of 25-40 MPH and gusts to 60MPH for the hills. These high winds, combined with predicted low humidity are causing the extreme fire danger.

All Piedmonters are advised to be prepared for wildfire and power outages during this wind event.

The East Bay hills will be under a Red Flag Warning issued by the National Weather Service from 11:00 a.m. Sunday, October 25th through 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday October 27th.

During this time of high fire danger:

• Do not use power tools such as mowers and weed trimmers in a way that can easily ignite dried vegetation. Have a fire extinguisher nearby if you must use these tools.

• Ensure clear access for Fire Engine on your street and driveway. Fire engines need at least 12 feet of clearance and more on tight turns.

• Do not use outdoor flames of any kind, including barbeques. Piedmonters are urged to be Ready for Wildfire and prepare themselves for wildfire.

Community members can:

• Get Ready by creating defensible space around their home, hardening their homes against fire, and by installing fire resistant landscaping.

• Get Set by creating a wildfire action plan and preparing family emergency kits

• Be Ready to GO! if an evacuation is ordered.

The Piedmont Fire Department is adding additional staffing due to this predicted wind event.

Additional information on how to be prepared for emergencies can be found in the Public Safety Committee’s Get Ready, Piedmont brochure.

During a Public Safety Power Shutoff, please call 911 to report any emergencies which occur. Please hold non-emergency calls until after the PSPS event has concluded. Residents can call Alameda County 211 for resource referrals.

PRESS RELEASE LINKED BELOW:

PSPS 10252020

The Impact of Racial Segregation on Piedmont Schools and Where We Take It From Here –

Announcement:

Join Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign (PREC) for a Zoom discussion on how race and segregation have impacted Piedmont schools and explore the ways we can rebalance educational equity in our community and beyond.

Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 7-8:15 pm 

RSVP: Register here (Free)

Presented by Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign (PREC)
Co-sponsored by Piedmont Anti-Racism and Diversity Committee (PADC) and Piedmont Education Foundation (PEF) Education Speaker Series

Panelists:

• Stefan Lallinger: Director of the Bridges Collaborative, a group of experts in education, policy, and housing focused on integrated schools and neighborhoods. Previously, he was Special Assistant to the Chancellor of the NY Department of Education, a principal, teacher, and doctoral graduate from Harvard University.

• Dorothy Lazard manages the Oakland History Room of the Oakland Public Library. She has hosted popular history programs, curated exhibits, and written articles with a focus on making Oakland’s history accessible to a broader audience.

• Rebecca Sibilia: Former Executive Director of EdBuild, a national organization focused on rethinking state funding for public schools. EdBuild has generated national headlines and was cited in numerous presidential candidates’ platforms.

Moderated by Carolyn Jones, senior reporter at EdSource. Former San Francisco Chronicle and Oakland Tribune reporter and has written on education and the history of Piedmont and Oakland.

For more information: piedmontracialequity@gmail.com

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of PREC.  PCA and PREC are separate organizations.

In this country and in this city, in particular, there is a significant discrepancy between the amount of money spent on private vs. public improvements. The current situation—crumbling public infrastructure—is the result of years of the community’s inability to fully commit to supporting our public facilities. I personally see Measure UU to rebuild the Piedmont Community Pool first and foremost as a simple question: whether we as a community value a pool or not?

City public improvements such as pools, parks, courts, tracks, and trails are the last remaining vestiges of what can be considered the commons—outdoor places that play a central role in both creating community and providing for the simple, nearby enjoyment of the outdoors. In an urban context, we would do well to not let our lives be limited to the experience of individual spaces, such as our cars or our homes. If we let our lives be connected only virtually by digital technologies we lose out in the richness of experience that our world has to offer. During this time of COVID, we have seen first-hand the division and mistrust, indeed the disintegration of the commons that virtual communities have fostered. A public pool in Piedmont will greatly enhance our City’s commons.

Public financing for a public improvement is appropriate. Does that mean that the City needs to have bids before agreeing on the Measure UU? Of course not. Do you go out and get bids for a bathroom remodel before you decide as a household that you need a new bathroom? No. You assess the problem, agree on the need for the improvement, limit the budget, and then hire the appropriate designers, contractors and other experts to bring your ideas to reality.

Cost, the desire to control costs, the existence of cost overruns, can always be brought up on any capital improvement project. It can always be used to shoot down an initiative, but this approach will not get us closer to a community pool. If the community can first agree on the need for a new pool to replace the now defunct facility, then Measure UU authorizes up to $19.5 million which will be overseen by a committee and issued based on the final design. Setting a bond limit now and having each household pay for the bond issue is appropriate. To be fair, I’m biased, and it is up to each of us to decide what to do with our money, particularly when it comes to benefiting the greater community. Yet, I would submit that to construct a beautiful, new, public pool facility in Piedmont in return for a bond issue that costs less than the price of a Starbucks Venti coffee per day, per household is an affordable and not unreasonable price for Piedmont residents to bear.

The cost of public work is fundamentally different and higher than the cost of private work. The restrictions (for example pay rates), qualifications (for example must have done similar public scale projects for at least 5 years), requirements (for example must be bonded to a certain level) placed on the contractors have made this type of project buildable by only a small handful of well-qualified, large, and yes expensive construction firms. They can and will deliver – but there is and, indeed there should be, a cost to that. The City’s stringent requirements (ensure the project is close to zero net energy, make no dust, no noise during school hours, protect our kids when they walk by the project) result in costs that are nearly all avoidable on a private project.

However, the project will have a cost estimator who will work in conjunction with the City, the pool committee, the design team and the contractor to carefully review priorities, and expenses. Every attempt should be made to value engineer the project given the ‘fixed’ budget as defined by the bond measure. One can haggle the details of cost, and certainly the City should hire (an additional expense!) a project manager who is vigilant about controlling costs, but now is not the time to haggle these details when the pool design has not even been finalized.

We are all concerned about global warming, acting locally to reach goals of carbon neutrality for Piedmont. Pools have negative environmental impacts, as do many activities we enjoy. However, to begin to mitigate these impacts, we have to begin to collaborate more as a community and less as individuals competing for limited resources. If we can get to a place where we can agree on the benefits of a pool, then let’s work together to drive down the costs both environmental and fiscal to a point where they balance the benefits to us all as a community.

A single public pool has less of environmental impact than hundreds of private pools when compared to the relative community benefit. A new pool also can be designed with appropriate sustainable technology to heat, filter and re-cycle the water to adequately meet the needs of users. Solar thermal panels could be used to heat or pre-heat the pool water. Perhaps hybrid photovoltaic/thermal systems installed on the bottom of the pool could be employed that capture solar radiation for pool heat or facility power. Another consideration is the use a shallow water storage tank that can retain solar heat and be used to warm the main pool in the early mornings. The ancillary facilities can be net-zero buildings with photovoltaic solar panels, as well as passive heating and cooling. Again, if we can come together as a community around common goals for a sustainable pool, solutions can be developed.

To the extent that the pool will benefit both Piedmont residents and our neighbors in Oakland and surrounding communities, I think that we are fortunate to be able to share our resources for the benefit of the greater good. Without a doubt, Piedmont residents benefit from such community resources as Lake Merritt, the Oakland Museum, the Rose Garden, and currently the public pools in Lafayette, Alameda and Berkeley albeit a long drive from home. We will not improve our community or the world by walling ourselves off from others.

Our current decrepit and undersized pool does not properly meet the needs of the Piedmont community and our schools. Furthermore, the pool does not meet health and safety standards, in particular current ADA or Universal Design requirements. The outdated facility simply can’t accommodate the community demand from individuals, families and teams. A new pool will provide for this currently unmet demand with a proper Piedmont aquatics facility.

Please join me in support of Measure UU. We can come together as a community and replace this deteriorated aquatics facility with a new pool for future generations to enjoy.

John Ware, Piedmont Resident, Architect, Engineer

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Piedmont Measure TT increases the “flat rate” property tax  on  sales of all Piedmont homes and properties. Measure TT officially states, “this measure is not a commitment to any particular action or purpose.” 

The 35% tax increase will be levied as a percentage of the property sales price adding thousands of dollars to the cost of selling a property in Piedmont.  With a low bar for passage (one vote plus 50%), if approved by a simple majority of Piedmont voters, TT will become effective on all property sales in Piedmont on July 1, 2021.  Read official details below.

Proponents and Opponents use different terms to argue that TT would or would not establish the highest transfer taxes in California. 

TT Proponents rely on the handful of California cities such as Oakland and Berkeley that have created “stepped” graduated transfer taxes based on the sales price range in their cities, and then compare the highest tax rates for the highest priced properties with Piedmont’s flat rate.  Berkeley’s median house value is 1/2 of Piedmont’s and Oakland’s median house value is 1/3 of Piedmont’s, so their steps do not fit the Piedmont range. (See Alameda County median values here). 

TT Opponents claim TT is the highest California “flat” transfer tax because more than 90% of California cities have flat rates under $2 per $1000 compared to Measure TT’s proposed flat rate of $17.50 per $1000 .  (See California city Transfer Tax rates here .)  Note: Alameda County adds an additional amount to the transfer tax.

——-

Proponents state the money will be used by the City of Piedmont for essential services, and the tax is comparable to some other cities. “The proposed tax increase will provide necessary funds for maintaining and improving city facilities, streets, sidewalks, and parks.”  Proponents claim that opponents are wrong to state that Piedmont would have the highest Transfer Tax.

Opponents state Piedmont will have the highest “flat” Transfer Tax rate in California and will take away homeowner profits.  “Voters must demand accountability measures before passing such a high homeowner tax.” Also, Piedmonters just approved a City parcel tax for  municipal purposes, and Measure TT does not identify specific uses. 

Click each item below to read official information on the measure, liens, bankruptcies, etc.:

• Full Text of Measure TT
• City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis of Measure TT*
• Direct Argument In Favor of Measure TT
• Direct Argument Opposed to Measure TT
• Rebuttal to Argument In Favor of Measure TT
• Rebuttal to Argument Opposed to Measure TT

*The “City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis of Measure TT” is provided by Piedmont’s contract City Attorney.

Every voter in Piedmont should have received their ballot and Alameda County Voter Information Guide in the mail.

Although many voters are marking their ballots, the Alameda County Voter Information Guide has not been delivered.  The Guide contains Piedmont candidate statements and Piedmont ballot measure arguments.  

A  Piedmont press release stated: Sample Ballot / Voter Information Pamphlet

“The Alameda County Registrar of Voters began mailing Sample Ballot / Voter Information Pamphlets to registered voters on Thursday, September 24th. You can also view your personalized Voter Information Guide on the  Registrar of Voters My Voter Profilepage. If you have not received your sample ballot by October 16th, please contact the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office at (510) 272-6933.”

Voted ballots may be returned in a U.S. Postal Box or deposited in the Alameda County BALLOT BOX located in central Piedmont at the corner of HIGHLAND WAY and HIGHLAND AVENUES next to the Wells Fargo Bank.  POSTAGE IS NOT REQUIRED ON BALLOT ENVELOPES.

Because of issues related to mailed ballots, voters are encouraged to vote their ballots early to assure timely delivery to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.

For your ballot to be counted, you must sign your ballot envelope. Every voters signature is carefully checked by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.

++++++ VOTER GUIDE INFORMATION ++++++

Piedmont’s Ballot Measures TT (Transfer Tax Increase)  and UU (Pool Bonds) are found on the very last page of the ballot. Links to official information on Measures UU and TT are below.

Measure TT – Transfer Tax Increase on Real Property Sales

• Full Text of Measure TT
• City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis of Measure TT
• Direct Argument In Favor of Measure TT
• Direct Argument Opposed to Measure TT
• Rebuttal to Argument In Favor of Measure TT
• Rebuttal to Argument Opposed to Measure TT

Measure UU – Pool Construction Bonds 

• Full Text of Measure UU
• City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis of Measure UU
• Tax Rate Statement for Measure UU
• Direct Argument In Favor of Measure UU
• Direct Argument Opposed to Measure UU
• Rebuttal to Argument In Favor of Measure UU
• Rebuttal to Argument Opposed to Measure UU

Official information on candidates for City Council and School Board are linked below.  Click on the candidate name to read their statement.

.

https://piedmont.ca.gov/services___departments/city_clerk/elections/november_3_2020_general_municipal_election/2020_candidate_list

If you have questions or concerns regarding voting, contact Piedmont City Clerk John Tulloch at 510/420-3040. 

        It is long past time for Piedmont to rebuild our one and only community pool.

Current residents of Piedmont have benefitted from the generosity of prior residents who built, paid for, and in many cases donated our buildings, parks, playfields and of course, the pool.  Their generosity toward future generations has allowed us, as taxpayers, to focus our collective resources on our excellent public schools.

It is now our turn to step up to rebuild our failing infrastructure. The two measures on the ballot in November are about repairing and replacing what is broken. Measure UU will allow Piedmont to issue, for the first time ever, municipal bonds to rebuild the failing 56-year-old Piedmont Pool.  Municipal bonds are like a 30-year fixed-rate community mortgage, repaid through property tax assessments.  Measure TT will align the real property transfer tax – only paid when a home is bought or sold – to match those of Berkeley and Oakland, and use the funds to repair and maintain our city facilities and failing roads and sidewalks.

To us, six former Piedmont Mayors, the focus on long-term planning is a sign of pragmatic and strategic thinking.  The current City Council unanimously placed Measures UU and TT on the ballot because our failing infrastructure can’t wait.  Spending more to repair a crumbling pool facility makes no fiscal sense. Borrowing money at low interest rates to rebuild a necessary civic asset is the prudent decision.

Soon the City Council will be forced to make the decision that no one wants to make: to permanently close the Piedmont Pool. If Measure UU does not pass, Piedmont will then fail to provide a basic public amenity that every other city in Alameda County provides to its residents. Whether you swim or not, the lack of a municipal pool would be a profound loss for our community and our schools.

Please join us in supporting the future of Piedmont and voting yes on Measures UU and TT.

Dean Barbieri

Michael Bruck

John Chiang

Abe Friedman

Susan Hill

Valerie Matzger

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.

Editors Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

We understand that now more than ever we all need to get out and be active in our parks.

That is why the City has decided to reopen Linda Beach Playfield to the public starting Monday, September 14. We are asking you for your help in keeping this neighborhood park open and safe for all users by wearing a face covering, practicing social distancing, and not sharing sports equipment with members outside your household. Only one entrance, located on Linda Avenue under the Oakland Avenue Bridge, will be opened for park access.

During public use hours, a Park Ambassador will be at the entrance and will remind users of and enforce COVID-19 safety requirements.

Linda Beach Playfield will be open for public use beginning on Monday, September 14^th during these times:

Monday-Friday: 10:30 am–3 pm

Saturday: 3:00 pm–Dusk

Sunday: 9:00–11:30 am

Linda Beach Playfield will also be used by Recreation Department and youth sports organizations at times other than the above times, by permit only. No public use is allowed outside of the times above.

Please contact the Piedmont Recreation Department at (510) 420-3070 or prd@piedmont.ca.gov with questions.

Announcement: Piedmont Recreation Department

“Weeds, grass, vines, leaves, brush, diseased or dead trees, combustible growth, debris, or rubbish….

The second reading of the proposed stricter Piedmont Fire Code ordinance includes and broadens enforcement to all privately-held Piedmont property with expansive new regulations designed for Piedmont’s approximately 20% high fire hazard area.

“Standards for vegetation management described herein shall be applicable to and within private property located within the City bounds..”  Ordinance language

A second reading of the proposed ordinance for vegetation controls on all Piedmont private properties will be considered on:

Monday, August 17, 2020, 6:00 p.m., by the Piedmont City Council.

 California state law requires property owners in specific high fire hazard, wildland-urban border areas to maintain a 30 feet of open space cleared of vegetable fuel surrounding their homes, barns, garages and other structures. Most of Piedmont is not in the state defined high fire hazard zone, however the 30 foot distance will also be required by the ordinance of all Piedmont residential properties. See link in staff report below. 

The vast majority of Piedmont dwellings do not have a 30 foot open space perimeter between their homes, so it is not possible to have 30 feet of defensible space as specified in the ordinance. The City policy of allowing reductions in distances between neighboring structures presents a fire safety threat unaddressed in the ordinance. 

“In many cases in Piedmont, dwellings are situated less than 8 feet apart, and fires can easily spread from house to house and are more readily spread upslope in the direction of prevailing winds.”  Ordinance language

Landscaping, plant choices, site planning, fencing, and safety are regularly considered by the Planning and Park Commissions and Public Safety Committee. Piedmont’s applicable Commissions and Committee have not been asked to consider the ordinance.  

Removal is required of hazardous vegetation or combustible materials including, but not limited to weeds, grass, vines, leaves, brush, diseased or dead trees, combustible growth, debris, or rubbish capable of being ignited and endangering property. 

Currently, the Fire Department notifies property owners of identified fire safety threats. The proposed ordinance will subject violators to penalty fines. Decisions regarding compliance are made by the Fire Code Official, who will have “discretion in their enforcement, so as to be reasonable in their implementation.”  Exceptions are not noted within the ordinance.

,,,,,,,,,

3. Penalties. Violations of this section shall be subject to penalties. Penalty amount may be established by resolution of the City Council. If penalty amounts have not been established by resolution of the City Council, violations of this section shall be punishable by fine in the amounts specified in Government Code section 51185.”

Items included in the proposed new ordinance:

“B. Vegetation management requirements.

Standards for vegetation management described herein shall be applicable to and within private property located within the City bounds, unless stricter requirements apply under section 8.14.050 due to being located in a designated very high fire hazard zone, and failure to maintain property in accordance with such standards shall subject the responsible person to fine and/or abatement in accordance with chapter 1 or chapter 6 of this code.

1. Developed parcels.

For any parcel developed with a dwelling unit, or developed with any other structure or structures required to obtain a building permit prior to construction, each responsible person for such parcel shall ensure that vegetation on Attachment A the parcel is maintained in accordance with the requirements below. Each responsible person shall:

a. Cut down, remove, or reduce any hazardous vegetation or combustible material. Hazardous vegetation or combustible materials include, but are not limited to weeds, grass, vines, leaves, brush, diseased or dead trees, combustible growth, debris, or rubbish capable of being ignited and endangering property.

[The following has been noted as impossible in most of Piedmont.]

b. Maintain a defensible space of at least 30 feet from the perimeter of each building or structure located on a parcel. The size of the defensible space area may be increased or decreased by the fire code official based on site-specific analysis of local conditions, which include, but are not limited to, considerations of: the size of the property, whether the property is located on a steep slope, whether property located in an exposed windswept location, the fire risk that the vegetation surrounding the property poses, the proximity of adjacent structures and risk to such adjacent structures, and whether the vegetation surrounding the property is regularly maintained or pruned. A responsible person is not required to manage vegetation located beyond the property line of the subject parcel.

c. Maintain any space that is within 3 feet from a roadway clear of any flammable vegetation, and maintain a 15-foot vertical clearance, free of vegetation, above roadways including streets, driveways and rights-of-way.

d. Remove or trim any vegetation that is deemed by the Fire Marshal to impede emergency vehicle access.

e. Remove all portions of trees within 10 feet of functioning chimneys or stovepipe outlets.

f. Maintain the roof and gutters free of leaves, needles, or other dead/dying wood.

g. Remove brush and tree limbs that are within six feet of the ground from mature trees.

h. Remove flammable vegetation and limbs from trees that may pose a fire and/or safety hazard to the home or property.

i. Install a spark arrestor on functioning chimneys or stovepipe outlets.

2. Vacant parcels.

For any vacant parcel in the city, each responsible person for such parcel shall ensure that vegetation on the parcel is maintained in accordance with the requirements below. Each responsible person shall:

a. For parcels with an acreage that is 0.5 acres or less, the responsible person shall clear the entire lot of flammable vegetation and maintain it to a height of 6 inches or less.

b. For parcels with an acreage that is greater than 0.5 acres, clear the area that is one hundred feet along the perimeter of the property line of flammable vegetation and maintain such vegetation to a height of 6 inches or less. A responsible person is not required to manage vegetation located beyond the property line.

c. Maintain any space that is within 3 feet from a roadway clear of any flammable vegetation, and maintain a 15 foot vertical clearance, free of vegetation above roadways including streets, driveways and rights-of-way.

d. Remove flammable vegetation and limbs from trees that may pose a fire and/or safety hazard from the property.

e. Remove brush and tree limbs that are within six feet of the ground from mature trees.

…….

“8.14.060 Definitions. In this division:

Defensible Space means the area adjacent to a structure or dwelling where wildfire prevention or protection practices are implemented to provide defense from an approaching wildfire or to minimize the spread of a structure fire to wildlands or surrounding areas, as provided in Government Code section 51177(a).

Flammable vegetation means: (1) vegetation, brush, or grasses, which is dry, dead, or dying and which is over six inches in height; or (2) vegetation which has a high resin or sap content including but not limited to Arborvitae, California Bay, Cedar, Cypress, Douglas Fir, Eucalyptus, Fir, Juniper, Palm, Pine, Spruce, Yew, California buckwheat, California sagebrush, Chamise or greasewood, Laurel sumac, Manzanita, Pampas grass, Rosemary, Scotch broom, Spanish Broom, Sugar bush, and Toyon and which is over six inches in height.

Responsible person means any natural person or a corporate entity that is the owner, occupant, lessor, lessee, manager, licensee, or other person having physical or legal control over a structure or parcel of land.

_______

To READ the proposed Piedmont ordinance and staff report, click below: