oha sept 1 2010 zoning

8/8/2019 OHA Sept 1 2010 Zoning

1/12


2/12

2

3. Retain the existing 45 height limit within the Downtown Fruitvale ASI - -International Boulevard (31 st-35 th Avenues) and Fruitvale Avenue (East 12 th -East15th/Farnham Streets). These frontages have mostly two story commercial

buildings with some one and three story structures. Most heights appear below 35 withsome 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-proposed75 height limit be reduced to the existing 45 within the ASI, while considering heightlimits over the staff-proposed 75 outside the ASI. Staff responded with a 45 height limitin some portions of the ASI while retaining 75 in other portions.

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

Although the ASI frontages are in close proximity to the Fruitvale BART Station, there isstill 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 veryfine grouping of two story Edwardian commercial buildings along the west side FruitvaleAvenue between East 12th Street and International Boulevard. (See Attachment 4 photo.)

4. Change the proposed CC-2 zoning along Thirteenth Avenue below East NineteenthStreet to CN-2. Thirteenth Avenue is relatively narrow and not a corridor in the samesense as International Boulevard and East 12 th Street. Historically, Thirteenth Avenuewas 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 Zones limits onestablishments 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 disruptivenonpedestrian uses such as Automotive Fee Parking and Automobile Sales and Rentalswhich 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 orchange the zoning for some of these areas to RM-3 . RM-4 and RU-1 are the so-calledR-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 islimited 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 mostly1-2 units, such as many R-50 portions of the Clinton Neighborhood and the current R-50area 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, especiallysince they are effectively being "upzoned from R-50's density of approximately1,500 sq. ft. of lot area per unit to RM-4's and RU-1's 1,100 sq. ft. per unit.


3/12

3

Alternatively, the portions of these R-50 areas with predominantly 1-4 units could bezoned 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 beappropriate 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 isintended to maximize the General Plan density of Mixed Housing Type. However, it isnot 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 isinappropriate because the RU-1 is considered to be an Urban Residential District andtherefore 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 andhigher 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 asmuch development as a larger lot. The proposed reduced front yard setbacks can beespecially disruptive to the architectural integrity of a block face if they are less than theexisting setbacks of other buildings on the block face.

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

We appreciate staffs effort to address this issue, but in many neighborhoods, existingfront 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 35wide or 3,500 sq. ft. could have a 10 front setback, which would still disrupt thestreetscape. (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 projects frontsetback on the greatest enclosed projection of the greater adjacent setback. This approachis already in the Zoning Regulations for many zones and should be expanded to all zoneswhere front setbacks are required.

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


4/12

4

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact Naomi Schiff at 835-1717 or [email protected] if you would like to discuss these comments.

Sincerely,

Naomi Schiff and Christopher Buckleyfor Oakland Heritage Alliance

Attachments:

1. Photos of International Boulevard and East 12 th Street between 9 th and 14 th Avenues2. Marked-up height map for International Boulevard and East 12 th Street between 9 th and

14 th Avenues

3.

Photos of International Boulevard between 1st and 5th

Avenues4. Photo of east side of Fruitvale Avenue between International Boulevard and East 12 th Street.

5. Photo of 13 th Avenue at International Boulevard6. 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


5/12


6/12


7/12


8/12


9/12


10/12


11/12


12/12

oha sept 1 2010 zoning

Documents