After two tentative agreements were rejected by AC Transit unions and a Governor’s 60 day cooling-off period, AC Transit workers have voted to approve the latest negotiated contract.  The AC Transit Board of Directors is scheduled to finalize contract approval on January 8, 2014.

The wage increase was settled at 9.5% spread over 3 years and retroactive to October of 2013.  Employee contributions to their health care was reduced to $125 per month.

Piedmonters heavily use the P and C lines that provide direct service from Piedmont to San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal.  Also, popular with Piedmonters is the 11 line that originates in the Piedmont Civic Center at Highland Way on its way to downtown Oakland via Oakland and Harrison Avenues.

For additional information on the contract click on the following:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/12/27/ac-transit-workers-approve-tentative-agreement-strike-averted/

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/AC-Transit-workers-approve-3-year-contract-5098616.php

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=resources/traffic&id=9374112

For information on how to use AC Transit click on the following:

http://www.actransit.org/customer/contact-us/

http://www.actransit.org/trip-planner/

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont will host a candidate’s forum on January 9, 2014 at 7:30 pm in the City Council Chambers, Piedmont City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.  The community is cordially invited to meet the three candidates running for three seats on the Piedmont City Council: Teddy King, Tim Rood and incumbent Jeffery Weiler, as well as the three candidates running for two seats on the Board of Education: Doug Ireland, Amal Smith and Hari Titan.  The evening will conclude with a presentation of municipal Measure A, which would authorizes the refinancing of certain existing debt obligations to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

The candidates will present opening and closing remarks and respond to written questions from the audience.  League member Betsy Andersen will serve as the evening’s moderator.  Those unable to attend are invited to view a simulcast of the event on KCOM-TV, channel 27.  This year, for the first time, questions may be submitted by viewers at home via text message.  The text number will be announced on the air.

Questions?  Please contact Julie McDonald at julieemcdonald@yahoo.com.

 – 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]

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 Hubbard

re: 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.