Piedmont Police Department is currently investigating four robberies that have occurred in the City of Piedmont during the last three months.  

The first case occurred on the 200 block of Greenbank Avenue.  Two suspects robbed three construction workers in the backyard of a home under construction.  The two suspects were described as Black males, in their late teens, 5’8’’ – 5’10’’.  The suspects fled the scene on foot.

The second case occurred on the 200 block of Hampton Road.  Two suspects robbed two landscape workers along the sidewalk area.  One of the suspects struck one of the victims in the head with a blunt object during the robbery.  The two suspects were described as Black males, in their teens, average height.  The suspects fled on foot to an unknown vehicle which was possibly waiting around the corner.

The third case occurred on the 200 block of Sea View Avenue.  Three suspects robbed three construction workers in the backyard of a home under construction.  One of the suspects struck one of the victims in the head with a blunt object during the robbery.  Two of the suspects were described as Black males, in their teens, average height.  The third suspect was described as possibly mixed race (Black/Hispanic) in his late teens or early twenties, average height.  The suspects fled on foot and are believed to have fled the scene in an older white or cream-colored Mercedes Benz which possibly fled down Sea View Avenue, toward Mandana Boulevard.

The fourth case occurred last night, August 30, 2016, at approximately 8:00 pm.  Three armed suspects entered a residence located in the 200 block of Estates Drive in the City of Piedmont while the residents were home.  The suspects isolated the residents in an area of the home and ransacked the house stealing cash and jewelry.  The suspects fled the scene on foot and possibly got into an unknown vehicle.  None of the residents were injured during the incident.  The three suspects were described as Black males, in their late teens to early twenties, average height and build.

The Piedmont Police Department has communicated these incidents through local media as well as targeted outreach to the contractors and workers who commonly work in the community. Similar robberies have occurred in neighboring jurisdictions, and the Department is communicating and working closely with those agencies.  We are also using all of our technological tools, including the Automated License Plate Readers, to assist in our efforts. Additionally, we have increased our staffing to follow up on existing leads and engage in proactive enforcement activity.

We ask all residents to be cognizant of individuals who appear to be engaged in suspicious activities and immediately report it to the Piedmont Police Department.   Although we are working hard to prevent any more robberies in our City, the reality is that it could happen again.  With that in mind please remember to practice basic crime prevention by:

• Securing the access points to your residence
• Utilize lighting 
• Minimize visual barriers to your property such as overgrown landscaping, as these areas provide cover and concealment for criminals.

You may choose to have a neighborhood watch meeting to discuss these issues. Please feel free to reach out to Mr. Lyman Shaffer, Chair of the City of Piedmont Public Safety Committee, to schedule a meeting.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to contact Chief Rikki Goede at (510) 420-3010 or Captain Jeremy Bowers at jbowers@piedmontpd.org or at (510) 420-3012.  

Proposed Mountain View Cemetery Expansion Project in Oakland

Plans, EIR, Comments –

PARKING REQUIREMENTS, PARKING SPACE SIZES, ZONE USE CHANGES, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, SETBACKS, INCREASED STAFF APPROVALS , ETC. –

Monday, July 11, 2016 at the end of the regular Planning Commission meeting, proposed changes to Piedmont’s zoning ordinance Chapter 17 of the City Code will be considered.

In general, the proposals reduce restrictions and requirements for building in Piedmont, easing approvals. Planning Staff is proposed to play a larger role in approving building permit design review and various applications currently determined by the Planning Commission. Reduced parking requirements, accessory structures permitted within setbacks, variances, zone use changes, in ground improvements eliminated as lot coverage, and other permissive changes are being considered.

The Chapter 17 hearings have all been scheduled at an undetermined time at the end of lengthy Commission meetings.  

Each consideration by the Planning Commission has been labeled a “Public Hearing.” Those requesting notice of the hearings have been advised.

“two special [future] sessions of the Planning Commission have been scheduled for the evenings of Tuesday, July 26 and Tuesday, August 30, 2016, both of which will be dedicated to discussions of Chapter 17 revisions.”

The Planning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council, who will determine what changes should be made to Chapter 17.

Below is the Staff report Conclusion prepared for the July 11, 2016 Commission meeting.

CONCLUSION: There are many reasons to make amendments to Chapter 17. Some revisions, such as eliminating barriers to housing and allowing reasonable accommodation for persons with special needs. are mandatory in order to bring the Code into compliance with the General Plan and Housing Element. Other revisions are more discretionary but equally important to better serve the community. In the preparation of this report, staff’s intent was to continue the discussion on topics that may lead to the improvement of the Code, and to seek direction from the Commission on those revisions it would like to see incorporated into the Code.

NEXT STEPS: During Planning Commission meetings in the next few months, staff will return with subsequent reports outlining additional potential revisions to the Code, including but not limited to: changes to the uses and/or regulations for Zone D; refinement of the design review criteria for multistory and upper level additions; and expanded list of projects that would be exempt from design review or that would be subject to Administrative Design Review; modifications to the regulations of wireless communications facilities.

As the Commission provides direction on the revisions it would like to incorporate into the Code staff will create a draft revised Chapter 17. Once all topics have been discussed and directions provided, staff will bring the draft to the Commission for review and request that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council or direct staff to make further refinements to the revisions and return again with the draft.

Once the Planning Commission has made its recommendation, staff will bring the draft revised Chapter 17 and the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council for its consideration.

The discussions related to this project have occurred and will continue to occur at regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings. In addition, two special sessions of the Planning Commission have been scheduled for the evenings of Tuesday, July 26 and Tuesday, August 30, 2016, both of which will be dedicated to discussions of Chapter 17 revisions.

The project may also be discussed at a special joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council before a draft of the ordinance is considered by the Council. During the coming months in which revisions to Chapter 17 will be considered, there will be multiple opportunities for public input, and staff will continue to try to reach out to as many Piedmonters as possible.

Staff has already assembled a list of residents who wish to receive notices and staff reports directly via email. Anybody who wishes to be added to the list may contact the planning office by calling 510-420-3039 or by emailing kjackson@ci.piedmont.ca.us. This report and other staff reports and minutes of Commission meetings at which this project to revise Chapter 17 was discussed can be found on the City’s website at: http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/planning-commission-to-consider-changes-to-planning-code/

READ the full staff report for the July 11, 2016 meeting here.

See bottom of this article for additional links.

PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS –

City Code Chapter 17 Modifications

DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2016.  Emphasis added.

Interim Planning Director Jackson began the discussion by reviewing the Chapter 17 revisions that the Commission directed Staff to make at the April 11 Planning Commission meeting. He also noted the topics for immediate discussion.

Prior to the discussion on each topic, Interim Planning Director Jackson provided the Commission with context for the comprehensive revisions to the zoning code. He explained that some revisions are proposed to address the goals and policies of the General Plan and other policy documents, but that a host of other revisions are proposed to better serve the public interest. He referred to research on the approval of variances in Piedmont to question whether the public interest is being served with the current code.

Interim Planning Director Jackson reported that 80% of the variances acted upon since 1996 have been approved. He pointed out that this figure required a review of the City’s current code requirements. He also noted that applicants have to pay a fee for variance applications. He explained that during the 2009 General Plan update and the 2015 Housing Element Update, Staff recognized that the public would be served by modifications to the Municipal Code.

Correspondence was received from: Michael Henn, David Hobstetter. Interim Planning Director Jackson led the Commission through the following discussions of various potential changes to the Municipal Code:

Reduce Parking Space Dimensions

At the April 11 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners directed Staff to draft code language for the reduction in the parking space dimensions, but they were not yet ready to choose what those dimensions might be. Upon direction from the Commission, Staff conducted a survey of parking space sizes required by other jurisdictions and collected more information regarding parking variances in Piedmont. Interim Planning Director Jackson reported that the survey of other jurisdictions does not provide a clear indication of what size parking space might be appropriate, but that variance research from Piedmont shows a 90% approval rating in variances for parking space size. He suggested that the Commission might consider reducing the minimum parking space size to 8.5 feet by 18 feet.

The Commission unanimously directed Staff to move forward with the code modifications related to revising the parking space dimensions to 8.5 feet by 18 feet.

Relax the Requirements on the Number of Parking Spaces Required

Interim Planning Director Jackson reported that many jurisdictions simply require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit or allow additional parking spaces to be uncovered or tandem. He also reported that variance research from Piedmont shows an 85% approval rating in variances from the required number of parking spaces. He suggested that the Commission might consider allowing a parking exception for up to four bedrooms, allowing tandem or uncovered parking to comply, or relaxing the parking requirements in other ways.

The Commissioners discussed the topic at length, and questioned whether the parking requirements should be based on the number of bedrooms, the house square footage, the intensity of use, the parking situation in the neighborhood, or other site characteristics. Commissioner Theophilos acknowledged the Commission’s leniency, but was hesitant to make changes to the code for fear that the 15% of projects that are currently not approved would be permitted. He argued that the decision should be subjective and based on the parking situation in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Ramsey suggested that the current regulations are similar to those you would find in a more auto-oriented community, and he warned that strict compliance with these regulations would slowly change the neighborhoods. He expressed concern for the high approval ratings of variances, which he said indicates that the Code is not in line with the built environment. He suggested that innovative solutions, such as tandem parking, would help to keep the historic character of Piedmont while still accommodating the intent of the code.

Commissioner Jajodia questioned whether adding a fourth bedroom was really intensifying the use of a property and argued that the threshold for adding another parking space should be much greater than adding one bedroom. She also suggested that regulations that are too restrictive can sometimes preclude good design.

Ultimately, the Commission came to a consensus and directed Staff to move forward with the following code modifications:

 – Allow a property owner with nonconforming parking to add bedrooms, up to 4 total, if

uncovered and/or tandem spaces exist on site that are not in the 20-foot front (street) setback. The total number of spaces should be that required by code: two.

– Modify Section 17.16.1 to allow consideration of available street parking and existing street width as criteria in determining as to whether to strictly apply the parking requirements. Such a modification would provide flexibility to require covered non-tandem parking if on-street parking is congested and the proposed construction is seen to have an adverse impact on neighborhood congestion.

Allow Accessory Structures within the Side and Rear Setbacks

Interim Planning Director Jackson asked the Commission for direction on whether to allow limited-sized Accessory Structures within the side and rear setbacks. He explained that this change would allow small garages to be located along alleys and rear and side property lines.

The Commission unanimously directed Staff to move forward with the code modifications related to measuring setbacks to Accessory Structures.

Amend Structure Coverage to Not Include Site Features

Council Asked to Authorize Contract with Ray’s Electric

The Kingston-Linda-Rose Triangle is on the City Council July 5 agenda.  The Council will receive a report recommending authorization of a contract with Ray’s Electric for their “base bid of $207,362. ” Three ornamental street lamps will be a feature of the Triangle.

The Capital Improvement Project Review Committee stated in their June 2016 recommendation to the City Council the following:

Linda/Kingston Triangle: $175,000 (As proposed by the CIP Review Committee)

This project was conceived many years ago and began to gain traction with the increased neighborhood involvement in 2013. The execution of this project will benefit the local residents and the City of Piedmont in many ways. It will foster increased safety for pedestrians, help mitigate traffic speed, increase awareness of drivers, remove unnecessary paving, and create an improved gateway into Piedmont. It should be noted that this project is the focus of the Piedmont Beautification Foundation’s spring fundraising efforts, thus promoting another public/private partnership for improvements that benefit the residents of Piedmont.

The Linda-Kingston Neighborhood has pledged $4,610, Piedmont Garden Club has pledged $2,000, and the Piedmont Beautification Foundation (PBF) has pledged a total of $31,305 toward the current estimated construction budget for the Triangle of $283,594.

• CIP Fund: $ 140,650 
• Measure B Bike/Ped (Fund #131): $ 65,689
• Gas Tax Fund (Fund #121): $ 39,340
• Private Pledges: $ 37,915
• Total Available Funding $ 283,594

The project provides a pedestrian triangle for pedestrians crossing from the City of Oakland side of the intersection to Piedmont along the southwest side in order to approximate the short pedestrian crossings across Rose and Kingston Avenues on the northeast side of Linda Avenue. It is hoped to also auto traffic.  The traffic study by traffic engineer consultant Kittelson & Associates, Inc. “made a stronger justification for the installation of “stops” at each intersection where there currently were none.” Following extensive Piedmont staff coordination with the City of Oakland, Stops were installed in October 2015.

The “current estimated construction budget ” in the staff report does not include the scope of services, leaving it unclear who will provide the masonry work, the landscaping and installation of the irrigation system.

The expense of the staff time devoted thus far and continuing is not included in the project budget presented.  For example, extensive staff negotiations with the City of Oakland and the new Parks and Projects Manager developed the Final Landscape Plan and  is coordinating “the design of the irrigation system with our consultant…”

Read the staff report here.

Read the Kittelson & Associates, Inc Kingston-Linda-Rose Triangle report here.

The following letter was written to the Piedmont Planning Commission opposing a Building Energy Saving Ordinance (BESO). 

June 9, 2016

Piedmont Planning Commission
c/o Asst Planner Emily Alvarez

Re: June 13 Hearing on BESO 

Dear Planning Commission,

The June 13, 2015 Staff report summarizes at page three 72% of residents and 72% of Real Estate professionals are opposed to any form of BESO. Additionally the most onerous form of BESO, the “date-certain” requirement for all homes had a low 1 in 14 approval rating. Considering the overwhelmingly negative community response to BESO, this matter should be tabled.

PG&E provides a wealth of free information. Double paned windows, adequate insulation and other energy conservation issues are easily and readily understood and available; most of us know how to make our homes more energy efficient and have taken steps in that direction as family budget allows. A separate Energy Audit at owner expense is not needed. While the City of Berkeley BESO includes buildings by a certain date, the Berkeley BESO phase-in schedule applies to all “building(s) except houses 1-4 units.”

(http://www.cityofberkeley.info/BESOschedule/).

This is a regressive ordinance that would potentially place considerable increased costs on fixed income seniors in older homes. If required at time of sale, those seniors in older homes will now have a report on home energy efficiency used against the sales price. Another layer of government is not needed in an already complex landscape.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

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

The Park Commission heard this request and also heard from adjacent neighbors. Originally in the strip there were American Elm trees planted and residents at 208 Ramona received permission to remove them, but there was significant sucker growth afterwards. The City in managing that created a hedge of elm suckers. Those suckers were damaging properties on Ramona and the City removed the elms and replaced the planting area with low Agapanthus.

In 2012, after review by Commissioners, the end results were that several Commissioners were going to research drought-tolerant shrubs in lieu of planting street trees or possibly a Bay Friendly landscape installation and at that point there was no additional action taken except that the Agapanthus were installed.

Since that time, the fence which residents did not like at the end of Lorita had been replaced and the Agapanthus has been watered by one of the adjacent neighbors. Before the Commission today is a petition to have the City review existing street trees which are Ginkgoes and determine whether they can infill as well as remove the Agapanthus and put street trees in that strip.

Staff was on site talking with neighbors and held an informal meeting with the owner of 36 Monticello who volunteered to pay for 5 new street trees on the Lorita frontage of his property. Even though the petition did not include this address, since it takes up half of that side of Lorita Avenue, the Commission can consider whether it wants to accept the donation of 5 street trees and install them.

Regarding the existing number of trees, Ms. Kent stated on the east side of the street approximately every home could handle 2 trees which is the existing pattern.

Staff has also received additional correspondence, one from a resident at 28 Lorita Avenue with a pledge to water anything that is planted in the non- irrigated replacement strip. Also in the packet are two resident letters whose rear yard borders on the end of Lorita and they sent comments with concerns that if street trees were planted at the end of the street, it would add shade to their rear yard. They asked that plant materials be installed that would only rise to the height of the fence.

Staff suggested a substitution in the packet and said several residents are present to speak.

Public testimony was received from:.

Maggie Spencer, Devan Joseph, Andrew Coleman, and Patricia Makinen voiced their support for the petition. They stated their belief that the addition of new trees and removal of acacia trees to Lorita Avenue will beautify the street and give it more of a neighborhood feeling.

Condominium roofs now level with Oakland Avenue Bridge – 

The seven townhouses designed by Jarvis Architects are now rising on the site of the former PG&E substation.  Four of the condominium units front on Linda Avenue, one at the corner of Linda Avenue under the Oakland Avenue bridge over Linda.  Three of the condominiums have views of the bridge support structure, roadbed, future public stairway and/or adjacent multi-family building on Oakland Avenue.

Demolition of the decommissioned Linda Avenue PG&E structure also removed the pathway leading from Linda Avenue up to Oakland Avenue beside the bridge. When construction of the townhouse development at 408 Linda Avenue is completed, a new stairway will be installed on the sliver of City land between the seven townhouses and the bridge, according to Patrick Zimski, Piedmont Station, LLC.

A preliminary design of the replacement pathway was presented to the Piedmont Park Commission on January 7, 2015.  Kevin Leveque, the landscape architect for Piedmont Station LLC explained that due to the 25% slope, it will be necessary to incorporate steps in the new replacement pathway.  The City is expected to install an ADA compliant connection between Oakland and Linda Avenues on the north side of the bridge.

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 Piedmont Park Commission will meet on Wednesday, March 2 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.  The meeting will be broadcast live on cable Channel 27 and on the City’s website.

Agenda for the meeting:

• Approval of February 3, 2016 minutes
• Update on Ranleigh Way Street Tree Planting
• Consider the removal of Main Park declining Mt Vernon Pin oak tree and donation of replacement tree by East Bay Garden Club
• Update on the planting design and the impact of the CA Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements on Linda/Kingston Triangle
• Update Piedmont Garden Club donation on behalf of Piedmont resident Jane Lee
• Update on Hampton Park Master Plan
• Update on Arbor Day
• Monthly Maintenance report