Dear Chair Jang and Members of the Design Review Committee:

I am writing to outline my views about staff’s proposed changes to the 1 and 2-unit Design Review standards. Development and Design Review are very important to my constituents. District 1 served as the pilot project for Mediated Design Review, and as there is interest in expanding these standards citywide, I believe that the City Planning Commission can learn from our experience.

Since January, a working group that I convened has been working with staff to provide analysis and feedback on the changes. The working group was made up of stakeholders from North Oakland. Community activists from the Rockridge Community Planning Council and the North Hills Phoenix Association joined an architect, land use attorney and developers with experience building in North Oakland. The diversity of opinions guaranteed well-rounded discussion and reasonable suggestions. Below I will highlight the topics we discussed.

A complaint I have repeatedly heard is that people are unsure of what the process is for Design Review. In some cases with additions to houses, there’s full Design Review, but sometimes not. In other instances, the Design Review for additions is more stringent than it is for completely new houses. Confusion about the process often leads to misunderstandings down the road.

The proposed "flow chart" of the Design Review process for new houses and additions that you are considering is a direct product of the working group. It guarantees notice to neighbors, starts discussions between builders and neighbors early in the process and gives an opportunity to mediate differences, if necessary. Design Review, variances and conditional use permits will all be put through this same process, so it will streamline applications and create clear expectations for builders and the community.

A problem that I have experienced that has not been addressed is that neighbors who initially sign off on plans are never informed of changes to those plans that happen later in the process.

I want to recommend an added step that will notify neighbors of significant changes that are made to plans they had signed off on.

Design Review is an effort to make sure that community concerns are taken into account and that people have a chance to know what’s happening in their neighborhoods and have input into what is being built next to them. That’s why I oppose expanding exemptions from Design Review.

Staff wants to exempt from Design Review additions with walls that are less than 12 feet high or additions that increase a house’s floor area by less than 10%. In both cases there could be serious impacts to privacy and sunlight. A 12 foot high addition could easily look out over a backyard deck or cast shadows into a back bedroom. Depending on the size and position of the original building, even a 5% increase in floor area could have an impact on a significant view.

Staff’s proposal to increase exemptions was controversial within the working group. The criteria staff uses to determine exemptions are just too general. There may be cases where impacts are not serious, but to allow these additions by-right, with no public input, is unacceptable. In most cases, only immediate neighbors are going to know the extent of real impacts to solar access, views and privacy. Public input is essential, and I oppose expanding exemptions.

Our Design Review standards do a good job of making sure that views, privacy and solar access are protected when houses are built in the hills. We need to set the same high standards for projects in the flatlands. I recommend that all solar access, view and privacy standards we have in the North Hills should be applied citywide. This will guarantee that flatlands residents are not short-changed on these important quality-of-life issues.

For many people, it’s difficult to really know what a project is going to look like just by seeing plans on paper; a proposed project just doesn’t really "come to life" until you see it in three dimensions. Story poles are a cost-effective way to make that happen.

Community representatives in the working group were particularly strong in their support of story poles. I agree and believe that a neighbor who formally writes in during the public comment period should trigger an analysis by staff of whether story poles are needed. If staff finds that the project has potential significant impacts to solar access, views or privacy, they should require story poles be placed by the applicant. Story poles are great in really visualizing a project, and I believe that such clarification can help avoid as many conflicts as they may begin.

I believe that vibrant neighborhoods have houses with open front yards, stoops and porches. A street with too many fences can work against that. Although I understand people’s security concerns, I do not want to see our communities walled off from one another by fences and gates. "Eyes on the street" are just as important in increasing public safety and building strong neighborhoods.

As far as staff’s recommendations, I support their ban on chain link fences and some sort of design review for six foot fences. I also believe that if we have six foot fences, their negative impacts can be balanced by stepping them away from the sidewalk and requiring landscaping in front of them.

Additionally, staff presented us with criteria that made it easier for fences to be erected on blocks where fences were already present on 20% or more lots. I oppose this: I do not believe it should be easier to put up a fence just because other neighbors have decided to do so. In fact, I believe that the cumulative impact of so many fences on a block should be taken into account when approving individual fences.

Staff proposed a change allowing the extension of houses up to 15 feet, by right, with substandard sidelots.

In my opinion, such extensions by-right are unreasonable, particularly in the flats, where many homes are only 6 feet apart. Although these houses were built close together, they were also built of similar lengths to ensure back yard open space. If we allow substandard sidelots to continue ten or fifteen feet farther back into the property, privacy and sunlight in neighbors’ back yards are definitely going to be effected.

At the same time, a variance may be too high a standard. I suggest that we adopt the following process: 1) disclosure of the plan to neighbors; 2) a public comment period; and 3) if a neighbor claims there is an adverse impact, then a variance is required. That way, we can avoid a long process if there is agreement between the neighbors that the impact is acceptable.

I want to comment on two staff proposals regarding zoning (the elimination of the 35-foot limit on building length in side yards on sloped lots and regulations regarding the reduced 5 foot front yard setback on sloped lots): no zoning regulations should be changed without offering alternatives. As the recommendations now stand, staff calls for "eliminating" one and "changing" the other. We need thoughtful analysis and some options before we make such decisions. For example, it was suggested by a member of the working group that instead of just getting rid of these two standards, we explore a lot coverage standard to avoid bulky buildings.

Thank you very much for your attention to this complex subject and for your service on the Planning Commission. Please feel free to contact me about any of the above if you have any question or would like more information.

Sincerely