Stop the Manhattanization of Telegraph Ave

Oakland Planning Commission Hearing for
4 8 0 1 S h a t t u c k A v e n u e
Yet ANOTHER Too Tall Market Rate Condominium
44 Units… Next if we don't stop this -- proposed for Claremont and Telegraph


# Demolition (again) of Non-blighted Apartments

# No Affordable Housing Requirements Imposed by the City

# 5 Variances Proposed Including a Height Variance for 57-ft Building Height (Over 5/12 Stories) Where Current Zoning Permits 30-ft (3-story) Building Height


SPEAK OUT AGAINST THIS PROJECT at
Oakland City Hall Frank Ogawa Plaza
(14TH Street Between Broadway and Clay)
Hearing Room One

WEDNESDAY, FEB 28, 2007

Hearing Starts at 6:00*
*(Full agenda. Call STAND 654-8925 or Jane Brunner’s office 238-7001 X3 or 4 to better gauge time for this item. But please complete speaker card and cede time to others if you don’t want to speak. You can complete cards ahead online at oaklandnet.com or at hearing.)

AND

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007

7:00-9:00 p.m.
FINAL Community Meeting
TO REVIEW NEW ZONING REGULATIONS
For Telegraph Avenue
Please Attend This Meeting
Faith Presbyterian Church 49th and Webster

FOR COPIES OF ZONING GUIDELINES CALL Jane Brunner’s office 238-7001.

For our recommendations please see below
STAND (Standing Together for Accountable Neighborhood Development)
510 654-8925
standnorthoaklan[at]gmail.com

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------


STAND's Responses to Claudia Cappio's Recommendations

TEMESCAL CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES


1) INTRODUCTION. Regulatory and Design Context.

STAND's Position: It is this entire stretch of Telegraph that defines Temescal's historic character, not just the blocks from 49th to 52nd St. The differentiation between Height Zones A and B seems not only arbitrary but designed specifically to support those high-density, 5+ story projects that have been proposed in the SD-TEM Zone.

Despite community views supporting the developers' proposals and those voicing Smart Growth rationales for high density, the majority view of the Temescal neighborhood, as well as of participants at the September16, 2006, Temescal community planning workshop, support maintaining Telegraph and Shattuck's historically defining scale. The recommendation to allow heights of 55 feet with a CUP on Telegraph outside the proposed "historic zone" completely sidesteps the majority view that the height on Telegraph should be 40 to 45 ft. maximum.


2) Objectives and Guidelines.


STAND's Position: Add the following objectives: Objective 6: Not diminish the quality of life or amenities now enjoyed by adjacent residents or businesses. Objective 7: No Guideline should frustrate or work against any Objective, nor should any Guideline compete with any other Guideline.


3) Guideline 3.1: Orient buildings on corner lots to the intersection and public street fronts.


STAND's Position: Creating prominence in corner buildings does not require taller height.


4) Guideline 5.1: New construction on Telegraph Avenue should site and mass buildings to diminish the disruption of the privacy and light of adjacent properties in lower density residential zones.


STAND's Position: This is as it should be. However, the language that follows almost certainly predicts that just the opposite will occur: 'The same amount of light and privacy a neighboring property enjoyed prior to a development cannot be preserved after the development is constructed.'

This is not acceptable.


SD Special District Combining Zone Regulations


1) 17.101.010 Title, purpose, and applicability


STAND's Position: Add to this section the following purposes: Zoning is intended to encourage families of all sizes and make-ups to establish roots in the neighborhood, and ensure that new projects to provide a range of unit sizes and types. Zoning is intended to preserve Temescal's existing rental housing. Zoning is intended to permit the eventual daylighting of Temescal Creek.


2) 17.101.070 b. The proposal includes a community benefit plan that includes a significant contribution to the public right of way or community.


STAND's Position: The process of determining community benefit(s) and what constitutes a 'significant' level of funding needs to be clearly defined. Community input must be a part of the process, and the Planning Department needs to have the resources to enforce compliance of community benefits packages.


3) 17.101.090 Special regulations for neighborhood character defining historic buildings.


STAND's Position: The process of determining what constitutes 'a desirable neighborhood character,' 'feasibly' incorporated, and 'distinctive' architecture needs to be clearly defined. Community input and the opinion of an independent preservation architect should be part of the determination process.


STAND's Position: We want the City to survey Temescal and identify those buildings and sites that should be a priority and appropriate to redevelop, and identify sites that need to be preserved and protected.


4) 17.101.090 C. Notification Procedures.


STAND's Position: Story poles shall be placed on the project site so that the people can see the impact of the project. The City must notify community groups. The City should put notices in local newspapers and in community newsletters. Not only should the City notice property owners, it should notice residents of the property residents whose lives can reasonably be expected to be significantly impacted by these projects, i.e., those living and working within one-half mile of the project. Staff reports must be made available at the time the 17-day notices go out.


5) 17.101.090 E.2. Conditional use permit criteria includes: If it is not economically feasible to preserve at least the façade of the neighborhood character defining historic building. Demonstrating this unfeasibility may require analysis of a financial pro forma of the project.


STAND's Position: An identified historic resource including building, building facade and/or other significant factors in the Temescal should be preserved regardless of the perceived economic feasibility.


6) 17.44.210 B.3. The total amount of required parking for the project maybe reduced by up to twenty-five (25) percent.


STAND's Position: Reduced parking shall not be permitted without the following requirements: 1) The site becomes a location for the Car Share program; 2) There shall be an on street residential parking program that excludes new project residents.


7) 17.44.210 B.4. The maximum height of the project may be increased to 55feet or the maximum height allowed by any applicable height map or overlay district, whichever is less.


STAND's Position: Maximum height shall be 45 feet.


---------------------
STAND (Standing Together for Accountable Neighborhood Development)
510 654-8925
standnorthoaklan[at]gmail.com