I am pleased to announce the appointment of Gerry Garzón as Director of Library Services for the City of Oakland, effective immediately. Mr. Garzón has been serving as the City’s Interim Library Director since December 2012. In his role as Interim Library Director, he worked with Library staff and the City Administration in developing the Library’s FY 2013-15 Budget. During this time, Mr. Garzón distinguished himself as holding a solid policy background with a strong vision for the future of library services for Oakland residents that strengthens valued, relevant services while leveraging technological innovations.
Over the next year, Mr. Garzón will be working with Library staff and the community in looking at new models of service online, and both inside and outside the Library; further integrating into the Library’s services and programs Oakland Reads 2020, an initiative of the Oakland Literacy Coalition; and, working with the Mayor to recruit more young, Oakland students for Library jobs.
Prior to serving as Interim Library Director, Mr. Garzón served as the Associate Director for the Library and has been with Oakland since 2000. He has worked in libraries in Colorado, California, and has been the administrator of a 16-state government agency working with governors and federal agencies on energy policy issues.
Mr. Garzón holds a Master of Library & Information Science degree from the University of Denver and a Bachelor’s Degree in Hispanic Literature from the University of California Santa Barbara. He is a member of the American and California Library Associations and serves on the Steering Committee of Oakland Reads 2020. In November, the California Public Library Advocates, a statewide organization, presented him with an award for outstanding service to the Oakland Public Library.
Please join me in congratulating Gerry on his appointment.
Respectfully submitted,
DEANNA J. SANTANA, Oakland City Administrator
– School Board Decisions on Bond Authorization –
The School Board requests comments from the community regarding the June 2014 ballot measure for bonds to fund the renovation of the High School Auditorium, Alan Harvey Theatre, 800 Magnolia Avenue. The School Board meetings will be held in the City Council Chambers starting at 7:00 pm on Wednesday, January 8 and 22.
Authorization Amount – $13 – $14 – $15 million –
The School Board will consider:
– What time period to choose from 13 to 25 years for the repayment of the bonds.
– The ratio of total repayment (principal and interest) to initial bond proceeds (principal) received.
– What tax rate per $100,000 of assessed property value should be imposed on Piedmont properties.
In June 2014, the Board of Education will present a bond measure to Piedmont voters to raise funds to renovate Alan Harvey Theatre to bring it up to current accessibility codes and standards. The Board held the first of three meetings to discuss bond financing options on December 11, 2013. Written presentation of options.
While inviting community input on bond financing for Alan Harvey Theatre, the Board determined it may be helpful for the public to have a financial summary of the District’s recently-completed seismic safety bond program. The seismic program to strengthen or replace school facilities to meet or exceed current standards for life safety involved the sale of $69.1 million in local bonds.
These bonds include a mix of current interest bonds, Qualified School Construction Bonds, and Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs). The financial summary includes information that was previously published in Citizen Oversight Committee reports, Board reports, reports from KNN Public Finance, and the Seismic Safety Bond Program Summary. The information has been compiled in this financial summary for the public’s convenience. To view the summary, go to: http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/bond/SSBP_Finance_Summary.pdf [Information includes current bond obligations for the Piedmont Unified School District]
Background-
As the primary venue for assemblies and performing arts at Piedmont and Millennium High schools, as well as providing space for the middle and elementary schools, broader educational, community and civic needs, the Alan Harvey Theatre is one of the District’s most heavily used facilities. Decades of steady use have taken their toll, and the facility is now in need of significant repairs and upgrades.
Earlier this year, the district hired Quatrocchi Kwok Architects (QKA) to examine the building’s integrity, prepare preliminary drawings and estimate the costs to repair the building. Working from initial drawings by Havens School designer Mark Becker, QKA’s resulting design was developed, reviewed and enthusiastically endorsed by a multi-stakeholder committee.
Further Information:
Click here to see renderings of the proposed design and to access the programming manual developed by Quattrocchi Kwok Architects
To see a schematic of the plans for the first floor of the theater, click here.
To see a schematic of the plans for the basement of the theater, click here.
Financial Summary of Current School Seismic Safety Bond Obligations
Information from Constance Hubbard, Superintendent of Schools –
The Alan Harvey Theater was built nearly forty years ago and is one of Piedmont’s most heavily used facilities. It serves as a classroom for five of the seven periods of the school day in addition to hosting after-school and evening performances. Even the Theatre’s lobby is used on a regular basis for small-group classes and rehearsals.
The Theater is overdue for improvements to bring it up to current accessibility codes and standards, including access to the stage, assistive listening capabilities, an accessible seating. The Board of Education plans to present a ballot measure to Piedmont voters in June 2014, to authorize the sale of bonds to pay for these improvements.
The financing options include: bonds that require payment of interest and principal throughout the term of the bond; bonds that defer interest and principal payments until bonds issued by the District in the 1990s are paid off; and a hybrid option.
Advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs of each.
In general, bonds that require payment of interest and principal throughout the term of the bond typically have lower interest rates and cost less overall, although the cost savings is diminished if there is a long repayment period. In contrast, bonds that defer repayment typically have higher interest rates and cost more overall, although they allow tax increases to be phased in as other bonds are retired, effectively keeping taxes relatively flat. For this reason, these bonds are often preferred by taxpayers on a fixed income. [ Written presentation of tax options.]
We need your input as soon as possible. Your feedback will be considered by the Board in their deliberations on a plan for Bond issuance, in order to enable the projected tax implications to be included in the ballot information packet. The structure of the bonds is not finalized until they are issued, which will be August 2014 upon approval of the voters in June 2014.
Watch the board meetings live on KCOM, Channel 27, or from the City website. The meetings will be archived for future retrieval on the City website. For agendas and meeting materials, click here.
For those who cannot attend the upcoming Board meetings, or who have questions or comments about the Alan Harvey Theatre financing options, please send questions or comments to Andrea Swenson, School Board Vice President at aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us 760 Magnolia Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611
Members of the School Board are:
Richard (Rick) Raushenbush – President –rraushenbush@piedmont.k12.ca.us
Andrea Swenson –Vice President –aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us
Ray Gadbois – rgadbois@piedmont.k12.ca.us
Sarah Pearson – spearson@piedmont.k12.ca.us
Roy Tolles (E. Leroy) – rtolles@piedmont.k12.ca.us
Editors’ Note: Information concerning the Bond Measure for the Alan Harvey Theatre renovation was provided in public documents by the Piedmont Unified School District.
The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures.
Restoration Design Group’s (RDG) schematic design for Blair Park was presented to the Park Commission on Thursday, December 12. The public was encouraged to attend. Submit comments to mfeldkamp@ci.piedmont.ca.us.
The Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) have commented on the schematic design, noting discrepancies with the terms of the City’s Blair Park Improvement Plan contract with RDG. One omission they note is the failure to include a pathway through the park. Read the complete FOMC list of omissions/ deviations from the contract.
RDG schematic design for Blair Park
The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Civic Association questioning the cost of additional taxpayer obligations to pay for Piedmont High School Auditorium upgrades.
Dec. 10, 2013
PUSD School Board
c/o Constance Hubbardre: 12/11/2013 Item 6B Bond Election Presentation
Dear President and Board,
In all likelihood the Board will go forward with a bond measure to be approved by Piedmont Taxpayers to finance improvements to Allen Harvey Theatre (“AHT”). I previously suggested that the Board be mindful of the already very high Piedmont taxpayer burden and keep that burden stable by delaying further bond debt. While my concern for overall taxpayer cost remains, floating a bond that will delay bond payments is undesirable.
Delaying taxpayer burden by the use of Capital Appreciation Bonds (“CABS”) essentially burdens taxpayers with what amounts to a negative amortizing mortgage with an above market interest rate. While CABs make the passage of bonds easier for public agencies, the use of CABs is now being questioned by a number of agencies and knowledgeable taxpayers.
With CABs, the total cost becomes substantially greater as both interest is added to principal and excess interest premiums are necessary to attract investors. If AHT is to be rebuilt through floating a bond measure, taxpayers should know and be willing to pay that cost now and not pass on an increased tax burden down the road for themselves or future residents. The assumption by KNN Public Finances that modest appreciation of home values will continue so modest increases in bond payments will be “net zero” is unrealistic. The recent sharp downturn in the Real Estate market from 2007 to 2012 contradicts KNN’s assumption.
Kindly only consider an approach that lets Piedmont taxpayers understand the real cost now and whether we are willing to pay that cost.
Respectfully,
Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
The City Council on December 2, 2013, adopted without voter approval an ordinance changing a zone use contrary to intent and wording in the City Charter. Zoning changes known as reclassifications have been under the strict authority of voters for well over a half century, perhaps since the origin of Piedmont in 1907. However, voter approval requirements were dismissed December 2, as the Council assumed the role of making zoning changes without voter approval by means of permanent Conditional Use Permits for individual parcels of land.
Charter language –
The City Charter states that voters must approve zoning use changes under “SECTION 9.02 ZONING SYSTEM”:
“The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgement be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property owner which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a single family dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above. ” City Charter . Emphasis added.
New interpretation of residential use –
The Council approved a new interpretation of residential use allowing single family residential use to be interchangeable with multiple family (apartments) residential use. Since its beginning, Piedmont has been a primarily single family residential city evidenced by history and the limited commercial buildings and apartments in the City. The state, working through staff and consultants, persuaded the current council to change the Charter interpretation without following traditional and established law requiring Piedmont voter approval.
The Charter states specifically:
“provided that any property owner which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a single family dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above. “
The Charter language shows a change in use is reclassification requiring voter approval – examples: “for uses ” and “only use.”
Piedmont governance is based on the City Charter –
The raison d’etre for the organization of Piedmont’s governance through the City Charter was to establish the principle that the very small community of Piedmont would let the citizens make major decisions about governance and content of the community to an extent difficult in larger cities where officials have greater authority to make zoning decisions for the citizens.
No Piedmont vote proposed –
Not once during Council consideration was a motion made to place the matter on a Piedmont ballot. Election timing, costs, ballot arguments were forgone in preference to Council determination of what was appropriate for Piedmont avoiding the risk of allowing voters to approve the change.
New City Attorney sways Council –
The pivotal junction in the Council’s decision was the opinion of a new temporary City Attorney, who verbally convinced the City Council that “residential is residential.” Leading to a decision that single family residential use allows multifamily residential use under a Conditional Use Permit when individually granted by the Planning Commission.
Council approval of zoning change –
The Council’s approval of Mixed Use (apartments in conjunction with business) in the Commercial Zone D changed the use allowed in the zone. Mixed use language has been placed into the revised Chapter 17 of the Piedmont City Code by the City Council. Where apartments were not allowed, they will now be allowed through a conditional use permit process in the Commercial zone. This change expands the multifamily residential zone parcel by parcel enlarging the multifamily zone. Establishing a pathway through new interpretations of the Charter, opens the door for all of Piedmont to change without voter approval.
Council avoids voter approval while potentially impacting all of Piedmont –
The Council forfeited the long held interpretation, intent and definition of Charter zoning language which defined the classification of a zone as its use. Piedmont zoning laws specifically allow single family dwellings in all areas /zones. The new interpretation establishes a gateway for all of Piedmont to have its zoning changed through new special permits approved by the City Council.
Precedent of interpretation of “residential is residential” –
Upon repeated questioning from Council members concerned about precedent setting based on the new interpretations, the City’s attorney stated no precedent would be set. There was no explanation on how terms as “classification /reclassification” and “residential is residential” could be established now, yet not set a precedent for future application of the same words. Nor was there an explanation on how parcel by parcel use changes leveled with the Charter.
Attorney based interpretation of Charter language on other cities rather than Piedmont. –
The advising attorney relied on current practices in other cities with no relationship to the Piedmont and expounded on the term “reclassification” as being a broad term applying only to a very consequential change in zoning when an entire zone would be changed to another use.
In fact, the opposite is true in Piedmont. It has been the practice of the City to require voter approval of use changes even when a single parcel’s use was changed from one use zone to another. This was implemented recently, when Piedmont voters readily approved reclassifying 801 Magnolia Avenue, the site of the current Piedmont Center for the Arts previously zoned Single Family Residential Zone to Public Facilities Zone. The process and ballot measure involved one parcel.
Previous Councils defined “classification as the use”. –
Another example of the established definition of “classification” as “use,” was in 1987 when the Council voted to create two separate single family residential zones, one for single family residential parcels with a minimum 10,000 square feet (Zone A) and another zone for single family residential parcels with a minimum 20,000 square feet (Zone E – Estate). This was done by the Council without voter approval on the basis that there was no change of use. The Council stated that the use within the zone was not changing, consequently it was not a new zone, even though one zone was reduced, Zone A, and Zone E, the Estate Zone was created out of Zone A. In Chapter 17 of the City Code, there are two separate single family residential zones, Single Family Residential (Zone A) and Single Family Residential Estate (Zone E), approved by the Council because the use did not change.
No written legal opinion on the language interpretation presented –
Despite the pivotal nature of the new definitions of classification and reclassification, as of this publication, no prior written legal opinion on new definitions and interpretations of the City Charter language have been provided to the public and, evidently, not to the Council or Planning Commission before their decision to accept the new interpretations. Several requests by the Piedmont Civic Association were made to City staff for prior written legal opinions, yet to date no response or information has been forthcoming.
Every Piedmont property impacted by the new interpretation of the Charter
The new interpretation of the Piedmont Charter language “classification and reclassification” and “residential is residential” creates a conundrum of issues. The most controversial is establishing an interpretation impacting every Piedmont property in every zone. Since every zone allows single family residential, every Piedmont parcel is a potential apartment site based on Council action allowing use changes.
Zoning change lacks Design Review Guidelines for Highland/Vista and Grand Avenue –
The change becomes effective January 1, 2014, however, the Council and Planning Commission have not considered laws to control height, set backs, parking, hardscape, etc. within the zone, leaving a void. Discussion of separate conditions for the two commercial zones (Highland/Vista and Grand Avenues) were deferred, while the ability to build Mixed Use projects on all properties will be law.
Zoning is important to Piedmont –
Zoning has been the mainstay of Piedmont. Neighboring communities have faltered, while Piedmont has remained stable and sound largely based on zoning. As the state continues to want higher density housing, the new interpretation of the City Charter removes the strength provided by the Charter language requiring voter approval prior to zoning changes.
Council approval of the new interpretation might be the most expedient appeasement of state requests, but it has weakened Piedmonters ability to govern their city through voters rights found in the City Charter.
Option available to City Council:
The City Council can act to consider the broader implications and future of Piedmont zoning by following the City Charter and allowing voters of Piedmont to vote on the proposed changes to Zone D Commercial, thus protecting the remainder of the City from “new definitions and interpretations” that
remove voters from the process.
Editors’ Note: The Piedmont Civic Association takes no position on whether apartments should be allowed in Commercial Zone D or any other Piedmont zone. The Piedmont Civic Association takes a definite position advocating adherence to the language in the Piedmont City Charter which states voters must approve changes in zoning use classifications.
The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures.
The following letter was sent to Mayor John Chiang prior to the December 2, City Council meeting when the Council approved the Mixed Use zoning change for Zone D Commercial.
Item #3 – 2nd Reading of Ordinance 712 N.S. – Amending Chapter 17 Correspondence Received before 4:30 PM on Monday, December 2nd
Dear John,
I read with great alarm that the City Council is considering adopting a policy which will allow the city to bypass current zoning laws by implementing the Conditional Use Permit process to change commercial and single family mixed use zoning to commercial and multi-family use.
While it appears that the proposal at the moment is limited to the Grand Avenue business corridor, I am very concerned that creating a precedence for bypassing the zoning here will provide precedence to take similar action in other areas of the city, especially when it would appear that this recommendation is the result of pressure from state regulators. It would certainly be a terrible thing to allow this process to permit multi-family development in the heart of the city in the commercial area adjacent to City Hall or in any residential neighborhood.
These concerns stem from the cavalier comments attributed to temporary counsel and the new deputy city attorney that changing from single family to multi-family is not a zoning change because “residential is residential.” This is absurd, and one only need look at the neighborhoods bordered by Oakland Avenue, near Plymouth Church, to see how these once lovely neighborhoods have been ruined. If this is truly the attitude of our new city attorneys, the city needs new lawyers, ones who are sensitive to this community and the desires of its citizens.
Further, while permitting the commercial Grand Avenue corridor to become a mixed use of multi- family residential and commercial may ultimately be a positive thing, this is an issue which should be put to the voters. Allowing this to occur under a Condition Use Permit process establishes a dangerous precedent, especially if one is to believe the construction changing from single to multi-family is not a zoning change as “residential is residential.” It is simply not true. It appears that the state is exerting undue pressure on city staff to ignore the law as it exists in this city. Where is the legal precedence to support this position? This is unacceptable. We should be providing support to the staff to stand firmly in support of the zoning that is presently in place.
At the meeting on December 2, 2013, I would ask that city counsel take a moment to review the city charter which provides in pertinent part:
“The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgement be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property owner which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a single family dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above. ” City Charter . Emphasis added.
It is clear that any reclassification of the existing zoning must be approved by the City Council and must also be approved by the electorate. The staff’s recommendation of a Conditional UsePermit to circumvent existing zoning is not an acceptable solution, with or without pressure from the state to do so. The council should not yield to this pressure.
Best regards,
Anne Gritzer
Editors’ Note: The opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association. The letter is posted on the City website.
– All Piedmont zones could be permitted to have multifamily housing or other use changes based on a new interpretation of Piedmont laws. –
The new interpretation of Piedmont’s Charter and Zoning law language presents a departure from 70+ years of Piedmont zoning history replaced by a controversial interpretation of the City Charter and opens the door to zoning changes without voter approval. The Charter states: “No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof..”
The proposal to allow multifamily housing to be built in Piedmont’s commercial areas through a Conditional Use Permit is on the City Council’s Consent Agenda at the upcoming December 2, 2013 meeting. Hesitantly, the Council okayed a first reading of the zoning ordinance on a 4-0 vote November 18. Swift final approval of the zoning ordinance is being urged by staff at the December 2 meeting.
Piedmonters appear largely unaware of staff’s controversial interpretation of the City Charter language.
The staff interpretation could ultimately impact all of Piedmont by permitting multifamily housing or other uses through Conditional Use Permits approved by the City Council rather than the voters. (Multifamily housing consists of two or more housing units on a single parcel, not including a second unit.)
According to Planning Director Kate Black, adding multifamily housing in Commercial Zone D has been discussed for years. The interpretation of allowing the Council to decide on zoning changes rather than voters has only come to public attention in recent weeks. On September 30, a Planning Commission workshop on the zoning changes was held in the Police Department Emergency Operations Center. The meeting was not recorded or broadcast on KCOM. Details of the zoning proposal were not made readily available prior to the meeting. Subsequently, on October 14, at the end of a 7-hour Planning Commission meeting the matter was taken up around midnight and the Commission voted to recommend approval by the City Council.
Black bases her recommended zoning changes on the General Plan Housing Element approved by the City Council in 2011 and her concern that the State of California might act against Piedmont for not implementing the approved plan required to be updated every 7 years.
Black noted that the State is interested in Piedmont’s Charter and “wants to get rid of language requiring single family housing.” Black said the State continues to ask, “Is the Charter a barrier to housing?” She verified that recent property sales show single family housing is the highest and best use of Piedmont property and the Charter is not a barrier to housing.
At the November 18 Council meeting, two new temporary consultants, Acting City Attorney Michelle Kenyon and Deputy City Attorney Judith Robbins voiced their opinion that changing from single family residential to multifamily residential was not a zoning /reclassification change because “residential is residential,” nor was going from commercial to mixed use a reclassification if only individual properties were allowed changes conducted under a Conditional Use Permit process.
Staff noted allowing parcel by parcel multifamily residential changes per a Conditional Use Permit process within Zone D Commercial or even single family zones did not constitute a reclassification of a zone because multifamily residential was being permitted on an individual property basis rather than by a total zone reclassification.
Black pointed to single family dwelling permitted within a zone as allowance for multifamily housing/apartments. She said it was a way to increase housing density. “All properties can be changed, and this applies to all uses,” according to Black.
The Planning Commission had requested different regulations, such as setbacks and lot coverage, for the Civic Center and Grand Avenue areas. Black stated this could be done in the future without a reclassification, although the regulations would need to be approved in a future phase. Immediate approval of the proposed zoning change, would not provide separate regulations for these two commercial areas.
Two members of the Council wanted the matter to go to voters.
During the November 18, meeting, Council members had various reactions to the proposed zoning change. Council member Jeff Wieler felt the approach was “sliding down a slippery slope” and said, “I think it should go to the voters, if it is changing the character of the City.” He noted zones have characteristics and citizens should be asked before changes are made. He advocated a reserve fund for housing litigation to maintain his beloved Piedmont.
Council member Garrett Keating likewise indicated he thought the change required a Piedmont vote under the reclassification section of the City Charter.
After questioning the staff, Council member Robert McBain deferred to staff recommendations and advice, but he wondered if people would ask, “How did this happen?” Referring to future Council and Planning Commission review of projects, he noted people should not be concerned as the ordinance did not withdraw the processes for applications.
Mayor John Chiang accepted the staff proposal, as not making a zoning change. Vice Mayor Margaret Fujioka was absent.
Use changes would be individually based property rights .
Zone C is Piedmont’s multifamily zone. Under the proposal for Zone D Commercial, the multifamily zone would expand using an “individual” Conditional Use Permit.
City Administrator Geoff Grote stated that Conditional Use Permit changes in other zones permitting multifamily dwellings or commercial development, although possible would be “improbable.” Acknowledging the State’s oversight of Piedmont’s zoning, he encouraged the Council to “fight the State on another occasion.”
Under recent laws and precedent, a Conditional Permit Permit is considered permanent running with the property and can only be revoked based on permit violation.
Local architect John Malick urged the Council to act quickly to encourage commercial development. He had devised a survey showing how Lake Shore and Grand Avenues in Oakland and College Avenue in Berkeley had developed their streets to serve their communities. He felt combining commercial and multifamily could make projects financially feasible.
See the following PCA article on the City Charter and voter’s rights.
http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2013/11/29/zoning-changes-what-are-piedmont-voter-rights/
– Piedmont appears headed for significant zoning changes without voter approval. –
Consent Calendar approval of zoning changes –
After little public involvement, zoning changes have been placed on the Monday, December 2, Council Consent Agenda to approve zoning changes to take effect within weeks on January 1, 2014. When items are placed on the Consent Agenda, public input is considered complete.
At its November 18, 2013 meeting, the City Council voted 4-0 (Councilmember Margaret Fujioka absent) to allow multifamily housing to be located in Piedmont’s commercial areas without voter approval as recommended by the Planning Department and Planning Commission through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) rather than seeking approval by Piedmont voters, as specified in the City Charter.
City Charter requirements –
The City Charter states that voters decide zoning changes under SECTION 9.02 ZONING SYSTEM:
“The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgement be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property owner which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a single family dwelling may be voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above. ” City Charter . Emphasis added.
The Charter defines zoning classifications by their uses. A change of use by Conditional Use Permit or otherwise has been considered a reclassification based on the City Charter language.
Piedmont’s 5 zones are described and classified as follows:
Zone A – Single family residential
Zone B – Public facilities (including parks)
Zone C – Multifamily density housing
Zone D – Commercial
Zone E – Single family residential estate
All Piedmont zones allow single family residential use, including the public facilities and commercial zones.
Ballot Measure –
An option for voter approval was not proposed by staff, yet to satisfy the Charter and the State, the City Council could place the matter on a ballot to change Zone D Commercial to mixed use/ apartment and businesses. This option would adhere to the traditional interpretation of the Charter language. Council members Wieler and Keating wanted the voters to decide the matter of zoning.
If the Council approves the zoning change, an interpretation and method of changing zones by CUP in all zones by the City Council rather than voters will have been set.
At the Council meeting, two new, temporary consultants, Acting City Attorney Michelle Kenyon and Deputy City Attorney Judith Robbins, voiced their opinion that changing from single family residential (allowed in all zones) to multiple housing residential was not a zoning /reclassification change because “residential is residential,” nor was going from commercial to mixed use a reclassification, as each property would be considered individually. CUP’s are considered permanent and run with the property.
The all “residential is residential” interpretation is a strong departure from historic interpretation and use characteristics of zones, Charter language, and intent of language in the City Code and Charter.
Based on staff comments, all Piedmont zones (single family, public facilities – parks, and commercial) could be changed by the Council to multifamily residential or other uses without voter approval by using the Conditional Use Permit process.
Staff report for December 2, 2013 City Council meeting.
Editors’ Note: The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose specific ballot measures. The Association does advocate for adherence to the Piedmont City Charter.
What is our legacy?
As a Boomer, the date, 11/22/63, marked my coming-of-age – and an entire generation’s for that matter. How could it not? Much like 9/11/01 has marked our children, the day President Kennedy was shot changed our perception of certainty and safety and morality irrevocably. Our steadfast beliefs in a handsome and charming president and his elegant wife, running a strong and righteous country that made the world a better place were shattered around 12:30 Central Standard Time on that November day.
Whether it was two bullets that hit the president and wounded then Texas Governor John Connally, as the Warren Commission concluded – or more, as put forth by a cottage industry of assassination theorists, the fact is: a guy (or two) shot our president. Just like a civilian with a gun shot President Reagan, and two different folks fired at Ford, and someone shot Theodore Roosevelt, and McKinley, Garfield, Lincoln and Jackson. And this sorry list fails to include the many presidents who avoided intended bullets and plots.
While I’ve despaired, like many, over the mounting – you could say grotesque, influence the National Rifle Association lords over Congress, I’ve also held onto a portion of JFK’s Inaugural Speech, addressing us as: My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. It’s a sentiment that has also marked us Boomers and continues to do so should we choose to act. I think we have no choice.
I believe the time has come to reconsider how we wish to leave our country for our children and theirs. As the anniversary of the school shooting in Newtown, Massachusetts, approaches, I believe that together, we have the ability to spare our children and country from more of these random acts of rage. In fact, no stranger to a despairing guy bearing a loaded gun, Senator Dianne Feinstein and her office welcome our help in legislating tougher gun control. We can make this a reality.
Denise Bostrom, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
– Counter to the City Charter, using a Conditional Use Permit process to add apartments rather than securing voter approval opens the door for zoning changes throughout Piedmont. –
At its meeting on Monday, November 18, the City Council will consider a proposal by the City Planning Department to make a significant zoning reclassification in the City without voter approval.
The Piedmont City Charter, the backbone of Piedmont’s existence as a City, would be circumvented by allowing multifamily apartments in Commercial Zone D without voter approval. The zoning change by ordinance would provide a mechanism called a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the apartments. All apartments granted a Conditional Use Permit in Zone D would be considered permanent. The zone reclassification from Commercial to Mixed Use runs counter to the City Charter, which stipulates only voters can reclassify zones. The Council approved General Plan and Housing Element language is relied upon by staff to preempt voter rights.
Why Piedmonters might be concerned?
Rather than the voters deciding, the Council will have set in place an established mechanism and precedent that could allow uses in all Piedmont zones to be changed by Council amendment of the City Code. Public property, including parks and single family residential properties, could potentially be impacted by a simple code/ordinance change rather than the Charter required voter enactment.
The currently allowed uses in Zone D are commercial or single family residential. There is no property right to build multifamily apartments in the zone. The City Charter states:
“The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof;” City Charter
Recently, during hearings on constructing sports fields in Blair Park, some proponents including a council member threatened opponents of the project with low-income housing in the park if the sports complex failed. Under the CUP mechanism if established as precedent, the now restricted use of public property could be changed through the City code rather than by the voters in order to allow construction of an apartment complex in the park or on other public properties.
The same Charter bypass principle would apply to single family residential zones. By changing the zoning code and allowing apartment buildings per CUP in the residential zones, the Council would bypass the Charter and thwart voters’ right to decide.
Both the Planning Department staff and the City’s consultant expressed concern about taking the zoning change to the voters.
The CUP process is an attempt to avoid a voter say in zoning changes knowing the addition of multiple family residential to the current single family residential requirement in the zone might not be approved by voters.
“The Charter requires a citywide vote for zoning map changes, which constrains the development of a variety of housing types, particularly high-density multi-family housing.”
Miller further advises that, “… it is unlikely that voters would approve the rezoning of land from single-family to multi-family use.” Barry Miller, Piedmont’s Zoning Consultant advised the City
An example of Piedmonters voting on Charter required issues is the February 2014 Election ballot measure on employee pension funding and borrowing money at currently reduced interest rates to pay down a part of the City’s pension obligation. The issue of the proposed zoning change, however, did not come up in time to be placed on the same ballot.
The staff proposal using the CUP process relies on Council approved plans rather than a Charter compliant public vote to achieve the goal of increased housing density in Piedmont, particularly for low income and affordable housing units.
Depending upon the conditions for allowing apartments in zone D commercial, Piedmont voters might not oppose a zoning change, despite the minimum density requirement of 12 dwelling units per net acre. However, in a neighborhood such as the Civic Center already impacted with parking and traffic, apartments might be a concern.
If the City Council approves the zoning /code change, only legal action by property owners or voters could enforce the City Charter.
The zoning change scheduled as a first reading of 140 pages of alterations to Piedmont’s Chapter 17 of the City code presents a reading challenge to citizens and the Council. To read the staff report and actual language in the ordinance go to:
http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2013-11-18/712_1st.pdf
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane