Comments on: The buffer zone is stupid http://www.abetteroakland.com/the-buffer-zone-is-stupid/2008-03-11 The Continuing Story of a City Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:44:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: V Smoothe http://www.abetteroakland.com/the-buffer-zone-is-stupid/2008-03-11#comment-629 V Smoothe Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:04:39 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/the-buffer-zone-is-stupid/2008-03-11#comment-629 Californio - Currently legal work/live space would be grandfathered in, with their status changed to existing non-conforming. But there is a large number of illegal work/live spaces. Without an amendment grandfathering these spaces in, their occupants are placed in jeopardy, and have no path to legalization of their units. Hopefully the text of the proposed amendment posted by Max made things clearer. I can't see any liability issues that would come from allowing work/live in industrial areas - the zoning code that was forwarded to CED still allows someone to live next to a concrete plant if the concrete plant is near the edge of a CIX zone. Certainly nobody at the city has raised that concern at any of the discussions on this going back to 2002. Californio –

Currently legal work/live space would be grandfathered in, with their status changed to existing non-conforming. But there is a large number of illegal work/live spaces. Without an amendment grandfathering these spaces in, their occupants are placed in jeopardy, and have no path to legalization of their units. Hopefully the text of the proposed amendment posted by Max made things clearer.

I can’t see any liability issues that would come from allowing work/live in industrial areas – the zoning code that was forwarded to CED still allows someone to live next to a concrete plant if the concrete plant is near the edge of a CIX zone. Certainly nobody at the city has raised that concern at any of the discussions on this going back to 2002.

]]> By: Max http://www.abetteroakland.com/the-buffer-zone-is-stupid/2008-03-11#comment-625 Max Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:20:34 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/the-buffer-zone-is-stupid/2008-03-11#comment-625 Californio, I think the best way to answer your questions is to just show you my draft proposal. It addresses safety. Also, the reason I started fighting this thing in the first place was that there was no grandfathering for existing illegals. The path to legalization would have been erased. And there are a LOT of illegals. Here's the proposal: Proposed Amendment to CIX-1 and CIX-2 zoning updates: To achieve the the goals of: • Encouraging the retention of Oakland's vital community of artists and small entrepreneurs--a tremendous economic and cultural asset which is addressed in the General Plan; • Preventing displacement, wholesale evictions, or unnecessarily harsh code enforcement actions directed at this valuable and important constituency; • Formulating definitions of the different types of flex space--including but not limited to work/live--that can be regulated, encouraged and located as appropriate throughout the city, including within industrial districts; • Encouraging and facilitating the purchase by tenants from willing sellers of buildings that are presently legal or are undergoing legalization, with the goal of creating long-term affordable space for artists and small entrepreneurs in which to primarily work, and secondarily to live. The following text (as well as the goals above) shall be added to the adopted industrial zones: Both Zoning and Building Code enforcement policy towards existing illegal work/live and live/work occupants shall be one of accommodation, adjustment, and preservation, shall encourage feasible upgrades for physical safety, and shall provide a reasonable grace period for existing occupants of illegal residential conversions to bring their premises into compliance with enforcement policy. Relaxation of building codes shall be considered, but only for conversions that are designed so as to prevent reversion to residential-only status. All of these accommodations shall be incorporated into an orderly process. In the development of future flex-space regulations, the city's zoning staff will seek out existing flex-space users, owners and tenants, as well as designers specializing in this building type. Analysis of currently non-legal flex space shall aim to determine the utility, safety, and impact of such space, as well as its economic and community contributions. Within preserved industrial land, flex-space possibilities with integral industrial and other high impact use shall be considered. When flex-space within preserved industrial areas includes an accessory residential component, such a component shall explicitly designed and regulated to avoid creating any influx of any pure residential use. Californio, I think the best way to answer your questions is to just show you my draft proposal.
It addresses safety. Also, the reason I started fighting this thing in the first place was that there was no grandfathering for existing illegals. The path to legalization would have been erased. And there are a LOT of illegals. Here’s the proposal:

Proposed Amendment to CIX-1 and CIX-2 zoning updates:

To achieve the the goals of:

• Encouraging the retention of Oakland’s vital community of artists and small entrepreneurs–a tremendous economic and cultural asset which is addressed in the General Plan;
• Preventing displacement, wholesale evictions, or unnecessarily harsh code enforcement actions directed at this valuable and important constituency;
• Formulating definitions of the different types of flex space–including but not limited to work/live–that can be regulated, encouraged and located as appropriate throughout the city, including within industrial districts;
• Encouraging and facilitating the purchase by tenants from willing sellers of buildings that are presently legal or are undergoing legalization, with the goal of creating long-term affordable space for artists and small entrepreneurs in which to primarily work, and secondarily to live.

The following text (as well as the goals above) shall be added to the adopted industrial zones:

Both Zoning and Building Code enforcement policy towards existing illegal work/live and live/work occupants shall be one of accommodation, adjustment, and preservation, shall encourage feasible upgrades for physical safety, and shall provide a reasonable grace period for existing occupants of illegal residential conversions to bring their premises into compliance with enforcement policy. Relaxation of building codes shall be considered, but only for conversions that are designed so as to prevent reversion to residential-only status. All of these accommodations shall be incorporated into an orderly process.

In the development of future flex-space regulations, the city’s zoning staff will seek out existing flex-space users, owners and tenants, as well as designers specializing in this building type. Analysis of currently non-legal flex space shall aim to determine the utility, safety, and impact of such space, as well as its economic and community contributions. Within preserved industrial land, flex-space possibilities with integral industrial and other high impact use shall be considered. When flex-space within preserved industrial areas includes an accessory residential component, such a component shall explicitly designed and regulated to avoid creating any influx of any pure residential use.

]]> By: Californio http://www.abetteroakland.com/the-buffer-zone-is-stupid/2008-03-11#comment-624 Californio Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:13:35 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/the-buffer-zone-is-stupid/2008-03-11#comment-624 Couple of things. First, wouldn't most or all of the existing live/work spaces be grandfathered in if such zoning changes come to pass? If so, and I can't imagine it otherwise, this takes some of the urgency out of the matter; at least the artists aren't going to be booted out onto the sidewalk. On the other hand, this doesn't lend any sense of security to the artist community, and it sure doesn't make it sound like artists are particularly welcome here. Second, I'm wondering if there isn't an underlying liability issue involved that no one is talking about. That is, if the city simply allows live/work spaces to be created and occupied without comment, and if one day there is some terrible accident, couldn't the city be held accountable because it did nothing to prevent it? If people are carrying home groceries next to concrete plants, if their kids have asthma, and so forth, there's bound to be a problem sooner or later. At least in the eyes of the attorneys. Legal issues may still very well be underlying the decisions that otherwise seem shortsighted and incomprehensible. Zoning that's separatist and exclusive may help keep the city from being sued. Couple of things. First, wouldn’t most or all of the existing live/work spaces be grandfathered in if such zoning changes come to pass? If so, and I can’t imagine it otherwise, this takes some of the urgency out of the matter; at least the artists aren’t going to be booted out onto the sidewalk. On the other hand, this doesn’t lend any sense of security to the artist community, and it sure doesn’t make it sound like artists are particularly welcome here. Second, I’m wondering if there isn’t an underlying liability issue involved that no one is talking about. That is, if the city simply allows live/work spaces to be created and occupied without comment, and if one day there is some terrible accident, couldn’t the city be held accountable because it did nothing to prevent it? If people are carrying home groceries next to concrete plants, if their kids have asthma, and so forth, there’s bound to be a problem sooner or later. At least in the eyes of the attorneys. Legal issues may still very well be underlying the decisions that otherwise seem shortsighted and incomprehensible. Zoning that’s separatist and exclusive may help keep the city from being sued.

]]>