April 8, 2015 Park Commission Meeting

by Piedmont High School Student, Thomas Horn

In their monthly meeting, held Wednesday, April 8, the City of Piedmont’s Park Commission discussed a range of temporary and ongoing projects for improving outdoor spaces in Piedmont, including renovations in Crocker Park and construction of a landscaped median triangle at Linda and Kingston Avenues, as well as other items.

The commission invited Mark Feldkamp, Parks and Project Manager for the city, to discuss the removal of the garage at the northwest corner of Crocker Park. According to Feldkamp, the project is going smoothly, with a nearby homeowner agreeing to the use of her land for part of the demolition process, which greatly eases the city’s task. Additionally, the city has been able to preserve old redwood timber from the garage for reuse. However, Feldkamp noted that the corner of the park with the garage will likely require about $200,000 to landscape attractively.

On the construction of the Linda/Kingston Triangle, the commission invited Chester Nakahara, Director of Public Works, to discuss recent progress. Nakahara reported that the city had received numerous requests from nearby residents to restripe the intersection and install new stop signs in different locations before the beginning of construction. One of the frequently requested locations for a new stop sign was on the north corner of Linda and Rose Avenues, which is in Oakland.

Nakahara felt optimistic that a stop sign could be placed here after consultation with the Oakland traffic engineer. The Oakland traffic engineer would be able to use the traffic study conducted by the City of Piedmont to justify this proposal if necessary. The sign and striping budget of the City of Piedmont is very limited, but the commission agreed that this aspect of the project could be completed as soon as funds became available.

The commission returned to Feldkamp for information on the Spring Path project [located between Maxwelton Avenue and Moraga Avenue near the Piedmont Corporation Yard.] Local residents are complaining about difficulties for their children in walking to school, according to Feldkamp; and wish that the reconstruction of the path would proceed more quickly. However, Feldkamp believed that a work pace slightly slower than usual was acceptable, given that the work was conducted by child volunteers.

Feldkamp also addressed the landscaping plan for the new residential buildings under construction at 408 Linda Avenue [location of former PG&E Substation below the Oakland Avenue Bridge] stating that it was now “95 percent good” after a few changes. Commissioner Susan Herrick noted that the previous plan to place roses under oak trees was regrettable; Feldkamp laughed and said that this had been corrected.

Dave Frankel, supervisor of maintenance for the city, next updated the commission about the completion of street tree pruning for 2014-15, which involved the trimming of 494 trees. Commissioner Anian Tunney asked Frankel about the apparent removal of several trees along the west side of Highland Avenue. Frankel responded that eight elm trees were removed to assist in gutter repairs, and that all were suffering from existing diseases. They would be replaced by new trees, which the residents of the nearby homes agreed to water.

The commission expressed concern that the residents might not be able to water the trees appropriately, but Frankel insisted that this measure was necessary because of the labor-intensive nature of tree watering.

I agree with Frankel that it is beneficial for nearby homeowners to take responsibility for the street trees in front of their homes, because their care and concern for their home environment will likely result in the trees being better cared for than if they were one of the many concerns of city parks workers. Additionally, watering the trees could help local residents feel more civically engaged and more appreciative of the city’s efforts to maintain the beauty of the area’s street-scape.

Finally, Frankel updated the commission on the city’s water conservation efforts. As part of the mandate by Governor Jerry Brown to save water, Piedmont is required to reduce its water consumption by 25 percent. However, the city is entitled to use 2013 as a baseline for water-conservation measurements, and measuring from this year, the city has already cut water usage by 20 percent. Further cuts in water usage will be achieved by not planting annual flowers this year, and possibly by using non-potable water for irrigation.

Interviewed after the meeting, Frankel stated that he has been delivering monthly updates to the Park Commission for “twenty years” as part of his job, but that the drought is the “next hot topic” for him, which he will deal with by investigating irrigation systems and seeing where repair and conversion to non-potable water are possible. The April 14 meeting of the EBMUD board may also change the situation with respect to water conservation rules, so Frankel is monitoring the regulatory situation closely.

                              Thomas Horn

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

The disparate treatment of residential water consumers in various California communities has received national media attention this week.   The April 6, 2015 New York Times reports that California water policy –

“is a case study in the unwise use of natural resources, many experts say. Farmers are drilling wells at a feverish pace and  pumping billions of gallons of water from the ground, depleting a resource that was critically endangered even before the drought, now in its 4th year, began.”

In July 2014, while some Piedmonters were consuming 100 – 150 gallons per day or less, residents in some hotter locations used more than 600 gallons per day. Even after Governor Jerry Brown’s demand of a 25% consumption reduction is fulfilled, the four to one or greater differential of water use will remain in many areas. And some communities still do not meter water, instead charging residential customers a flat rate for unlimited water use. A few make no charge for water, according to The New York Times.

On April 7 Richard Howitt, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Resource Economics, at UC Davis, told Bloomberg Surveillance that yards in hotter areas of California should look more like Arizona. Howitt, a lead researcher at the UC Davis Center for Watershed Studies recommends California’s agriculture sector convert to higher profitability crops. “Cut down on low value crops, continue growing carrots.” 

Howitt continued, “The agriculture sector has got to realize that water is now a commodity, not political, and must be treated as such. Our agriculture would have to change its way of operating in a long term drought. We would only grow those crops that would really be very profitable. There are margins for adjustment in crops.”

Meanwhile the Central Valley agriculture well drilling frenzy has lowered the water table by as much as 50 feet, The New York Times reported. Land is sinking as much as one foot per year, damaging roads and bridges. Nevertheless, no limits on well drilling or groundwater exhaustion have been established for agriculture.

At its Tuesday, April 14 meeting, the EBMUD Board will review the District’s  year-end Water Supply Availability and Deficiency in this historic drought. The Board will decide on potential actions, which may include mandatory conservation restrictions, drought surcharges and excessive use penalties.

Read CA Water restrictions on urban and suburban communities  March 27

School Board Meeting Report by Piedmont High School student Marie Marchant –

On Wednesday, March 11, I attended a School Board meeting at City Hall, which is held every second and fourth Wednesdays of every month. The purpose of the meeting was to go over new courses for the high school, budgets and to hear from the community and any concerns or input about the education system in Piedmont.

During the meeting the main issues addressed were the new middle school and high school pathways for mathematics. Randall Booker, the head of the new program proposal, emphasized how students can choose new pathways that suit them academically and in a way that makes approaching math courses a more comfortable process regarding their understanding and maturity.  Included in the new course pathways is a Summer School option where students can take a course in four weeks over the summer, 3 hours a day, contrary to many other summer courses elsewhere that can take up to 6 weeks.

Doug Ireland, one of the board members, wasn’t in favor for the summer program because of feedback from other summer programs at Piedmont and how few students enroll. He was also concerned it would be a waste of the School District’s money and harm the budget. However, all of the other board members were in favor of the summer program.

Andrea Swenson, another board member, loved how there are so many options for students and because there are so many different types of students, this program will try to relieve some of that stress that Piedmont is notorious for putting on their students.

However, I would be concerned it would put more pressure on students to take the “harder path” or the more advanced pathways because their parents want them to get to a higher level of math quicker or because that is what students feel is expected of them, not because they feel as if they are ready to challenge themselves. I also think that it could possibly make choosing classes more difficult not only for the students but for the counselors as well; the more specialty classes the harder it becomes to figure out schedules for all of the students. Booker also mentioned that support classes are built into the budget, meaning that students have the option of self study, and that there is no requirement to take summer courses to get into calculus AB.

Another large topic was the proposal for a new set of computer science classes. High School Principal Brent Daniels spoke about redesigning the computer course to make the class more relevant, including new subjects such as robotics, web design, computer applications and more. Mr. Mattix, the computer sciences teacher spoke about creating a mobile apps development course, which was suggested by the parent community. The course would be at college level, a 5 unit course, and made for more advanced students looking to challenge themselves. The University of San Francisco has offered to help with the development of the class and try to make it a possible AP course.

A couple other topics were brought up by some people in the audience as well. One woman, she did not state her name, was representing the Parent Clubs and talked about the recent visit WASC paid to the school. It was reported that WASC was extremely pleased by the school and specifically with the new bell schedule, they also highlighted the Wellness Center and how important they thought it was to give support to the students.

The Parent Clubs also reported on creating a mini fundraiser for the teachers lounge because they have felt that it is outdated and has become a storage area.

My interviewee, Ms. Betsy Anderson, Recreation Commissioner, came to the board meeting to encourage people to take a survey on the Piedmont Recreation Department. She said that the Recreation Department is open to all feedback and they want to know what programs are being used the most and if there is more that they can offer to the community for example programming for adults. She said that she has already sent emails out to many in the community, but she just wanted the school board and those at the meeting to take the survey so that the recreational department can get more information about what the community particularly enjoys having around.

The School Board meeting touched on a number of other subjects such as the School District budget, recent activities of the high school students, such as Camp Everytown and much more.

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author.

Student Report on March 18th Recreation Commission by Kennedy Christensen

On March 18, 2015 at 7:35 p.m., Commissioner Nick Levinson called to order Piedmont’s Recreation Commission’s monthly meeting. The purpose of this commission and meeting is to discuss issues, plans, and news having to do with Piedmont’s Recreation Department. This meeting is held every second Wednesday of every month. However, their next meeting will be April 15th.

The meeting began with an allotted ten minutes to anybody who wanted to bring up any issues or ideas that could potentially help the commissioners better our Recreation Department. At this time three students were able to speak. Xavier Prospero first introduced the idea of a clock at Hampton field. Austin Willis wanted to have more easily accessible teen employment provided by the Rec. Department, and I spoke about better publicity for the pool and maybe having more free hours to advertise the pool.

After we had spoken and the commissioners had asked a few questions regarding our ideas, Commissioner Nick Levinson announced that the School District approved a substantial increase (about three to four times higher) of fees for the use of fields and facilities. This would mainly affect private organized groups and teams.

Recreation Director Sara Lillevand then gave a report on the project at Beach Elementary School. The project seemed to be extremely successful with everybody enjoying the new field turf. However, she said they did go a little bit over the budget due to drainage issues though they were still fairly on point. She then gave various updates on potential changes at Hampton field, the approved landscaping and arrival of new lockers for the Pool, the recently opened summer camps registration for nonresidents of Piedmont, and also the problem of parking and access to the Community Hall and potential need for new parking spaces somewhere.

There are two events coming up sponsored by the Recreation Department. On March 28th there will be an Easter Egg Hunt for children ages two to seven, and on May 16th there will be for the first time ever, a Family Triathlon! It is aimed toward children probably under twelve and will include a swim in the Piedmont Pool, and then a bike ride and a run through the neighborhood around there, followed by food at the pool.

The next item that was discussed was the Community Outreach Project that the Recreation Commission is in the middle of, and this was probably where the members spent the most time discussing. It was also led by Recreation Department Director Sara Lillevand. The project contains a few different parts to really try to involve the residents of the city of Piedmont with it’s Recreation Department.

In early March, they launched an Online Survey to get feedback and ideas from people. It does not take very long and so far they have been getting very good responses. However, they want more people to take it so that they can get a wider variety of opinions. It is apparently aimed at people who might not use the Recreation Department programs due to their kids being out of school or grown up.

They also talked about holding a Town Meeting on March 21st and March 25th to allow for people to have the opportunity to sit in tables with a group of people and discuss and come up with ideas for shaping this Department.

Competitive Analysis is the next part of this project and is focused around getting information and ideas from other cities. Different cities were assigned to commissioners who were going to probably meet with leaders from these cities and share ideas. All of the suggested cities were fairly close to Piedmont or at least around the Bay Area, and so Commissioner Terry London brought up the idea of casting the net wider and maybe going to Sacramento or San Diego for some of their ideas.

The final part of the Community Outreach Project was making a suggestion box. The Recreation Department already has a suggestion box online, but the Council liked the idea of a physical suggestion box that people could write ideas in.

Next was the Capital Improvement Program Update, which was that this year there is 400,000 dollars now available to possibly fund projects having to do with the Recreation Department. In past years there has not been money left over and so this year is exciting in that maybe there can be some new projects happen that have been needing to get done. Various ideas were introduced from a compiled list including actual Rec. Center renovations, Community Hall improvements, projects having to do with Hampton Field or the Piedmont Pool, and a volleyball court. They also discussed the idea of saving the money for bigger, long-term projects to be actually carried out in future years. In the end, a decision was never reached.

At the end of the meeting, it was announced by Commissioner Levinson, who is also the Chair, that there will be some changes happening on the Commission. This meeting was Commissioner London’s last meeting on the Commission and also the Commission will be getting a new Chair next month so there will be a change in leadership as well.

Present at the meeting was Teddy King, a member of the City Council. As a member of the City Council she is in a way, the overseer of the Recreation Commission, as I believe all the members of City Council are assigned a different Commission. She is also in charge of, and as of now, in the process of, working with any new people that join the Commission to make the transition easier. She will also be the one reporting back to City Council the topics discussed at this Recreation Commission.

by Kennedy Christensen, Piedmont High School student

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

Piedmont was the most successful city of all Alameda County cities reaching its housing goal within 98%. 

While some complain, some encourage, some dislike and some applaud, Piedmont’s zoning changes to meet housing goals.  

Piedmont’s method of increasing affordable housing has been based on building second homes on a single family lot or inserting second units into houses within the single family zone.  This technique has been done rather than re-zoning land areas in Piedmont for multi-family dwellings.

Piedmont’s housing increases have stemmed from State requirements for cities to provide planning processes that allow increased housing, particularly affordable residential units under specific conditions determined by individual cities.

While some homeowners have welcomed the income from rentals, neighbors’ primary objections to the second unit plan have been streets clogged with parked cars, loss of parking for service people and visitors, increased noise, and loss of privacy and light and air. Some community members have objected to the loss of a neighborhood feeling, ever changing renters, and a fragile zoning system not conducive to maintaining and improving residences.

Piedmont’s planning staff has consistently recommended allowing increased density and affordable housing through second units in the single family zone as preferable to rezoning small areas for multi-family residential housing. Any rezoning per City Charter requires approval of Piedmont voters, although in recent years this requirement has been skirted, and in one instance, conceded by the City Council.

The allocations of housing needs in the Bay Area are determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).  Piedmont has been extremely diligent in meeting the allocation goals, despite the fact there is no penalty for failure to build the number of allocated residences, as numerous cities have not been penalized for not meeting their goals.  Failure to comply with State laws can befall a city if they have not provided laws and mechanisms allowing increased housing. Some community groups interested in additional affordable housing have sued cities that have not set in place laws giving affordable housing a chance to be approved through their planning processes.

Compliance with State laws and housing allocations refers to a city taking action to allow increased housing. The number of houses actually built relates to the goals rather than compliance. The Piedmont Planning Commission considers housing unit proposals that do not automatically meet the conditions set out in the City Code for second units.  The Commissions decisions on proposals typically involve variances, compatibility with a neighborhood, parking, safety, privacy, light, air, etc. 

City Administrator Paul Benoit’s report to the City Council notes the outstanding success of Piedmont’s compliance:

“a recent report from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that compares the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) progress of Alameda County jurisdictions during the period of 2007 to 2014. As you can see, Piedmont was the most successful city of all Alameda County cities with a 98% compliance level.

“Because Piedmont has the lowest number of affordable homes in the County, the numbers above reflect the highest requirement of affordable units on a percentage basis of any Alameda County jurisdiction.

“Rather than up-zone areas of Piedmont for multi-family redevelopment to include affordable apartments, the City instead focused on second unit approvals as a means of obtaining affordable housing without changing Piedmont’s single-family character. The Code was developed to provide incentives aimed at the creation of affordable units.

“The Planning Commission worked hard in their encouragement of second units, while making sure that there would not be adverse impacts on neighborhoods. Their efforts and the City’s success in the second unit program led to a simplified and inexpensive Housing Element Update process and quick certification by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in December 2014.”

READ the entire staff report.

The Council will consider the progress report on Piedmont’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation at their Monday, April 6, 2015 meeting in City Hall. The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. The housing item is not first on the agenda.  The meeting will be broadcast and live streamed.

School Board Meeting Report by High School Student Tristan Gardner:

On Wednesday, March 11, I attended a meeting of our esteemed School Board. Their job is to “serve every student,” and keep Piedmont schools in the top tier of all public schools.  These meetings are where motions pass and public opinion is weighed, so I sat in on one to observe and have my own concerns addressed.  The meeting covered some pretty bland topics, the student liaison spoke about the general feel of the high school, the new computer classes were explained, and a representative of a parent group said that they were very encouraged because the accreditation board, WASC, gave us two thumbs up.

One particularly important, though not really debated, item was on the agenda, the new common core curriculum for math.   For those who do not know, the new system will allow students to take more flexible paths by either taking classes that slow, or “expand,” the curriculum, or ones that “compress” it.  This allows students to have multiple opportunities to get into an advanced math class.

In the last system, your fate was decided by a test taken between fifth and sixth grade.  Some concern was raised by Board Member Doug Ireland, and quickly alleviated, regarding the summer school options and teacher readiness.  Assistant Superintendent for Educational Services Randall Booker confidently stated that the teachers will most certainly be ready.

The motion passed unanimously, but to understand it better, I caught up with Mr. Hayden, a Piedmont math teacher and meeting attendant.  He seemed a little anxious and excited about the new system and declared that the board “accepted just about all the terms they hoped for.”

After the initial roundabout of the board, they opened the floor to those who wanted to address any issue.  I took the podium to discuss Piedmont’s policy regarding 18-year-olds and absences.  Currently Piedmont High makes students get a contract signed by their parents allowing them to sign excuses for their absences.  When a student gets this contract, the parents still get notified every time their child leaves school.  If you cannot reach your parents, you cannot leave. California Education Code basically states that if you are 18, you have all the powers a parent of a minor would have.  I came armed with statutes and prepared to defend my case against strong opposition.

When I finished my piece, the board let me know that a discussion or vote could not occur that meeting because it was an off agenda item, but the Superintendent would stay in touch with me. To be honest, I was a little shocked about how receptive they were to an idea that I thought would get a lot of resistance.

Tristan Gardner

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author.

Report on the Park Commission Meeting of March 4 by High School student Quinn Burnett:

On Wednesday, March 4, the Piedmont Park Commission held a meeting to discuss various issues concerning local parks and gardens. Due to the fact that Arbor Day is on the horizon, a main topic of discussion was over the various public plans for that particular day of celebration.

After the minutes were approved by the Commission, Chair Sue Herrick opened the floor to the public forum. I spoke first about my concept to go back to having fewer 10 minute parking spaces in the Community Center parking lot, as the reduced parking increases traffic on Highland Avenue and takes away spots from students and creates spots that are rarely used. The Commission agreed that the 10 minute spots allowed an easier means for parents to drop off their children at the nearby preschool and did not seem to desire to make the change that I was hoping for. Following my address to the Commission, Arash Parsa and Parker Phillips spoke about the issues of speeding on Scenic Avenue and the trimming of shrubs on Mesa Avenue, respectively.

After the public forum, the President of the Piedmont Garden Club donated three thousand dollars for Arbor Day and specifically for improvements in Dracena Park for the upcoming event that would be held there on Arbor Day. The check was accepted by the Staff Liaison Mark Feldkamp and he and the President of the Garden Club capitalized on a nice photo opportunity.

Following this donation, the head of publicity on the Park Commission, John Lenahan, took some time to talk about his efforts in the monthly newsletter, as well as additional publicity for the Arbor Day event at Dracena Park. Although there did not seem to be too many pressing matters on the agenda on March 4, Commissioner Nancy Kent, reported on a new plan to further water conservation to combat the ensuing California drought, and her outlook was quite positive as Piedmont seemed to be on top of every requirement for the plan.

Before the meeting began, I had the opportunity to speak with one of very few attending audience members, Patty Reed. Reed’s main concern was a plan that began almost a year ago called the Linda Kingston Triangle. The triangle will ideally be located on Linda Avenue, a block from Beach Elementary School and will cost almost $200,000. She told me that this project will be funded by the Piedmont Garden Club, private neighborhood partisans, and publicly by the CIP [Capital Improvement Projects]. Reed also shared with me that there had been an extensive traffic study, which concluded that traffic would be significantly reduced and safety increased, and this aspect resonated well with the Commission, which favored the project heavily in general as well.

Personally, I agreed with the motive of the Linda Kingston Triangle project, to promote safety, and I am glad to see a positive plan gain momentum as I feel that often projects like these are generally stifled by neigh-saying residents, as was the case for the infamous Blair Park project.

Finally, one representative, whose specific position I did not identify, gave a report on the general condition of the parks and streets. His summary was very positive, exuding the impression that, generally, “things are good!” He also mentioned that roughly one hundred trees were pruned this month and that if anyone wanted their street to be swept, all they would have to do is call and the street sweepers would be happy to come.

Summarily, I viewed the Commission as an efficient and positively run government body.  I also acknowledge the great amount of effort and attention to detail it takes to run such an organization successfully.

Quinn Burnett

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author.

School Board Member Rick Rausenbush informed PCA that the School Board is currently interviewing three candidates for School Superintendent.  The three candidates will  have met individually with the Board at evening meetings.

There was a partial notice of a Special Meeting on March 12 held over the dinner hour at 131 La Salle Avenue, a Board member’s residence. The same time and location was announced for the following evening, March 13, for interviewing “the candidate.”  On March 14 a third meeting will be held at the same time and location to interview “the candidate.”

Special Meeting Agenda <

Saturday, March 14, 2015 

5:55 p.m.- 9:01 p.m.

131 LaSalle Avenue, Piedmont

(private residence of Board member)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Special Meeting Agenda <

Sunday, March 15, 2015

9 a.m. to 12 noon

Piedmont School District Offices

760 Magnolia Avenue, Piedmont

Under California’s Brown Act, Special Meetings require only 24 hour notice of the agenda, time, and location of the meeting. The Piedmont Unified School District has typically made Special Meeting announcements 24 hours in advance of the meetings.

In general, all public entity meetings, including those of the Piedmont Unified School District Board, are to be held within the boundaries of the juridiction.  Under specific conditions, meetings may be held outside of the jurisdiction.

The Piedmont Unified School District has recently held two interviewing sessions with candidates outside of the District’s jurisdictional boundaries.  These meetings were held in Oakland and publicly noticed.

All of the interview sessions are closed to the public, however the public has a right at the beginning of each meeting, as noted on the agendas, to speak to the Superintendent recruitment.  The public’s right to speak to the Board at the meetings includes those held in private residences and those outside of the District. It is unknown at this time if any members of the public have addressed the Board at the recent meetings.

The Brown Act affords candidates the right to privacy, protecting their current and future positions.

Each recent Special Meeting agenda of the Board has included the wording “no action anticipated.” When action has been finalized by the Board in Closed Session, public reporting of the action is required by California law.

On February 11, 2015, the Piedmont Unified School District Board of Education met to discuss the future of Piedmont schools. The Board generally meets on the second and fourth Wednesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Major issues addressed and/or discussed while I was at the meeting were the new Superintendent, refunding bonds from 2006, PHS bathrooms and the common core.

Barbara Young and Bill Levinson presented the superintendent leadership profile. Doug Ireland (Board member) responded with some issues, saying that the profile was contradicting at times.

Blake Boehm spoke about the bonds from 2006, summing his presentation up by saying “short term pain made for long term gain.”

Students Ami Felson and Frances Putnam spoke about the issues in Piedmont High School (PHS) bathrooms, mainly the locks on individual stalls, bad soap and often no paper towels.

Randall Booker, Assistant Superintendent explained the many common core pathways toward Calculus AB and BC.

The issue that I am the most familiar with out of all that were discussed is the PHS bathrooms. I agree with both Ami and Frances that the bathrooms are not up to par. What is most frustrating is that the school just spent money adding new water bottle “fillers” onto existing water fountains when the money could’ve been used to get working locks on the bathroom stalls.

My interviewee, Barbara Young, attended the Board meeting to present the superintendent leadership profile with Bill Levinson. They were there to get edits for the profile and to eventually find our new superintendent. Their next step is to do preliminary interviews to weed out the superintendent candidates that do not fit the approved leadership profile.

Gelly Miller, Piedmont High School Student

Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

– Council Members heard about their Responsibilities and Roles in Disasters –

Local governments in California are responsible for providing emergency operations and response to protect the health and safety of citizens, and preserve lives, property and the environment from the effects of disasters. On Saturday, February 28 at 10 a.m. the City Council met in the Emergency Operation Center in the Police Department to learn about the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). SEMS can be activated for small emergencies, but is primarily intended for major disasters. It is mandated by the California Emergency Services Act, Government code 8607.  Read the code.  The emergency management training was presented by Neal T. O’Haire of Howell Consulting.

The City of Piedmont is charged with the responsibility of providing a disaster response and recovery plan that will enable the public and local business to return to normal following a major emergency or disaster.

SEMS components include: Incident Command System, Inter-agency Coordination, and Master mutual aid. SEMS operates at five levels, from the state to the incident. Communication between the levels is by runner and land-line phone, as well as higher technology means if they survive the disaster.

Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)

SEMS is the system required by Government Code §8607 (a) for managing response to multi-agency and multi-jurisdiction emergencies in California. SEMS provides for a multiple level emergency response organization and is intended to structure and facilitate the flow of emergency information and resources within and between the organizational levels. The SEMS system was created in response to the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire.

“There are five organizational/ response levels in SEMS:

1. Field Response: The field response level is where emergency response personnel and resources, under the command of an appropriate authority, carry out tactical decisions and activations in direct response to an incident or threat. This is the incident level- where the emergency response begins. SEMS regulations require the use of ICS at this level of an incident.
2. Local Government Level: Local governments include cities, counties, and special districts. Local governments manage and coordinate the overall emergency response and recovery activities between emergency agencies within their jurisdiction. This is the first coordination level above the Field Response. Local governments are required to use SEMS when their emergency operations center is activated or a local emergency is declared.
3. Operational Area: The Operational Area manages and/or coordinates information, resources, and priorities among local governments and serves as the link between the local government level and the regional level. At this level, the governing bodies are required in SEMS to reach consensus on how resources will be allocated in a major crisis affecting multiple jurisdictions or agencies. All member jurisdictions and agencies have equal influence in establishing priorities and formulating decisions.
4. Regional: Because of its size and geography, the state has been divided into six mutual aid regions, all with operating Emergency Operations Centers (EOC’s). The Regions EOC’s prioritize requests and provide support to the Operational Areas in their Regions. This is to provide for more effective application and coordination of mutual aid and other related activities.
5. State: The state level is located in Sacramento at the Office of Emergency Services (OES) headquarters. OES manages state resources in response to the emergency needs of the other levels. The state also serves as the coordination and communication link between the state and the federal disaster response system.”

SECTION 2.13 EMERGENCY ORDINANCES To meet a public emergency affecting life, health, property or the public peace, the City Council may adopt one or more emergency ordinances, but such ordinances may not levy taxes; grant, renew or extend a franchise; or authorize the borrowing of money in excess of twenty five percent (25%) of the tax receipts from the previous fiscal year. An emergency ordinance shall be introduced in the form and manner prescribed for ordinances generally, except that it shall be plainly designated as an emergency ordinance and shall contain, after the enacting clause, a declaration stating that an emergency exists and describing it in clear and specific terms. An emergency ordinance may be adopted with or without amendment or rejected at the meeting which it is introduced, but the affirmative vote of at least four (4) Councilmembers shall be required for adoption. After its adoption, the ordinance shall be posted as prescribed for other adopted ordinances. It shall become effective upon adoption or at such later time as it may specify. Every emergency ordinance, except an emergency appropriation, shall automatically stand repealed as of the 61st day following the date on which it was adopted, but this shall not prevent re-enactment of the ordinance in the manner specified in this section if the emergency still exists. An emergency ordinance may also be repealed by adoption of a repealing ordinance in the same manner specified in this section for adoption of emergency ordinances.