The Uptown project is exactly what the 1998 General Plan envisioned. (V. Smoothe)

Permanently Temporary

Lacking the will to overhaul the city's zoning rules, Oakland City Council will give a two-year extension to a set of decade-old land use rules that were never meant to be permanent. The City Council's inability to bring Oakland's zoning rules into harmony with the city's General Plan hampers the creation of sorely needed new housing and jobs, especially along transportation corridors like Telegraph Avenue.

In 1998, after three years of public debate, Oakland adopted a new General Plan, intended to provide a long-term vision guiding development throughout the City. The General Plan’s Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) lays out an ambitious vision for accommodating anticipated population growth, creating jobs, and revitalizing commercial districts, all while shifting most development onto transit-friendly major arterial streets. The plan, which lays out 15 distinct land use classifications, was fundamentally at odds with Oakland’s decades-old zoning rules. The LUTE directed that “Adoption of this Element will be followed by a major overhaul of the zoning regulations.” This overhaul has never materialized.

The LUTE rejected the old code entirely, noting -- “Since the Zoning Regulations are regarded as cumbersome and difficult to use, a simpler, more user-friendly code will be developed,” and that “New zoning designations will be established to reflect changes in land use classifications.” In May of 1998, the City Council adopted a set of interim zoning controls, which provided guidelines to help planners resolve conflicts between existing zoning and the General Plan. The interim controls were originally expected to last only three years, but since the zoning overhaul was never completed, the interim controls were extended in 2001, 2003, and again in 2006.

With the Interim Land Use controls in place, projects that conform to the General Plan, but not the outdated zoning, can gain approval through a Conditional Use Permit, and can be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Without the controls, no project that conforms to the General Plan, but not the zoning, would be permitted a CEQA exemption, and nearly every development would have to go through the lengthy and costly process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report.

Even with the interim controls, the lack of an updated zoning code creates barriers to General Plan-conforming development. CEQA exemptions and Conditional Use Permits can be appealed, and nearly every City Council meeting agenda features at least one such appeal. The slow progress of the Zoning Update process has left Oakland without an updated code nearly ten years after the adoption of the General Plan.

The Interim Zoning Controls expired once again in June of this year. On Tuesday, the Council will consider an ordinance once again extending the Interim Zoning Controls, this time until 2010. The extension would be retroactive to July 1.

Subprime Lending and Foreclosures

Two weeks ago, City Attorney John Russo announced a new program aimed at fighting the growing problem of foreclosures. On Tuesday, Councilmembers Jane Brunner and Desley Brooks are proposing a resolution to supplement Mr. Russo’s efforts.

If the resolution is adopted, the Council would condemn subprime loans and send written recommendations to all subprime lenders that they should “work with Oakland mortgage holders to restructure loans to affordable, fixed-rate products.” While the Council has no legal authority over private lenders, they would, under the terms of the resolution, no longer do business with banks they believe “do not openly and responsibly deal with the legitimate financial problems faced by their borrowers."

The resolution calls for the Council to receive monthly reports monitoring the number of foreclosures within the City and the lenders involved with the foreclosures. The Council will also direct staff to create a program where the City is alerted to all foreclosure petitions filed in Oakland so that the City can work with borrowers to prevent foreclosure, providing one-time loans to help avoid default. The proposed program would also require banks who foreclose on any property to employ a property management firm to maintain foreclosed properties, in order to avoid neighborhood blight.

Settlement Agreements

A dull, yet fiscally important, part of nearly every Council meeting is the approval of settlements for claims against the City. Most settlements are small, but they add up over time. During the 2006-07 fiscal year, payments to settle claims and lawsuits against the City totalled $5.5 million. This week, Oakland’s City Council will approve four settlements.

Robert Jones will receive $33,000 as compensation for injuries he received from a loose hose dragging behind one of our fire trucks. We will pay Adrina Hill $11,094.75 to cover costs rising from her car accident with a City vehicle. And we will pay $7,900 to Laverne Harbor Jr. to cover damages to his car after a City tree fell on it in September.

We’re also getting some money. A suit the City filed against the Judicial Group and Mario R. Juarez for breach of a 2002 agreement with the City will end on Tuesday, when the Council accepts a settlement payment of $31,942.