September 1, 2010

(By Electronic Transmission)

Zoning Update Committee

Oakland City Planning Commission

Dear Commissioners:

Subject: Citywide Rezoning Update—Draft proposals for “Area 2” and various loose ends

Oakland Heritage Alliance is generally very pleased with the proposed zoning text and map
changes. We would like to commend staff for crafting a package of proposals that skillfully
reflects general plan objectives, including the Historic Preservation Element, and builds on the
positive features of Oakland’s neighborhoods and commercial districts.

The following comments, like our previous comments for Area 1 submitted on July 14 and
August 4, mostly involve loose ends and fine tuning. In some cases they reiterate our July 14 and
August 4 comments but with further explanation or refinement.

1. Reduce the proposed 45’ and 60’ height limits to 35’ and preserve front setbacks
along portions of International Boulevard and East 12th Streets between 9th and14th
Avenues. These frontages are part of the large Clinton ASI and mostly have 1-2 story
buildings with maximum heights that generally appear to be below 35’. (See Attachment
1 photos.) However, the height map proposes 45’ and 60’ in most cases.

The 45 and 60’ height limits should be reduced to 35’, except for the areas between 13th
and 14th Avenues that are outside the ASI and the south side of East 12th Street between
9th and 12th Avenues. (See Attachment 2 marked-up height map.)

In addition, the area contains significant concentrations of detached late 19th and early
20th century residential structures with front yard setbacks. There should be a provision to
maintain these setbacks. One possibility would be to take these frontages out of the
“Corridor” zoning classification and designate them RM-2, RM-3 or possibly RU-1 to
maintain the front setbacks. Another possibility would be to introduce a provision into the
Corridor zoning rules that preserves major frontages with existing front setbacks.

2. Preserve front setbacks along ASI portions of International Boulevard between 1st
and 5th Avenues. These frontages contain remarkably uniform Colonial Revival houses
with front setbacks. (See Attachment 3 photo.) See Comment 1 for possible approaches.
3. Retain the existing 45’ height limit within the “Downtown Fruitvale” ASI - -
International Boulevard (31st-35th Avenues) and Fruitvale Avenue (East 12th-
East15th/Farnham Streets). These frontages have mostly two story commercial
buildings with some one and three story structures. Most heights appear below 35’ with
some up to 45’. Existing zoning is C-28, with a 45’ height limit and 3.0 FAR.

As noted in the staff report, the Landmarks Board recommended that the staff-proposed
75’ height limit be reduced to the existing 45’ within the ASI, while considering height
limits over the staff-proposed 75’ outside the ASI. Staff responded with a 45’ height limit
in some portions of the ASI while retaining 75’ in other portions.

OHA Recommendation: Adopt the Landmarks Board recommendation to retain the 45’
height limit within the ASI.

Although the ASI frontages are in close proximity to the Fruitvale BART Station, there is
still ample opportunity at other locations in close proximity to the station for taller
buildings. The 45’ height limit is especially important along key frontages such as a very
fine grouping of two story Edwardian commercial buildings along the west side Fruitvale
Avenue between East 12th Street and International Boulevard. (See Attachment 4 photo.)

4. Change the proposed CC-2 zoning along Thirteenth Avenue below East Nineteenth
Street to CN-2. Thirteenth Avenue is relatively narrow and not a “corridor” in the same
sense as International Boulevard and East 12th Street. Historically, Thirteenth Avenue
was a very attractive pedestrian-oriented retail street with small shops.

With its numerous surviving Victorian and Edwardian commercial buildings, it has the
potential to regain this character. (See attachment 5 photo). The CN-2 Zone’s limits on
establishments over 5,000 square feet would be help promote this character, while the
proposed CC-2 Zone lacks such limits. The CC-2 Zone also allows by-right disruptive
nonpedestrian uses such as Automotive Fee Parking and Automobile Sales and Rentals
which are highly restricted in the CN-2 Zone.

5. Either retain the CUP requirement for three or more units in RM-4 and UR-1 or
change the zoning for some of these areas to RM-3. RM-4 and RU-1 are the so-called
R-50 "plus" zones. The existing R-50 Zone requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for
three or more units on a lot. However, under the staff proposal, the CUP requirement is
limited to projects with five or more units in RM-4 and eliminated in RU-1.

At least some of the areas proposed for RM-4 and RU-1 have an R-50 character of mostly
1-2 units, such as many R-50 portions of the Clinton Neighborhood and the current R-50
area centered at Pearl Street and Oakland Avenue. (See Attachment 6 photos.)

The CUP requirement should be retained for these RM-4 and RU-1 areas, especially
since they are effectively being "upzoned” from R-50's density of approximately
1,500 sq. ft. of lot area per unit to RM-4's and RU-1's 1,100 sq. ft. per unit.

2
 Alternatively, the portions of these R-50 areas with predominantly 1-4 units could be
zoned RM-3 (1,500 sq. ft. per unit with a CUP requirement for three or more units),
which is close to the existing R-50 zoning. A finer grained zoning pattern may be
appropriate for some of these areas, with RM-4 or RU-1 mapped for higher density
portions and RM-3 mapped for lower densities.

In response to this issue, the August 04, 2010 staff report states that “the RM-4 Zone is
intended to maximize the General Plan density of Mixed Housing Type”. However, it is
not clear why such maximizing is desirable for some of the RM-4 proposed areas.

The August 04, 2010 staff report also states that requiring a CUP for the RU-1 Zone is
inappropriate because “the RU-1 is considered to be an Urban Residential District and
therefore multifamily development does not require a CUP regardless of the number of
units”. However, RU-1 is often proposed in areas that transition between lower and
higher densities. Higher density projects in these areas need to maintain the livability of
neighboring lower density properties. A CUP is a good way to help preserve such
livability.

6. Do not allow reduced setbacks for small lots in areas with mostly larger lots, unless
consistent with existing setbacks on adjacent lots. Development on small lots should
be subject to the same rules as other lots. A small lot is inherently not able to support as
much development as a larger lot. The proposed reduced front yard setbacks can be
especially disruptive to the architectural integrity of a block face if they are less than the
existing setbacks of other buildings on the block face.

The August 04, 2010 staff proposal seeks to address compatibility with existing front
yard setbacks by requiring a small lot to conform with the normally required front
setback if at least 60% of the eight closest lots on the same block face also conform.

We appreciate staff’s effort to address this issue, but in many neighborhoods, existing
front setbacks are slightly below the required setbacks of 15’ or 20’, so the staff
mitigation would not apply. For example, neighborhoods with a required 20’ setback
often have existing houses with 15-18’ setbacks. In these cases, a lot that is less than 35’
wide or 3,500 sq. ft. could have a 10’ front setback, which would still disrupt the
streetscape. (See Attachment 7 diagram showing this condition.)

A better approach would be to allow reduced front setbacks on substandard lots if both
buildings on each side also have substandard setbacks and basing the project’s front
setback on the greatest enclosed projection of the greater adjacent setback. This approach
is already in the Zoning Regulations for many zones and should be expanded to all zones
where front setbacks are required.

We still believe that the current approach of using a special zone (R-36) to address small
lots should be retained. There may be areas where the R-36 Zone is not currently
mapped where it should be mapped.

3
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact Naomi Schiff at 835-1717 or
naomi@17th.com if you would like to discuss these comments.

Sincerely,

Naomi Schiff and Christopher Buckley

for Oakland Heritage Alliance

Attachments:

1. Photos of International Boulevard and East 12th Street between 9th and 14th Avenues
2. Marked-up height map for International Boulevard and East 12th Street between 9th and
14th Avenues
3. Photos of International Boulevard between 1st and 5th Avenues
4. Photo of east side of Fruitvale Avenue between International Boulevard and East 12th
Street.
5. Photo of 13th Avenue at International Boulevard
6. Photos of 1-4 unit houses in Clinton Neighborhood proposed for RU-1 zoning.
7. Diagram of staff-proposed 10’ front setbacks for substandard lots.

By electronic transmission:

cc: Eric Angstadt, Neil Gray, Alisa Shen, Laura Kaminski, and Joann Pavlinec

4
."&"'%&%
6iiVX]bZci&/>ciZgcVi^dcVa7akY$:Vhi&'i]HiWZilZZc.i]VcY&)i]6kZh#
."&"'%&%
6iiVX]bZci'/=Z^\]ibVe[dg>ciZgcVi^dcVa7akY#VcY:Vhi&'i]Hi#WZilZZc.i]VcY&)i]6kZh#
."&"'%&%
6iiVX]bZci(/>ciZgcVi^dcVa7akY$:Vhi&'i]HiWZilZZc&hiVcY*i]6kZh#
."&"'%&%
6iiVX]bZci)/:Vhih^YZ;gj^ikVaZ6kZ#7ZilZZc>CiZgcVi^dcVa7akY#VcY:Vhi&'i]Hi#
."&"'%&%
6iiVX]bZci*/&(i]6kZ#!LZhih^YZWZilZZc>ciZgcVi^dcVaVcY:Vhi&'i]Hi#
."&"'%&%
6iiVX]bZci+"8a^cidcCZ^\]Wdg]ddY

CLXdgcZg!*i]6kZ#Vi;ddi]^aa7akY#

Hdji]h^YZ;ddi]^aa7akY#!(gY'cY6kZ#
."&"'%&%
6iiVX]bZci+"8a^cidcCZ^\]Wdg]ddY

:VhiH^YZ(gY6kZ$>ciZgcVi^dcVa7akY#!:Vhi&*i]Hi#";ddi]^aa7akY#

LZhiH^YZ'cY6kZ$>ciZgcVi^dcVa7akY#!:Vhi&*i]Hi#
."&"'%&%
6iiVX]bZci,"9^V\gVbd[hiV[["egdedhZY&%É[gdcihZiWVX`h[dghjWhiVcYVgYadih