back

Dimond Message Board

Zoning codes
Janet Broughton
Janet Broughton: August 18th Planning Commission meeting

Janet Broughton

I am very troubled by a new proposal for sweeping changes to Oakland's zoning regulations. The proposal will be considered at the Planning Commission's 8/18 meeting (6:30, City Hall). Below are 3 measured paragraphs of information, followed by incensed opinion.

The proposal calls for the creation of the position of "Zoning Hearing Officer." The Hearing Officer would be a CEDA employee who would take over many functions currently carried out by the Planning Commission. For example, he or she would reach decisions about Major Conditional Use Permits for most residential care facilities, extensive impact civic activities, convenience markets, large telecom structures, and alcoholic beverage sales.

The Hearing Officer would reach his or her decision on the basis of a "minimal" staff report comprising a "brief project description, [a description of the] key issue, [and] correspondence to date." While these decisions could be appealed to the Planning Commission, the Commission's decision could not be appealed to the City Council. Hearings conducted by the Hearing Officer would not be televised.

The proposal also changes the way in which Minor Variances would be handled. One change would be that the City would no longer be obliged to send out notices of applications for Minor Variances to neighboring properties.

    There are a lot of bad things about this proposal.
  1. We would lose the guarantee of notice for many issues that concern us; we would lose the chance to see important hearings on KTOP; we would lose the right to appeal many really big issues to our City Council; we would see the standards for staff reports plummet.
  2. Citizens have bought into many recent changes in zoning regulations (e.g., about RCFs, alcoholic beverage sales and telecom structures) on the understanding that projects with the potential for high impact will receive thorough study, thoughtful evaluation from several perspectives, and opportunities for appeal. This proposal would betray the trust citizens put in their government when they helped to create and support these regulations.
  3. But by far the worst thing about this proposal is that it would replace deliberation by a diverse and independent panel of commissioners with the ruling of one City employee -- about changes in our neighborhoods that are of overwhelming importance to what it is like for us to live in Oakland. If the Planning Commission is overburdened, then the solution is to create a second commission (the "Zoning Commission," perhaps) that could shoulder part of the load.  

Janet Broughton
August 18th Meeting

Residents of a dozen Oakland neighborhoods stayed at the Planning Commission meeting until 12:30 a.m. last night to make sure the message got through: we don't like the idea of replacing the Planning Commission with a Hearing Officer for 90% of the issues that matter to us most. Here were the main concerns raised:

  1. Under the new plan, most of the Conditional Use Permits that matter most in established neighborhoods would be routed to the Hearing Officer. (CUPs would go directly to the Commission only if they were for projects involving more than one acre of land or more than 25 units of housing.)
  2. For communities working on commercial revitalization, the existing CUP process is their only powerful tool; developers and businesses work harder on putting together good proposals when they know they will be subject to Commission scrutiny and the possibility of appeal to the City Council.
  3. Appealing the decision of the Hearing Officer to the Commission would apparently still cost the usual $485. Citizens should not have to pay for access to independent review.
  4. The Hearing Officer would not be independent but would be answerable to the head of CEDA, the City Manager and the Mayor.
  5. The hearings conducted by the Hearing Officer would not be televised, and they might be held during the day, when most residents cannot attend.
  6. The new procedures appeared to be designed to make it easier for developers to get approval for projects that are not good for neighborhoods.
  7. The new proposal was not routed through the Design Review Working Group.
  8. For so-called Administrative cases, which would not go to either the Hearing Officer or the Commission, notice to nearby property owners should be required, not optional, and should be more than 75 feet. (These cases include Minor CUPs and many Minor Variances.)
  9. Hearings before a Hearing Officer would not involve the diverse perspectives and open debate that characterize the Commission.
  10. Several recent revisions to ordinances concerning telecommunications and residential care facilities were based on the assumption that the existing CUP procedures would continue to be in place.
  11. A better solution to any problems with the current system would be to establish an independent zoning adjustment board.

In response, the Commission explained that they had tried to get the word out about their proposal at an earlier stage in its development, but that no neighborhood representatives showed up at the May public hearing devoted to this issue. They expressed their appreciation for the points raised last night, and said that they had themselves worried about many of the same things.

They seemed especially open to further study of several questions: where the dividing line should be between projects that go to the Hearing Officer and those that go straight to the Commission; whether appeals to the Commission should be free; whether Hearing Officer hearings should be televised and held in the evening; whether the Hearing Officer should be a City staffer or in some way independent; whether the Planning Commission should have the power to remove an individual from the position of Hearing Officer; and even perhaps whether a second Commission for permit-processing should be created.

Last night's public hearing will be continued at a later date. For now, the proposal is referred back to the Commission's Policies and Procedures Committee, which will hold a hearing devoted to this subject in October. Before that hearing, staff will prepare a new report to respond to the points raised by last night's speakers.

If you want to receive a copy of that report, or reports dated May 5th and August 18th,