New rules for recycling facilities

Last Summer, as part of the ongoing (yet slow-moving) Citywide zoning update process (an effort to get our zoning into compliance with our General Plan before the Plan expires), the City approved a new zoning code governing industrial areas. During the public discussions on the zoning, there were two major points of debate - live/work (which I wrote about a little bit here) and recycling facilities (which I never got around to covering). They adopted the new code back in June, which prohibits recycling centers within 300 feet of a residentially zoned area, and requires them to obtain a conditional use permit within 600 feet of residential. But they were not able to agree on how the recyclers should be regulated, and directed staff to hold public meetings on the subject to get stakeholder input, and then come back with a proposal to amend the new code based on the discussions there.

Read more

Mark your calendars - Zoning Update meeting next Saturday

So I went to like, the best meeting ever last night. Well, not quite. The meeting actually kind of sucked and I was really bored most of the time. But it was also totally great.

Okay, this isn’t making any sense. Let me start over. Read more

Tower and base

So the new CBD Zoning (PDF) is going to the Zoning Update Committee again today, and the recommendations continue to be completely bizarre, overly complicated, and completely unconcerned with the historic character of downtown (in fact, on Monday’s downtown walking tour, at one point someone asked strategic planner Neil Gray, who was explaining the code to the group, which of the 8 or so buildings we were looking at right then would be permitted under the new code, and he was forced to admit that not a single one of them conformed).

I’ve said all this before. What I want to talk about today is tower and base. The form being dictated by the proposed code is terrible. I’m sorry, it’s just awful. I simply cannot understand why anyone would think it’s a good idea in the first place, and I absolutely cannot understand why, after seeing this silly design model month after month after month, the Committee members have not asked staff to eliminate it.

So in case you haven’t been following the discussion, this is what the form-based aspect of the proposed new zoning code does: buildings have a maximum allowable base height and also a maximum allowable tower height. The idea here is that all new buildings will have a wide base on the street, but that the tall portion of the building will have a narrower tower. In the maximum height area, buildings are described as having “unlimited” heights. What is unlimited is the height of the tower - the base of the building has a maximum height of 120 feet.

On Monday’s walking tour, Gray pointed out the new Madison Lofts building as a “model” of what the new zoning is trying to achieve.

So you see how the bottom of the building goes all the way out to the sidewalk, and then the bulk of the building is smaller, so the upper floors are not flush with the sidewalk? Under the proposed code, all new buildings are supposed to look like that. And what I still cannot understand is why? Do people really think that this building is better because the tower is set back from the sidewalk? Unlike practically every other building in the neighborhood, the bulk of the building mass is not flush with the street - in what way does this improve the pedestrian experience? Who benefits from this? Is there really anyone who finds this shape aesthetic pleasing? I really, really, really just don’t understand why we would even consider dictating this very specific and very ugly form for every new building downtown. Who is benefitting? Who? And where in the LUTE is there any justification for doing this, because I sure as hell can’t find it.

The key to creating a pleasant streetscape and pleasant pedestrian experience is demanding quality ground floor treatments and design. I think, when you’re walking past the windows on the 14th Street side of this building, that it’s pretty pleasant. And I certainly don’t see how it would be less pleasant is the rest of the building was the same size as the ground floor portion. It seems to me that the only thing the tower/base regulations really achieve is a reduction of potential density, and I really don’t think it should be our goal to limit density in the Central Business District, home of 3 BART stations and most of the major bus lines in town, and Oakland’s best hope creating future employment opportunities and tax base growth. That’s like, exactly the opposite of what the General Plan says to do.

For a building roughly this size, the tower/base form is pointless, but relatively inoffensive. I mean, I think it sucks that the Madison Lofts are smaller than they need to be, but life goes on. But for larger buildings - well, frankly, it just looks stupid. For example, we started the tour at that huge surface parking lot at 14th and Jackson in front of the post office - the one where Chauncey Bailey was murdered. Gray explained that the proposed code for that lot would allow a base of 85 feet (the maximum base height for Height Area 4 has now been reduced from 100 feet to 85 feet for reasons beyond my comprehension), topped with a narrow tower of as much as 400 feet.

Again - why would anyone want to do this? Has anyone thought about what this is going to make downtown look like?

Think of the Trib Tower. Now imagine that the shorter part of the base was the same and the tower portion was like, twice as tall. That’s what we’re talking about. An exagerated version of what we’re talking about (nobody would build a tower so skinny now), but still, that’s the idea. Do people really think that would look good? I mean, I like the Trib Tower as much as the next girl - it’s fine to have a handful of buildings like that, they add some visual interest, I suppose. But do we really want every new building downtown to look like that? Do we really think that’s going “enhance” our skyline? Do we honestly think that this will make downtown a more pleasant place to be? Sigh. I just don’t get it.

Oh, and for those of you keeping score at home, the staff report (PDF) is once again wrong about the heights of existing buildings. On page 3 of the report, the description of Issue Area 1 claims that the buildings in the lakeside area south of 14th Street, like the County Courthouse and the Library, are between 40 at 87 feet in height. I swear, they tried to pull this with the Courthouse last meeting, too. Hi, folks - it’s a twelve story building. It isn’t 80 feet tall. In fact, according to CEDA’s own map (PDF), the Courthouse is 220 feet tall.

Related Posts:

• 07.16.08: An Alternative CBD Zoning Update
• 07.15.08: Can you make laws about building heights when you don’t know how tall buildings are?
• 05.21.08: CBD, back at ZUC
• 04.17.08: CBD Zoning Update Update
• 03.20.07: CBD at the ZUC
• 03.17.08: Zoning from Mars
• 03.02.08: Planning Commission approves new tallest building in Oakland - in December

An alternative CBD zoning update

So the Planning Commission’s Zoning Update Committee (ZUC) will meet today to discuss again the zoning update for the Central Business District (CBD). I’ve written about the zoning update process at length already, and at this point, I’m kind of bored with it all. I’m tired of writing the same things about how this plan is just terrible in every way. It stifles architectural creativity. It does not take into account the demands or realities of the market. Looking at the rules about minimum lot sizes and maximum buildable lot areas, you have to seriously question whether anyone even took a walk around the CBD and looked at what land there is to develop before trying to write rules for it. Read more

Can you make laws about building heights when you don’t know how tall buildings are?

Planning staff seems to think so.

We went over this, already, of course, after a meeting way back in March about the proposed CBD height limits, where a handout (PDF!) was distributed to help illustrate for the audience what these height limits would mean. That is, what does a 300 foot tall building look like, a 200 foot tall building, and so on. The heights on the handout were off, not just a little, but by measures of as much as 170 feet!

Another handout listed existing building heights downtown (PDF!), and the numbers there were wildly off as well. Here’s the breakdown: Read more

Chris Kidd: Finding “Flex Space”

Chris Kidd here, letting our beloved Vsmoothe take the day off from ABO. You should recognize me as the pragmatic, socialist-leaning planning enthusiast and Eucalyptus hater from comments. I’m going to take my first stab at writing for ABO, so take it easy on me, huh? I know the swan song of Deborah Edgerley is the topic du jour, but let’s take a break from all the doom ‘n’ gloom surrounding our fair city and throw on our thinking caps. Read more

CBD, back at ZUC

The Central Business District (that means downtown) zoning update is back at the Zoning Update Committee today, and even though the Commissioners directed staff at the last meeting to come back with a new proposal that does not have height limits except in the historic areas, staff has, naturally, returned with a proposal that still has height/size restrictions everywhere. Why they insist on this bizarre tower/base architectural style is beyond me. Anyway, read all about it over at theoakbook.com.

NIMBYs!

I can’t wait for the elections to be over. I miss writing about the City Council. Anyway, quickly, here are some highlights of what you’ll be missing if you don’t tune into KTOP tonight:

• Zoning Update: minor edits (PDF!) to the zoning code, none of which interest me all that much, but one of which got some people all worked up. Under the current zoning, to build a three unit project in an R-36 or R-40 zone, you need a Major Conditional Use Permit. Ridiculous! Staff proposed amending the code so that the need for a Major Conditional Use Permit would be triggered at 4 units instead of 3, claiming “This increased threshold better reflects the intent of these zones.”

  R-40, FYI, is the “garden apartment residential zone,” an according to the chapter (Can’t link directly, but it’s 17.22.010) “is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas containing a mixture of single or two family dwellings and garden apartments in spacious settings for urban living.” The R-36 zone (17.20.010) “is intended to foster the development of small lots that are less than four thousand square feet in size and/or less than forty five feet in width in desirable settings for urban living.”

  When the changes went before CED, the committee changed this aspect of the plan at the request of anti-development activists so that we will continue requiring a Major Conditional Use Permit for 3 unit buildings in these zones. Final passage of the ordinance is tonight.

• Development appeal. A Council meeting just never feels complete without one of these. The proposal is to build a 115 unit building of affordable senior housing on the corner of MacArthur and High Street. This fight has been dragging on forever. The project has been significantly altered in response to community objection, from an original plan for a 70 foot building with no retail to 60 foot (at the highest point) building with retail space.

  Under the General Plan, the site is designated Neighborhood Center Mixed Use, which would permit 156 units, so the project is actually well below maximum density under the General Plan. The old zoning, which we’re in the process of replacing, would have allowed 91 units, although the Planning Code has a provision allowing a 75% greater number of units with a CUP in the case of senior housing, so the existing zoning for this lot would actually be 159 units.

  Anyway, the Planning Commission approved the project in February, and CRADL (Commercial & Retail Attraction for the Laurel) has, naturally, appealed the decision.

  Why? Well, because (PDF!) “the location is horrible, the economic fallout for the citizens of Oakland is significant and morally the project comes very close to nothing more than a land scam with negative impacts for the prospective elderly residents.” They complain that because the building is for affordable housing, it will deprive the City of necessary property tax revenues and that it would be better for the City to have this lot remain vacant. Also because of “traffic, noise, and air quality.” The Council will deny the appeal, although it’s possible they’ll request modifications to the project.

• Other stuff of note that I don’t have time to write about right now, but hopefully next week: $50,000 (PDF!) to establish a Food Policy Council for Oakland and $658,455 (PDF!) to have the Cty Attorney’s office prosecute misdemeanors.

And of course, I seem to be maintaining my perfect record of broken blogging promises, and am unlikely to be able to post about the D1 School Board or Downtown Lake Merritt Forum today. Tomorrow, tomorrow! Also, I have a bunch of comments I need to respond to, and I’ll do that tomorrow, too. Also, in case you’re not a regular reader of Oakbook, I wrote a profile of Patrick McCullough over there yesterday people may want to check out.

CBD Zoning Update Update

So I’ve complained here plenty about the new downtown draft zoning chapter (PDF!) - the process has been flawed, as is the proposal itself. If you want the short version, you can check out my Novometro story from yesterday.

Anyway, since the last zoning update committee meeting, there has been one more public meeting about the proposal, organized by the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce. The meeting drew over 100 people, more than any previous meeting on the issue, and wholesale opposition to the proposed zoning was near unanimous. Nearly every speaker at yesterday’s meeting opposed to plan as well, and the Committee ended up asking staff to return with a new proposal that does not contain height limits. Frustratingly, they did not direct staff to hold more public meetings. I wasn’t able to attend the meeting, and my correspondent wasn’t in top form, so I don’t know if they want just the height limits gone, or all the bulk and intensity requirements, which, frankly, are the real problem here. People are very hung up on height, but the tower floorplate and length restrictions are much more dangerous.

I also find it disturbing that staff appears completely disconnected from what’s actually happening downtown. For example, Eric Angstadt, in response to repeated complaints about the downzoning of downtown, said several times that the draft zoning chapter is actually upzoning, and that the current zoning doesn’t actually allow the recently approved projects people keep referencing. Angstadt is wrong. The new Shorenstein building at 601 City Center, at 10.5 FAR and 378 feet, conforms perfectly to the C-51 zoning on its lot, as explained on page 4 of the design review staff report (PDF!).

Angstadt later said that people were making too big a deal of the height limits, that they’re higher than any existing downtown buildings, and that “Nobody’s going to build anything close to these height limits anytime soon.” I don’t know what his idea of close is, but, at only 27 feet below the maximum height proposed for Area 5, 601, which will be breaking ground soon, seems pretty close to me. Again, the real issue here is the tower floorplate restrictions. 601 exceeds the maximum tower floorplate size for Area 5, as does the existing building 555 12th Street. We want to build office space that will attract large, high quality employers to downtown. We have plenty of small spaces appropriate for non-profits and smaller businesses. What we don’t have enough of (although recently opened Center 21 helps) is the very large full floor spaces that bigger companies desire. People are always talking about how we need to bring jobs to Oakland - right now, the vogue is to talk about the need for industrial jobs. We need office jobs, too! To restrict construction of the most in demand space makes absolutely no sense if we’re serious about job creation and revitalizing our economy.

Worth reading this weekend

• Becks sounds the alarm about a new Berkeley initiative to halt BRT:
  

  Regardless of any issues one may have with AC Transit’s current BRT proposal, this is just bad planning. This initiative would mean that anytime the City wanted to convert lanes to transit-only lanes, the decision would have to be made by the Berkeley electorate. Even if the dedicated bus lane only extended one block into Berkeley from Oakland or another neighboring city, Berkeley residents would have the final say. Projects could be held up for months or even years if an election wasn’t approaching (I don’t see the city holding special elections for this issue).

Read more

Filed Under: AC Transit, BRT, CEDA, army base, downtown, oakland, public transit, redevelopment agency, worth reading, zoning
Tagged:

CBD at the ZUC

March 20, 2008 by V Smoothe · 3 Comments 

I apologize for the lack of posts this week, and for the tardiness of the continuation of my industrial land series. Work has been killer lately. Tomorrow.

Anyway, the CBD Draft Zoning Chapter was introduced to the Planning Commission’s Zoning Update Committee yesterday. I was at work, and therefore unable to attend, but one of my excellent correspondents made it and took copious notes, for which I am very grateful.

Some highlights from the public comment: Read more

Filed Under: Planning Commission, Rebecca Kaplan, chinatown, development, downtown, oakland, zoning
Tagged:

Zoning from Mars

March 17, 2008 by V Smoothe · 40 Comments 

So there’s a community meeting tonight to solicit input on the downtown zoning update. (Ironically, the meeting isn’t downtown, but instead at the comparatively transit-unfriendly Lake Merritt Sailboat House in Adams Point.) Regular readers may remember that the last community meeting on the subject, which introduced proposed height limits for downtown, residents were provided with a handout illustrating what different building heights look like. The handout gave heights for each building that were between 100 and 170 feet shorter than the actual building heights.

So last Monday, planning staff released the draft zoning code (PDF!) for downtown, and I’ve pretty much been rereading over and over again the last week, thinking I must be misunderstanding something. Because it is, quite frankly, insane. One friend characterized it as “zoning from Mars.” While I don’t know if I’d go quite that far, I will say that it reads like it was written by someone who had never so much as walked around downtown Oakland, let alone read the LUTE. There is so much wrong with this that I don’t even know where to start! [Maps and photos after the jump] Read more

Filed Under: development, downtown, oakland, oakland city council, zoning
Tagged:

Next Page »