Okay, welcome everyone to the October 1st meeting of the Oakland Planning Commission.

We'll call this meeting to order.

We do a roll call.

We have Commissioner Maurice Robb is absent today.

We have Commissioner Josie Aaron's here.

Commissioner Owen Lee.

Here.

Commissioner Commission.

Commissioner Alex Randolph.

Here.

Vice Chair Natalie Sandoval.

Here.

You have a quorum.

And I will take a moment, if I may, just to note that we currently do not have a chair, so the vice chair will be leading the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And is there an agenda discussion today?

Moving on to commission business.

No discussion from the secretary.

A director's report.

No director's report today.

Informational reports.

No informational reports.

Any committee reports?

I don't believe any committees have met.

I'm seeing all no's from your colleagues, so I'll say no committee reports.

And uh any commission matters.

And this is for the commission if any commissioners have items to discuss.

I was wondering if staff had an update about uh getting back to us about RENA.

Um, being able to count non-deed restricted units for Rena.

I know we had brought that up as an item at our last meeting.

I'll bring that question back to the strategic planning division to find out when they might be coming back to you with any follow-ups to the questions you raised at previous meetings.

Thank you.

Um new commissioners potentially joining, and just for the public's sake, uh, understanding what that process is.

Right now, we're uh too short.

Right.

So the process, uh, I have I'll have a few answers to that question because I believe you may be asking about the status of reappointments and appointments, as well as um how uh members of the community can apply to be planning commissioners.

So regarding the uh the current status of reappointments and appointments, those are processed through the mayor's office.

So the Bureau of Planning and myself, we don't touch those.

Those are at the mayor's discretion.

And uh the process for that is for the mayor and their staff to move appointments through rules committee and city council uh for the appointments to happen.

At this time, so that's the the process uh in terms of what the mayor's office does, their actions.

At this time, two of you are in holdover status following your first terms, the end of your first terms.

That would be Commissioner Ahrens and Commissioner Randolph.

And we, you know, it's it's public knowledge, it's been published for the rules agenda for this Thursday that your reappointments are being moved forward by the mayor.

So your reappointments are being moved to rules committee.

And you know, should those move through rules committee successfully, we'll move over to City Council.

I believe next Tuesday, is that correct, the 7th?

Yes, so October 7th, and then we'll know if you've been reappointed at that time.

You uh the vice chair, you noted that there are also two vacancies at this time.

Uh that would be one.

Well, we'll just leave it that there are two vacancies at this time, and I'm not aware that the Office of the Mayor has moved any proposals for filling those seats forward at this time.

Sorry, did you want to did you want to stop there before I talk about how to apply to be a planning?

Go ahead, thanks.

So if members of the community are interested in becoming planning commissioners, on the planning commission webpage, there is a button you can press in order to apply to be a planning commissioner.

In addition, there is a button somewhere else on the uh overall City of Oakland website.

You can search for commissions, and that um the oper the option to apply for commissions will pop right up.

So there are many ways to search for that.

If you're specifically interested in the planning commission, the button is on the planning commission page.

It takes you to a form that goes into a larger system that the mayor has access to to review your application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And it is a privilege to be a planning commissioner, so uh would recommend anyone interested to check that out.

Any other commission matters?

Okay.

City attorney's report.

No cities attorney's report.

Okay.

So then moving on to open forum.

Do we have any speaker cards?

Uh, we do not have any speaker cards.

Uh there's no one out there that want to speak.

Am I correct?

Okay.

So we have no speaker cards.

Okay, then moving on to the consent calendar.

So you have one item on your consent calendar today, and uh normally if you had multiple items, I wouldn't read them off, but because you have one item, I'll just note what it is.

This is for a number of addresses that start with 292 105th Avenue through uh my goodness.

10 505 Creek side circle.

And I'm sure the planner is uh chuckling to himself because I did make sure that he put all of the uh assessor parcel numbers for multiple parcels on the staff report and in the blurb.

I will not read those all out, but he can have a chuckle to himself about that.

And this is a proposal for a map.

I believe it is for uh apologies, right?

I'm looking for what the proposal is is for.

It's a tentative track map for planting justice.

The planner is Kubali and only, but the item is on the consent calendar.

Uh you we ask that you uh call for speakers, uh public speakers on the consent calendar, and you may discuss or you do not need to discuss the item once you've heard speakers, and you are welcome to simply make a motion and vote on the consent calendar if you so choose.

Got it.

Are there any speakers for the item on the consent calendar?

No, there's not.

I see one hand in the audience.

Um, can you come to the mic, please and uh introduce yourself?

And Aniva, does he need to fill out a speaker card?

Okay.

Yes, he does.

Okay.

What shall I do that first or start speaking to you?

Is it okay if he says his comments now and then fills out a speaker card?

Yes, it is.

Thank you.

And then you have two minutes, and please state your full name for the record.

Thank you.

Sure.

I'm Andrew Shaker Charor.

I work for Planting Justice as our director of infrastructure.

Um, this is an application to consolidate 21 parcels down to one.

We purchased that in 2015, and we've been operating a nursery there, and the 21 parcels is a tax burden.

It stands in the way of our property development from the standpoint of setbacks and property lines, and it blocks utilities from being shared throughout that property.

Um, it's also impeding right now the transfer.

We plan to do a rematriation effort with our partners, Segorte Land Trust, where we'll be transferring title, but they've asked that the property be conveyed as one parcel.

So it's holding us up in many regards.

It's been something in the survey department for a long time.

We've been through the process, but um, excited to be hopefully moving forward.

Great, thank you.

And bringing it back up, is there any comments or discussion on this item?

Okay, is there a motion for the consent calendar?

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Well, the item on the consent calendar.

Second motion by Randolph and second by Commissioner Ahrens.

Commissioner Ahrens.

Yes, Commissioner Lee.

Yes.

Commissioner Randolph.

Yes, the Vice Chair Sandoval.

Yes.

Motion passes and decision is appealable to city council within 10 days.

Uh, I if you don't mind through the vice chair, I will also note uh we I was probably remiss in not noting this at the beginning of the meeting.

If you wish to speak on any item, please come up to the front here, grab a speaker card and fill it out.

We've got pens and pencils and return it.

We have an inbox for those so we know who would like to speak on items uh for items number two and three for the rest of this meeting.

Thank you.

Okay, so before we move on to the agenda items, is there public hearing?

No.

No, the next public hearing will be for item number two.

And number two, okay.

So then moving on to item number two, the agenda.

Item number two, one of our public hearings is 1437 23rd Avenue, and this is a proposal for a major conditional use permit for alcoholic beverage sales.

And the planner for this is Mike Rivera, who will make a presentation.

Thank you.

And is surrounded by a mix of commercial and civic and residential facilities.

The project is located on the ground floor of the two-story building.

The upper floor has an apartment, the existing pool hole, which also offers soft drinks, snacks, board, and car games, including television for watching sports as being in operation since 1992.

The proposal will serve beer from the existing kitchen Monday through Fridays from 6 p.m.

to 1 a.m.

in weekends from 1 p.m.

to 1 a.m.

Based on the project records.

The proposal is not consistent with uh general plan policies, and the required findings cannot be made because the project will create will create a public nuisance in a high crime area, has a history of at least two co-violations for operating unpermitted events with alcohol sales in an overconcentrated alcohol area, and is in a police beat that has graded in 20% more the average calls than the beats citywide during the preceding calendar year.

In addition, the proposal cannot make the findings because it is located within a thousand feet from other three uh existing alcohol outlets, six existing schools and daycare facilities as described in details on the report.

Staff cannot make the required findings to approve the major conditional use permit and major variance to allow the sale of beer at the existing pool hole.

Therefore, staff recommends the point of commission affirmed staff environmental determination and deny the application based on the attached findings.

That completes my presentation and also the um today we received comments from the public.

Uh a copy of that email was sent to the commissioners, and also a copy was made available to the applicant.

And I also informed the uh public that a copy of the email was going to be shared with the with the public and the commissioners.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Um before we open it to public um form, is there any clarifying questions from planning commissioners for city staff?

Yes, thank you.

Uh it may have been in the report, but I I wasn't able to find it.

It sounds like the code violations were for unpermitted events.

Is that correct?

Could you share what those two previous code violations were for?

Um describe on page uh one or the cover page of the staff report on the project background.

It lists uh two different dates or times when the city issued two uh co-violations to the property owner.

Um so one was issued um in 2022, and that letter uh came from the city administrator office and it was sent to the property owner for um unpermitted um events uh taking place at the site, and then in 2025, the again the city administrator uh sent another letter to the property owner uh with a letter stating that the um the they found that their the business or the property was operating unpermitted um events that include music and dancing.

Thank you.

I did miss it.

Commissioner Randolph?

Yeah, a couple questions.

Thank you for the for the detailed report.

Uh one is on page six, you mentioned the other three locations within a thousand feet that currently have active alcohol outlets or licenses.

Easy stop market, Elonchito Market, and Oakland Food Hall.

Um, do you know what the operating hours are for those?

Are they just during the day or do any of them sell liquor into the late evening or night?

Um, staff does not have the uh details as far as the operating hours.

Okay.

And then uh do you know how many other pool holes there are in the city and if they are allowed to sell alcohol?

Not that I know.

None that you know that are selling alcohol or you don't know.

I do not know um if the city of Oakland have other existing pool holes that include the sale of alcohol, as far as I know, at least not within this um area, either within the thousand feet from the project site, or within the um area that the um the state ABC um agency uh issues um alcohol permits.

And I do you know from your experience that pool halts usually do sell alcohol or liquor, or are they always alcohol free or not always necessarily alcohol free?

Do you know?

I do not know, but I believe that um if you go to a pool hole, whether it's Oakland or some other city, um, they they would provide alcohol um with the pool hole activity.

I I'm gonna help out here.

I don't think we have an answer to that question.

Uh we don't know how many pool halls there are in Oakland and where they are, and we don't know which serve alcoholic beverages or do not.

So the application that's under consideration is the one in front of you.

It's an at a specific location in a specific zoning district.

Uh we can certainly come back to you with more information if that's how you choose to move forward about other sites throughout Oakland.

Uh, but I think Mike can really only speak to this site and uh the conditions, the regulatory conditions around the site.

And then the uh the permit to op operate a pool hall legally is always made separate from a liquor lesson.

Is that correct?

Those are two different applications and processes.

Yes.

Um the uh pool permit is to shoot uh not by planning, but uh by the city, I mean the straighthouse office.

And then the applicant uh basically applied for this pool hall permit, was approved, and then the next step was for them to apply for the legal liquor license.

Okay, thank you.

And just to clarify, based on the staff report, the it seems like the applicant bought this business as a pool hall from another existing pool hall business, been operating as a pool hall for a number of years.

Is that correct?

Correct.

I believe that's the case, but we can also ask the applicant.

Okay.

So just noting that it has been operating for a while without the existing without the liquor license.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um any other clarifying questions, Commissioner Lee?

Okay.

So I just wanted to make sure uh understand so the the requirements to grant a major variance that's separate from the requirements for a conditional use permit, and that's triggered by the being in within a thousand feet of three alcohol outlets.

That's it's a separate set of conditions.

Um, this project requires two permits.

The the conditional use permits will sell alcohol.

Then the other permit is the variance.

Um, and that variance permit is for um selling alcohol within a thousand feet of other existing alcohol outlets, including schools and daycare centers.

Any other questions?

Okay, do we have any um public comment?

Uh I know there's some people that fill out a speaker card.

Is there anybody want to do a public comment?

No, could they?

Right.

So uh if I might a reminder to everybody in the audience, if you can bring us the speaker cards now so that we can call your names during the item.

We don't look for you in the audience, we look for your speaker card.

So again, please fill out the speaker card and return it to the inbox.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Oscar, one of the applicants, part owner of the business.

Um, as a local and born and raised in Oakland, I was born and raised three three uh streets down on 27th in Foothills.

This is my neighborhood.

Um I hope y'all see this application as a as something that we want to do as as a recreation, something fun for the community.

Um, same way you guys go to bowling in Alameda.

They sell alcohol there, same way we want to do with uh the pool hall there with the existing pool activities.

We we host tournaments um with friends and and family that come and and come to the to the business.

Um I hope y'all look into our background um and see us as for the work that we've done in in the community as uh farmer that's actually done stuff with planting justice through a nonprofit organization called Growing Together Bay Area.

And as a former professional soccer player uh with Oakland Roots, as my brother, we we want to do something good for the community and and spark something recreation that I think the the community needs.

And uh I think that's evident in the letter of recommendations that we got with pr um principals from schools and nonprofit organization leaders in the community.

How you doing?

Uh my name is Julio Cervantes, uh former Oakland Roots professional soccer player.

I've been part of the community for quite some time.

Uh as my brother mentioned, this is something that we want to do positively for the community.

Uh we I've been working with the school district for over a decade.

Um I'm heavily involved with the community, and we just want a space that we can share with our community and and our family uh as a way to just kind of kind of get away from from other things that are happening around our neighborhoods.

Uh, we want to make this as positive as we possibly can and make sure that this is an outlet for those in our community, especially the younger ones who see this as a as a way as a vehicle to kind of just come together and be part of something special.

As my brother mentioned we've been part of this community for s quite some time and we want to keep it as as lively as possible and hopefully reduce all the negatives that Oakland has been seeing.

And especially in that neighborhood we want to keep a uh a positive change and and hopefully uh make a positive impact in that community um even if it's a small step thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other speakers on this item?

I don't have any other speaker cards.

Okay so I will close public comment on this particular agenda item and bring it back up to the commissioners for discussion.

Everybody's shy um I have a maybe a couple questions for the for the applicants.

Maybe if you want to come back up I don't know.

Appreciate your your community focus and your application is definitely very strong with some of the ties that you've built.

Can you just remind me how long have you have you owned and operated the pool hall been there for about three years now.

About three years.

So have any of the violations taking place since you've taken over I think one of the violations was 2022 which is prior to us getting into the building in 2025 I'm not I don't know too much about what the the file was about but I could assume it was maybe a a small gathering but nothing nothing crazy.

Okay.

And then you mentioned in your application that during the day from one to six you're planning to have it open to youth and the schools surrounding schools and then at six start selling beer and liquor and operate for adults.

How would you how would you manage the gap to make sure that there's nobody under 21 in your pool hall we could hire any any needs any any oper uh what do you call it?

Any security, any staff um there's a friend that has a uh security business uh we can off obviously try to hire him and make sure that there's no kids under the tw the age of 21 uh going in through those hours uh but also uh we'll be around and my father will be around and and have that strict um enforcement enforcement of not letting any any younger kids in the during those hours.

I want to add you know we we've done a lot of after school programs through through the schools that we came up with urban problems academy he's a soccer coach after school I did a lot of community work in uh Castle Mount High School where planting justice used to operate um and we have a lot of background and history doing after school programs and it's something that we want to incorporate into the business as an after school place where those school uh students at big tech that just moved in right next door can come and find a place to to do either chess club or have a under 16, under 18 friendly tournament for the students um honestly these are just ideas that we have but we're open to to explore more options with the principal or anybody at the school site or even just a Rice High School where I went to as a charter school.

We got a cool relationship with with the principal there and they plan to come every Wednesday um as their internship hours um so yes we're totally open to find creative ways to to make that happen.

And then when you purchased the property in 2022 as an existing pool hall were you aware that there was no legal license associated with it.

Were we aware that there was not were you aware when you purchased the property that there was no liquor license yes we're aware of that.

Okay thank you um yeah I don't have any questions.

I just I just have some comments I think uh you know it's great your ideas um and the positive things you want to do in the community focus I really appreciate it.

Um I would just say though that uh I mean the the conditions are very clear, very strict, and this is not gonna be the last time that we're gonna have to consider a major variant, granting a major variance or conditional use permit.

Um I think, you know, in fact, I think the next meeting we're gonna we're gonna have to consider um granting um a major variance and uh uh it it's hard to see what the basis would be for meeting these criteria, each of these criteria um and you know uh setting a precedent where we grant a variance in this kind of situation is gonna it's gonna seem very arbitrary if we were to deny it in a future meeting.

So um, yeah, I just I don't see how um these criteria would be met for the major variance in the use permit.

Um but I hope that you pursue the ideas that you have um you know, regardless of whether or not you're able to sell out um alcohol.

Thank you.

Um I don't have questions for the applicant at this point.

I do though want to uh speak a little bit about a time last year where we did grant um a variance and a and a conditional use permit for a uh wine bar on College Avenue.

Um which we found we were able to um grant the variance because of the recommendation in the staff report.

I do find the process that we went through on that to be very different from how this application has been treated.

Um, for instance, there were eight schools within a thousand feet of that property, and we granted the variants.

There were 10 businesses within a thousand feet of that property, five of them were restaurants that had ABC licenses.

That property was scheduled to be open 10 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

They also had modifications to the outside of their building to have sidewalk table and chairs.

That property did not have code violations.

Um, but the tone of that staff report was that this liquor license uh would be an addition to the neighborhood.

They promised to train their staff just as the applicants today have promised.

I know that we were talking about this property on 23rd Avenue, and we're not talking about the property on College Avenue, but in looking at past present precedents of granting um variances for this kind of application.

The main difference that I see is that of the police beat, and the police beat on college avenue does not have um call numbers that exceed the citywide percentage, and this police beat on 23rd Avenue does.

This property also had previous code violations.

So I I that last staff report had a whole section on community support, letters of support.

The staff report did not have a section on letters of support, even though there were letters of support included in the packet.

That last property received 22 letters of support.

This one received five.

We also received 75 signatures, handwritten signatures for this application.

So I I do have a problem with how these two applications have been treated, and I think it is based on some assumptions of the neighborhood and their clientele.

And I I do think that uh we should trust the applicant that they say that they're gonna do what they say they're gonna do because that is how we treated the previous applicant.

Um my recommendation to staff moving forward is that you have standard uh staff report templates for this kind of application because the last application didn't list schools, um, even though uh that is part of the code that says it will not negatively impact schools, but there are a number of schools around that college avenue location, and that was not brought up in the staff report.

Schools were only listed in the findings and the attachment.

There's a lot of talk here about schools around this property.

So I just want there to be some consistency and so that we're not um preferencing one type of applicant over another based on their background and their clientele in the neighborhood that they're in.

Um I I think the one thing that is hard to get over because it is in the code is around the number of police calls exceeding the citywide average.

I I do not think that that is the fault of the applicant.

Um, that is the one sort of hang up I have, but otherwise, I I do not agree with the recommendation in the staff report to deny this permit because we granted uh a variance uh to a very similar application just in a different location last year.

Yeah, I wasn't so I just want to revise what I just said.

I didn't realize there was already a precedent for um providing this kind of variance.

Um I wasn't on the commission at the time.

But um, yeah, I mean I think that uh, you know, if this kind of variants can be um provided and granted in Rockridge, there's no reason why it wouldn't be granted in this neighborhood.

I want to give an opportunity for staff to potentially comment on um the difference in those staff reports or if there's any anything to say there.

Right.

We can't uh you we can't do analysis on the floor comparing the two.

We would have to come back to you with that.

So if you directed staff to come back to you, we generally won't compare cases if they're in different zoning districts and under different conditions, but we can certainly answer the question um about the findings and whether we are, you know, we're not gonna go back and revisit the decision for a previous case, but we can certainly come back to you with some analysis, uh, you know, a second look at the findings.

Um, and there's some other options available here, but I want to I I I think we'd like to hear the rest of the conversation.

Uh so we can come back and and respond to a certain degree to your questions, but we probably won't compare an approved case in a different location uh at a different time to this case, but we are happy to take uh a deeper look at this case individually, if that makes sense.

And I'm looking to the manager, the supervisor for the district to make sure he agrees with me.

I I'd call that a resounding agreement.

It's too bad K Top didn't capture the face, but we uh are happy to revisit that if that's something you'd like us to do.

I will just add that um they're both in CN, the college avenue location was CN1 and this location is CN3, both with the S13 combination zone.

So I know staff know more in detail the difference between those different zones, but they're both neighborhood community serving districts.

Yeah, I would say that the intent of the both those zones are are similar.

One um difference maybe the hours of operation, one's a cafe and one's uh a pool hall that wants to operate quite late.

Um so that might be something that like you know you might want to consider.

Um yeah, it's just difficult it was just difficult for us to make the findings, so that's why there was no um, you know, nothing, no judgment on the operator or um the appropriateness of the activity.

We just didn't feel like we could make those findings.

Commissioner Randolph.

Yeah, I really appreciate the conversation because I I was struggling with the same question when I was looking at this application.

Um I feel like there needs to be consistency on the commission when we vote and give you know uh permits and conditional use changes to to one applicant, but not necessarily the other, and agree if there's a way for the applications to have one template and be treated equally.

Um the challenge I have is is that I do see that there's at least for me a difference in use between a wine bar uh and the type of use activity that happens within it within a wine bar and the operating hours of that wine bar during the week and during the weekend.

And a pool hall that has a different type of activity within its uh history of violations even before the own current owners in the neighborhood, uh calls of service, always numerous other liquor serving um businesses around it.

Um and then the concern I have is, you know, is the operating hours all the way out till 1 a.m.

during the week.

Um, you know, on the weekends I can see that it's open a little later.

You have other uses around the the city that that have longer operating hours where they serve alcohol uh past a certain hours.

I don't think it's viable for a pool hall, similar to a cafe to close at 10 p.m.

uh during the week.

I don't know if the applicants would be open to that.

Um I think it's hard to stop serving maybe beer at 10 p.m.

during the week and then maybe continue to be open.

Um I'm also concerned around the overlap between youth hours and adult hours in the same building at the same time, so that's gonna be a big concern for me.

Um but I you know I I live in a neighborhood that has a lot of liquor stores in markets that that sell alcohol.

Uh and especially during the week, it can get very rowdy and uh quite a nuisance.

So I want to be sensitive to the neighbors.

We we saw an email and public comment today from a neighbor.

Uh I would love to learn a little bit more about what's going on in the neighborhood before I can make a determination one way or another.

Uh, I visited both locations, um, both the wine hall on the wine cafe uh and this location.

Um I'm struggling with this decision because I want to be consistent, but also understand living in a neighborhood that has a lot of police calls, it has a lot of challenges around liquor next to schools at all times of the day, um, that's hard to please.

Um it's it's it's a difficult choice.

So I'm not really sure um what I'm gonna do yet.

But maybe a question for staff is um, if we deny this uh application, are they do they have the opportunity to come back and fill out another application?

What is the process or if they withdraw the application, can they make improvements and show that they're operating successfully before they reapply?

What would be the process?

Uh they couldn't reapply right away if there was an approval of our recommendation of denial.

I think they have to wait at least a year to apply again, or you could continue it and we could place findings.

Um we could develop some not findings but conditions of approval and bring those back to you and see if those are sufficient for you.

Um, yeah, or and one of those findings could be or findings, conditions of approval could be that we sort of revisited the operation in a year and come back and see how successfully it's operating.

Um, but again, it's I keep on bringing this up, but just from a practical standpoint, it's difficult for us to make these particular findings.

Um, so and maybe I can provide uh uh more expansive response to what are the options here, if you'd like.

Yes, please.

So if you were to make a decision along the lines of staff's recommendation today, that decision is appealable to city council.

So they do get another bite at the apple.

The applicant can have another bite at the apple if they so choose.

And then what Neil said in terms of um sorry.

In addition to what Neil said, if you have a sorry, you have other options as well.

So you can ask for staff to come back with um a different recommendation.

And we can't do you can't do that on the floor, but we can bring back a recommendation to approve for you with the analysis around that if we think that that's viable or not.

Uh, but with the findings, and we can tell you if we believe we can make them, but what they would be, right?

Because you might decide you don't agree with us and you want to make those findings to approve.

So we can come back.

You can't do that today, but you can direct us to come back and we can bring that to you back to you at a future date.

So I think that covers the options available.

Yeah, and generally in that case, what we would do is ask for a straw vote.

It wouldn't be binding, but it would be a vote indicating your direction, and then we would come back in the future.

That is that is very helpful because the reason I'm asking this is because I appreciate the letters of support from the community.

I see these two gentlemen here who are I think trying hard to make a change in the community and open a business or create a business that is successful and functioning and give back to the community.

And I think that's something that is needed in the neighborhood.

And I appreciate your background coming from the neighborhood, coming from the community, um, investing in the community.

I do have some challenges and struggles with the application in regards to the operating outer hours, not being really clear of what your security plan is or your your ideas around um preventing future citations, preventing future events that are not permitted, um, as there's a history at that location, um cleaning up um how the business operated, you know, before you bought it, or you m maybe during your your your time as owners.

So I guess the question was, and I don't know if that's directed to city attorney or someone else is uh are we as a commission able to as part of the conditions of approval in the future require the applicants of providing some type of security plan similar to other applicants that have to provide like transportation management plans, like if you know there's cars coming in and out of a parking lot.

Are we you know I know we are able to adjust the operating hours since we've done that at other applications to maybe during the week.

Um I would I don't think I would support anything after eleven o'clock, to be honest.

Um I'm not sure about the youth overlap um during the week.

So maybe start at seven or eight and go to eleven.

I don't know, meaning I don't want to legislate from from the commission days here, but I I'm trying to find a way to support the business and support your goal to improve the community.

I do believe that there is a chance and opportunity similar to the wine bar that you can positively activate um that block and neighborhood with your business.

I just think there needs to be a little more information and stuff hashed out before I could get to a place of yes.

So city attorney can respond to that.

Yeah.

Um Brian Mulrie from the city attorney's office.

Um, Commissioner, you raised some really good points.

That is one of your roles on the commission is to develop reasonable conditions that address uh perceived impacts that you all see so wanting to see a more improved security plan, um addressing hours of operation, those are reasonable conditions that you all can impose.

I think it's less than ideal when that happens on the dais.

Um so if that's the direction you want to go, I think a continuation to allow some time for staff, the applicant, um, and maybe even some individual commissioners to meet with the applicant to see if we can and our office can also uh lend a role in that to see if we could develop reasonable conditions.

Thank you.

And the reason the reason I'm bringing this up because as the application is right now in front of me, I'm ready to support staff's recommendation of denial, which is not something I would necessarily want to do because I want to give you an opportunity to have a successful business.

And then if it's appealed to city council and the council then approves it, we have conditions in place that I don't think are positive for good for the community either.

So I'm inclined to give that continuance and maybe direct staff to work with the applicant to come up with more information uh on how you plan to operate your business, change the operating hours around when you sell liquor, um, and really maybe provide some detailed outreach to the community and how you're gonna work with the neighbors that are concerned and maybe partner with police and other safety organizations in the neighborhood to address some of the public safety concerns, and then maybe come back at a later time.

Because I don't want to deny it and then have you wait to wait a whole year, um, but maybe spend the next year or a couple months to make some improvements and show that you are going to be a good neighbor, if that makes sense.

So could I help out just by articulating again?

Let's just lie.

Right.

In terms of uh a direction that the planning commission might want to consider from one of your colleagues.

So one uh one option that I'm hearing from Commissioner Randolph is to conduct the straw vote to ask staff to come back with both the uh findings for denial as well as findings for approval and all of the other um analyses and findings that have to go with that, with conditions of approval uh that would manage for the concerns that you have, including hours of operation, um reducing police calls.

Is that is that right?

I think it was a more improved security plan.

Right, a more uh more robust security plan.

Um and with that, I think they should develop them by motion.

And so that would be part of if you were to take a straw vote to provide direction to staff.

That's I I'm just I'm I'm starting to hear the beginning of what might be a motion, so I just want to articulate it.

And I will note that the supervisor, I I believe since the staff report was published, they've they had reached out to an interdepartmental team, and sometimes it takes a while for the entire team to respond.

I believe they've heard some response from Oakland police department fairly recently, too recently to go into the report, but it could go into a future report, and uh Neil can summarize now.

Yeah, just in the last couple days didn't we, as Catherine mentioned, didn't have time to get it into the report, but there were concerns raised by the police department, not of the applicant, but of the sort of crime in the neighborhood, and they did recommend some operating hours in there, and that could be reflected in uh in the next report.

They're more limited than what you mentioned, um, but we can put those in there and perhaps let the planning commission choose which um which hours they prefer, but just to sort of give you a little more background in terms of what Commissioner Randolph was was uh was saying, thought that was a that was relevant.

Thank you.

Um and thank you commissioners for thoughtful um kind of thinking through what we've done in the past, how this impacts future decisions as well.

Um, I feel similarly, I think that I'm a little bit torn here.

Um, and I would uh vote to continue this item.

So um with the conditions that were discussed.

So do we need can we make a motion or we have to do a straw vote?

Yeah, I think the the straw vote would be on a motion, okay.

So the motion would be for a straw vote for whatever you'd like to include in there, and we will we will help you out.

Okay.

Do I have someone wanting to take a stab at that?

Could I add one of course more item before we do that?

So I do want to say on page 53, the applicant did lay out a security plan, and so using that as a basis to move forward to build off of that, which included surveillance cameras, enhanced lighting, on-site security, strict ID checks, and training staff.

Um also the type of license type 40 allows minors on site.

So I I understand, Commissioner Randolph, your concern about that transition at 6 p.m.

Um, when there still may be youth on site and beginning to sell um alcohol, but the permit it it does allow minors to be on site.

Um, um as the applicants mentioned, they have a mentoring program to mentor youth um to play different games and to have a space for youth to go after school.

And so I hear the data and the concern from the police department about activity in the neighborhood, but I encourage us also to think about how uh this could be a positive impact in the neighborhood as well.

And of course, we don't know if that's true, but that is what uh the applicants are gonna say that they um hope to achieve.

Um so I I do want to say that they're not starting from nowhere, at least based on their application and in the staff report that they do have some ideas around security, and I support um continuing the item to work out some of the details.

Um I did I think I heard the staff make a suggestion that uh the permit could be approved for a year and then reviewed to see how it was working.

I think if there are lingering concerns, that could be a good option to see how the implementation was working.

No, yeah, we can't do um temporary permits.

That's not uh an option available to and unless and Neil's looking at me this time instead of nodding yes, he's nodding no.

So uh we can hear from Neil, but generally the for land use entitlements, we don't grant temporary entitlements.

No, I'm I'm sorry, I was not suggesting a temporary use permit.

It was just something where the um business could come back, um, and there would be a report from staff describing how it's operating.

And if it's not operating well, well, there would be the option of the city to um or send it that's a very complicated and difficult um type of process which we wouldn't you know it would be it would be difficult to do but at least it would be a mechanism for the business to come back and for staff to report back as to how the business is doing and would that be um a condition?

We do that often for schools things like that things that tend to have impacts on neighborhoods.

saying that you need to call back the application but definitely would be great to get maybe a year later or period not a periodic but kind of a report of how things are going and make sure that um we get an update um I I appreciate part of the security plan that I read but I I do have a problem of youth being in the same space as alcohol being served.

If it was you know a wine cafe maybe something but in a pool hall it's a different environment I've been around enough places like that as a teenager to know that it's very easy to have access to liquor.

So just from my own not that that everybody's like me but it's just that I just have that's a big concern for me.

I don't want young teenagers to be exposed at your at your business to alcohol.

And I don't think you you I don't think you're unable to provide those mentorship programs or opportunities and community outreach events with alcohol without alcohol so I don't think you need alcohol in order for you to be able to do that during the day.

So as part of my support in the future for this I would definitely want to see separation of of the two and I think you would you will be able to do that listening to you and what your plans are.

But that's just my my personal concern with that but I I would be supportive of a continuation I don't know if the applicants are willing to have ongoing conversations or if you want to pursue um the options today and then move on but um I would love to be able to continue to work on this without having to vote no on this today.

Someone wanna take a stab I maybe maybe the applicants would love to hear from the applicants are you willing to continue to work on this or what are your like are you open to address are you open to yeah I think that are you open to addressing the operating hours and security plan I think it'd be very easy for us to close at an earlier date or earlier time throughout the week uh the weekdays I think that's something very simple for us to do if you if we start set uh stop selling alcohol at 11 p.m.

I don't see that being an issue and for your concerns with the youth overlap I think if we stop if we start selling alcohol from seven to eleven and have that hour gap where our students are are kind of leaving the the area will make it a clear clear and more safer um environment.

All right thank you.

Okay no one seems to be willing to take a stab at this one so I'll go for it um which is to propose a straw vote to um continue this item to a future meeting uh taking it um having staff look closer at the findings for denial um and the approval with uh and conditions of approval related to um a more improv more um improved security plan or kind of diving into the security plan a little bit deeper as well as consideration of the hours of operation as it relates in particular to um the sale of alcohol with uh minors being in the pool hall I I believe uh you may have meant something different from what I heard, and I might have just misheard.

But I do believe I heard that commissioners would like to see findings for approval.

Yeah.

And other all the other required documentation for to allow you to approve the proposal if you so choose.

Correct.

I'm looking at my fellow commissioners that is correct.

And then maybe get a staff report a year later, if possible, about how things have been going.

And I and the other piece that I also mentioned is I would like the applicant to provide another detailed report about community engagement around applying for the legal license as well as how you would handle neighborhood complaints.

Um or neighborhood concerns while you are operating.

So if I can try to, I won't, I'm sorry, I won't do it verbatim.

I apologize, but if I can read the gist of your motion back to make sure we've captured the concepts, I think that might be helpful to everybody.

So conduct a straw vote to continue the item.

Request staff to bring back findings and other requirements for approval.

Craft conditions of approval that allow for robust security plan, operating in alcohol service hours, and a check-in a year later, and address youth in pool hall while alcohol being served.

Does that cover the concepts accurately?

And a community engagement plan is that includes process for neighborhood complaints or neighbor complaints, and applicant to provide a community engagement plan.

Does that cover your motion?

So there is then a motion on the floor by Vice Chair Sandoval.

Second.

And a second by Commissioner Randolph.

Can you do a roll call on the straw vote, please?

All right.

So Commissioner Josie Ahrens?

Yes.

Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Commissioner Randolph?

Yes.

You vice chair Sandoval.

Yes.

Motion passes.

And just a note that we there's no date certain for this.

This item will have to be renoticed because staff will be coming back with a different recommendation, multiple recommendations, and some new materials, so there will be noticing requirements.

So the date certain isn't wouldn't provide a convenience in this case.

So staff will work with the applicant to gain all materials and come back at a date when all materials can be provided.

Thank you.

And then I do have one more question.

Sorry, I know that Commissioner Arnes asked about how this relates to the other application that we had.

Is there anything information that you want it to do?

Oh, because you said you couldn't provide analysis at this meeting, but is that something that could be done at the next meeting?

At the meeting that this item is heard, or what were you thinking?

Thank you.

I don't need the previous item to be reevaluated or an analysis necessarily comparing the two.

My request is that staff reports moving forward have the same sections in the staff report.

If looking at schools or synagogues or temples is an issue, then that should be mentioned, you know, in every staff report.

If looking at community input, that should have a section in every staff report, even if the information is no impact.

But I did see discrepancy in terms of how the information was evaluated and um what was seen as being able to f make the findings or not.

So looking for consistency, yeah.

And I'll note just because we're in a public hearing, I have heard you, and I will pass that along to our Bureau.

That said, we would appreciate if at the next meeting you can raise this under planning commission matters so we can really capture the concept for everyone's benefit.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um so moving on to agenda um item number three, which is a continued item from the September 17th meeting, which was actually uh a canceled meeting, so it's a continuation from a meeting prior to that.

Right.

So this item number three is the general plan update phase two options, not alternatives, options, and you are correct that this is was continued to a date, certainly well, automatically continued to the next meeting.

Your last meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.

So meetings are automatically continued to the next meeting date, and no additional noticing is required.

That said, this is a discussion item for uh with no decision required for the general plan update phase two options.

There are three options.

Lakshmi, Rajika Polan, and her team are here to present the options and the community input to date.

And I believe she'll be asking for a motion, but not a decision.

So we will be available to help you craft any motion if necessary.

Thank you.

Lakshmi.

Thank you.

Kate, can we have the presentation up, please?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair Sandoval and Planning Commissioners.

My name is Lakshmi Raj Gopalin.

I'm a planner for with the strategic planning division and the project manager for general plan update phase two.

I'm joined, I'll be co-presenting with my colleague and also our community consultant and youth fellows.

And we also have our technical consultants in attending today.

So a quick overview of the agenda.

We will provide a brief background on the general plan update process.

As you might be aware, this is a two-phase process, and a quick overview on the timeline itself, and then the focus of today's discussion, which is the options report, followed by a discussion and key next steps.

And what we're requiring for requesting you to do today is provide consolidated feedback to staff on the options themselves.

What do you like, what do you not like, and your feedback so that we can integrate it as part of the next steps.

Now I'll turn it over to BB to provide an overview of the general plan.

Thank you, Lakshmi.

Hello, commissioners.

I am BB Lagarder.

And is this this better?

Okay.

My name is Bibi Lagarder.

I am a planner two on the strategic strategic planning division.

Okay, so well, many of you are familiar with the general plan.

I'll begin with a brief summary to provide some context.

The general plan lays out a citywide vision along with goals, policies, and implementation measures to guide long-term growth, preservation, and stabilization in Oakland.

It's a blueprint for future land use and zoning.

It also reflects on past challenges and accomplishments to ensure that there's a consistent direction for future development.

And importantly, is an opportunity to reduce racial and racial inequities and conduct inclusive community engagement that includes the community and decision making processes.

The general plan update is happening in two phases.

Phase one covered the housing, environmental justice and safety elements and concluded in fall 2023.

In phase two, we are focusing on four elements: land use and transportation, open space conservation and recreation, infrastructure and capital facilities, and noise.

So I'm just going to give a brief overview of each of these elements.

The infrastructure and capital facilities element is a new element being developed for this general plan.

And it focuses on keeping essential systems like water, sewage, electricity, and internet, reliable and resilient, and plans for public facilities such as schools, libraries, and other, you know, rec centers, community spaces, and make sure that they are well maintained and equitably distributed.

The noise element will work to reduce and mitigate noise pollution and its impacts on health.

Building on what we heard from the community in phase one, we kicked off citywide engagement for phase two in fall 2024 and continued through early summer 2025.

That first round of engagement was focused on the big picture question where are we going?

Now we've shifted into the planning stage, which asks how will we get there, which is the main focus of today's discussion.

So on July 30th, the general plan team shared a report with big picture ideas for how Oakland could grow and stabilize over the next 25 years.

At its core, this report seeks to refine strategies for investing in the well-being of current residents, preventing displacement, and deciding where and how new housing, jobs, parks, and transportation should develop.

This report was accompanied by a survey which invited participants to provide feedback on what worked, what didn't work, and what was missing in each of the options.

And that survey was opened from July 30th until September 24th.

As I mentioned, this the report shared three broad options to facilitate comparison, discussion, and refinement of the different strategies we're exploring to achieve the vision shared by Oaklanders in earlier engagement.

These are not final plans, but different broad ideas to help us think about Oakland's future.

It's important to understand that each of the options is not fixed.

You don't need to choose one option over the others.

Instead, the ideas within each are flexible and can be mixed and matched.

We are also open to new ideas, themes, and strategies, and are looking forward to hearing your suggestions today.

Just to give a little background on how the options were developed, they come from a mix of inputs, including community feedback to date, state projections for jobs and housing, existing city and community-led plans, and staff analysis of potential opportunity sites.

They also include actions identified in the phase one elements.

We also carried forward input from phase one.

So throughout the process, we've built on the community's vision and guiding principles with a commitment to advancing racial equity in both the plan and how we do the work of planning.

Okay.

Just to give a brief rundown.

These include the formation of a general plan advisory committee, which includes technical advisors, those other city staff, you know, staff from other departments who we work with closely, ex officio members, and select members of the public selected through an application process.

We've also conducted a series of focus groups.

We've held town halls and conducted tabling, and we are also participating in a series of walking tours that are ongoing this fall.

So to ensure that communities experiencing socioeconomic, environmental, and racial disparities can meaningfully participate in planning for Oakland's future, the city hired the deeply rooted collaborative as a consultant to lead community engagement efforts in these key communities.

And a core piece of this effort is the youth fellows program.

So I'm going to hand things over to Jocelyn Gama, the Youth Fellows program coordinator to provide more details.

I'm pretty tall.

So thank you, Bebe.

So yeah, good afternoon, planning commissioners.

My name is Jocelyn Gama, and I'm proud to serve as the youth coordinator for the deeply rooted fellowship.

So Ryan, I'm going to give a brief overview of what the youth fellowship is, and you'll also have the opportunity to hear about from two of our fellows and talk about the work that we've been doing.

So our program invests in the next generation of Oakland leaders, young people ages from 14 to 26 through civic engagement, civic education, leadership training, but also hands-on projects that are preparing them to engage in local policy, not just for today, but also for the long-term civic participation and reasoning.

And so many of our fellows, most importantly, they're coming from these neighborhoods that are directly impacting by the planning decisions.

And this fellowship creates an opportunity and space for them to lead with live experiences, innovation, and science and creativity.

And so the fellowship have the fellows have partnered with deeply rooted organization across Oakland, East Oakland, West Oakland, and different neighborhoods.

They participated in outreach events and have launched social media campaigns to increase the public understanding of the general plan update.

They've used creative storytelling through interviews, multimedia projects, and also art to gather and share community perspectives, especially from the long-standing residents and often community members that are overlooked voices.

So by connecting policy to people's real experiences, our youth are helping shape and give an understanding to what the general plan is and making it more inclusive, accessible, and grounded in our community needs.

So right now I'm gonna pass it over to two of our fellows.

They're incredible, and their name is Joanna and Mariki, and they'll share a little bit more about the projects that they're conducting and the ripple effect that they are making in the general plan update community engagement strategies.

Hi, thank you, Jocelyn.

Good afternoon, commission commissioners.

It's a pleasure to be here.

My name is Joanna Morales Lopez, and I was born and raised in Oakland.

As a fellow in the Deeply Rooted Youth Fellowship, I have had the amazing opportunity to engage directly with Oakland residents through outreach events.

As a Latina and native Spanish speaker, I am particularly committed to ensuring that Spanish-speaking communities, which are often left out of these critical conversations, are informed, heard, and represented.

Through this work, we have built trust, fostered dialogue, and gathered valuable feedback that reflects the priorities of these historically underrepresented communities.

I am proud to be part of a process that uplifts uplifts youth's voices and community perspectives, and I look forward to continuing to represent my community throughout the general plan update.

Now I'll hand it over to Merky, and she will share more about our work within the fellowship.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joanna.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Modi Keat, and I'm excited to share my experience as a fellow.

I'm sorry, can you state your full name for the record, please?

Yes, my name is Maudi Keat Mayeno.

Thank you.

During this fellowship, I've had the opportunity to interview long-standing community members to raise awareness about the general plan update.

One conversation that meant a lot to me was with the owner of Cafe Santana in the Laurel District, the neighborhood where I grew up.

I shared information about the general plan, and in return, he shared his inputs and meaningful insights about the area's history and the changes he's seen over the years.

These interviews uplift the voices of residents and small business owners, people who deserve to be heard and the future planning decisions.

Our next step is to collaborate with you to ensure these perspectives are reflected in the process.

Now I'll pass it back to Jocelyn.

Thank you so much.

So, yes, you got to hear firsthand from our youth fellows.

And so looking ahead, we're looking forward to expand with the Oakland Unified School District and other youth-led organizations to present and engage young people on the key elements of the general plan update.

And we also want to invite you guys to our open mic, and where some of our fellows and also other community residents will be able to share about the general plan in a very creative manner through open mics.

So yeah, thank you so much.

And I'll pass it over to Bibi.

Thank you, Jocelyn.

And just to note, this work with the youth fellows and with deeply rooted is carrying on from phase one.

So, oh, can we get the slides back up, please?

Thank you.

So it's a continuation of that work and something that we are continuing to build on and make sure it's, you know, working well to engage the community.

Um just again to get into next steps, uh, once we oops.

Once we analyze community feedback to better understand where growth should happen, we will get more specific about how to make it work.

So that means identifying neighborhood level improvements, figuring out the best transportation improvements, and deciding what building densities or zoning gestricts may need to change.

Again, this will all happen in collaboration with community members.

Some of these details will take a more solid shape in the draft land use framework, which is the next step in the planning process.

Um we hope to publish that in early 2026.

From there, we'll refine uh further through the development of element-specific policies.

Certain policies will apply citywide while others will require more community engagement to make sure they are appropriate for the needs of specific contexts.

So now I'm going to hand things over to Lakshmi to walk us through the ideas shared in the options.

Thank you.

So moving into the meat of the discussion today.

So all these options built off a baseline.

So you can think of each of these options building off a foundation.

So they are based on shared growth and improvements that apply citywide, and then the options A, B, and C, each of them built off of those baselines.

So the baseline reflects what is already planned, approved or projects that are in process, progress, and also concepts that will be foundational to address in policies like racial equity, climate change, employment, sea level rise, for example.

And you will also see across these options key community themes that are reflected.

That includes complete walkable neighborhoods, a desire for more options for mobility, diverse housing types, access to like equitable access to parks, and inclusive economic growth.

So, what are the key common features across the options, all options?

So the baseline accounts or assumes that jobs and housing are added in downtown based off of what was approved in the downtown Oakland specific plan near the coliseum, major transit corridors and botch stations and neighborhoods.

And this also accounts all the zoning changes that were done as part of phase one, which includes a included a lot of upzoning and height and density changes, and also allowing two to four units across like our RD districts, for example.

So we are likely to see modest growth in existing neighborhoods with more multi-using housing types, accessory dwelling units, and neighborhood commercial users added over time.

For employment uh uses, the plan um the plan supports existing key neighborhoods, commercial centers, other existing important industries like healthcare and port serving users, and all these options also focus on transition of some industrial lands to cleaner jobs, job dense industries.

This uh feedback is reflective of the action in our environmental justice element that also provides guidance to transition to cleaner industries.

The city does aim to attract growing sectors like technology, life sciences, green economy, and advanced manufacturing.

So that's the umbrella term that we are using, like to refer to RD, research and development.

But what's important to note is the baseline is just a starting point and really does not include enough development to meet Oakland's future housing and jobs needs.

So each of these three options builds on this baseline by adding different amounts and types of development, transportation, park improvements to create a complete plan for future growth.

So moving into option A.

Option A is called the city of neighborhoods, and this reflects the key community feedback that we heard.

We've been hearing throughout this process since 2021 is Oaklanders want to be able to reach more destinations and daily needs within a short distance from home, from their homes.

So this spreads development across 18 mixed-use neighborhood centers.

Uh, nine of them are already existing.

So the existing neighborhood centers, we will be uh bringing more housing to existing shopping streets, and the other nine will add stores and services to areas that currently lack these uh services.

And these centers would include things like grocery stores, restaurants, local services, housing transit, green spaces, and gathering spots.

So this makes it easier for everyone to access healthy food choices, services, and transportation while also celebrating and reinforcing Oakland's unique neighborhood identities.

Option A also supports jobs by focusing on new three new RD centers.

Uh, those are the ones in the map that are highlighted in red.

So this is in Western West Oakland, Western Jack London, and the ports, Airport Business Park.

And for transportation improvements, the key idea is to link neighborhood centers, job hubs, and regional transit with better first mile, last mile connectivities, new bike lanes, slower, safer streets, and safer, greener sidewalks and crosswalks.

Option A also proposes to add improved parks within or closer to neighborhood centers and makes parks a central focal point for what could be in new developments.

And you could see on the on your right, on my right, illustrative rendering of what option A could look like, showing people crossing across streets with improved uh intersections and public art.

Option B is connected corridors and gateways, and this is uh indicative of community support and feedback around more housing and jobs close to public transit.

So it concentrates uh new development along major transit corridors throughout the city, and more housing and jobs would support more frequent buses, bus service, and local businesses along these corridors.

And for employment, uh jobs will be added along these corridors, and there will be two new RD centers instead of three that you saw in option one, option A.

So this would be in West Oakland and the Ports Airport Business Park.

And for transportation, the key idea is to add more frequent bus routes along key corridors and also improve bike pad connectivity along major streets, and new and improved uh parks are a focal point at transit gateways and corridor intersections and smaller parks and plazas.

And uh the rendering on the screen does show uh people crossing at street with improved intersections, people biking and only bus-only lanes and uh separated bike lanes.

And finally, option three is called the midtown waterfront district, and this is to reflect Oaklanders' desire to be more connected to the waterfront.

So uh this outlines a new midtown waterfront district to replace old industrial lands along the central estuary with a new neighborhood that includes homes, parks, jobs, and public shoreline access.

And the revitalized uh waterfront would become uh one of Oakland's uh key attractions and will ensure housing, higher density housing along international boulevard and surrounding neighborhoods, help avoid displacement for current residents.

For uh employment, the proposal is to create uh new three new RD centers, one in West Oakland, one in Jack London, and a larger one in this in the airport business park area.

A key transportation idea for option C is to add a new San Antonio Transit hub, transit station, which would support a future BART connection.

This is also reflected in link 21.

So option B also outlines that and enhances uh pedestrian and bike access to the shoreline and estuary.

And for parks and open space, the idea is to create a new linear trail along Sausel Creek and new parks and uh connecting trails along the waterfront shoreline.

So a quick look on how these options compare.

So of all the three options, building off of the baseline, option C would result in the build out of the most housing units and jobs.

Option A, the neighborhood centers would pave the way for build out of slightly more housing units than option B, but option A would result in slightly fewer jobs than option B.

So this is just a high-level comparison of all the three options.

So as we move into discussion, I'm almost done with my presentation.

We are asking you to think of these are just some key guiding questions to just help uh get the discussion started.

So we are seeking your feedback on what are the ideas presented in these options you find exciting.

Uh, what are some concerns?

Are there any big picture ideas or concepts that you don't see represented?

Are there concepts that need more explanation?

And do you have other suggestions?

And uh, so, in terms of next step, uh next steps, so we closed community engagement on September 4th for the options report.

So staff are currently synthesizing community feedback, not just collected through the survey, but all the other forms that you heard from BB.

So we held a series of several focus groups, several town hall meetings, deep listening sessions where we met the community where we where they were at, a lot of pop-up events, and we have a lot of information on our website about those events.

So we are synthesizing all that feedback, and uh we hope to publish the draft land use framework, which is known called as the preferred option, uh, sometime early 2026.

And then that would be available for a public review period.

We will also do another round of community engagement, but um, and then come back to present to all the boards and commissions, including the planning commission for your feedback and recommendation, and then uh take it to city council for their um endorsement.

And this concludes my presentation.

So we are asking that the planning commission conduct a study session, um, take public comment and provide us with consolidated feedback.

Thank you.

Great, thank you very much.

Um great presentation.

Thank you for all the hard work that has gone into this.

Um, before we go to public forum, is there any clarifying questions that the commissioners have first?

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Uh, one quick question is could you share a little bit more about what the genesis was or is for option C and the midtown area in particular.

Is that something that you heard a lot from people that you engaged with?

Yes, uh, so rather than presenting all of the feedback that we heard from the community, like the key themes that we heard since we've been hearing since phase one, uh, we kind of separated identified key three key themes, right?

So we did hear from the community that they wanted to see uh development, um focus on the waterfront, access to the waterfront, and we also heard a lot of feedback around the need for a San Antonio transit hub.

So that's that's what option C captures.

But like Bibi mentioned, these options are not either or, they can be both, and you can mix and match and provide feedback on what features you like best about option A or B or C.

Following up on that, the question related to option C, um, and and again, just appreciate all the work that's gone into this and acknowledging that these are these are three options that are meant to help us think through and take pieces of mix them together, come up with new ideas, and then really start thinking about implementation.

So, just a reminder that that's where we're at with these three options.

Um, but for option C, just how realistic is the San Antonio Transit Hub, particularly in coordination with BART, um, and then if you could just address C level rise and option C as well.

Yes, uh so for the San Antonio Transit Hub, like I mentioned, this is already being analyzed and presented as one of the recommendations as part of Link21.

And we've also been in conversations with BART staff, but this is a so stepping back, this is the general plan.

This is a long-term vision for the city.

And if uh we have some kind of action or policy that supports a San Antonio Transit Hub, then that would help BART uh then move forward with their feasibility analysis, and so that would show Bart the support.

And we've been in conversations with, we've been participating in Link21 technical advisory meetings, and also in conversations with BATS staff.

As far as sea level rise, um, um, just to add, I think what the plan also speaks about is having maybe a uh what would be an interim transit hub at San Antonio that could actually help demonstrate the potential uh demand and that could um and the ridership that could then use a future BART station.

So that is kind of so meant that you don't maybe jump from, you know, A to Z, but you have uh in between in there to kind of show that there is a demand and a need, and that that this could happen, and obviously the transit hub would be a less expensive measure, interim measure to try to maybe sho demonstrate that that could be feasible to then maybe put the extra money in to make the actual station.

And uh to respond to your comment about sea level rise.

So staff are obligated to develop what's the regional shoreline, subregional shoreline adaptation plan.

So we are working closely with Alameda.

Um Emreville to develop this and uh we will so the safety element adopted as part of phase one already includes a lot of policies related to sea level rise, and we also did a climate vulnerability assessment that looked at sea level rise.

But BCDC's uh uh regional shoreline adaptation plan requires additional uh data points and uh policies for us to consider.

So we will be including looking at that as part of um this update.

And I I know that the downtown Oakland specific plan also includes uh sea level sea level rise overlay zone.

So that might, we are also looking at to expanding that for the city.

I think to also add, you know, some of the things that we look at the sea level rise adaptation plan, it um future analysis will look at different ways you can treat sea level rise.

So there's you know, it's the the older kind of way of putting in like a seawall, and then but then there's the options of maybe you create park and open space that can flood right during events and kind of take in that flooding, um, or even you know, future development maybe helps with the way the development maybe it's built at a higher level.

So even though option C is showing areas that are within sea level rise, there are potential ways to handle that and actually maybe incorporate development and design to allow for and work with that potential sea level rise.

Absolutely, and thank you uh for those clarifications.

Kind of amazing to see what they're doing at Mission Rock in San Francisco and Treasure Island and stuff to accommodate sea level rise.

So thank you.

Uh other clarifying questions, yes.

Yeah, I just want to clarify, and I understand these are not uh mutually exclusive and there's elements that can be mixed and matched.

But for example, on the um on the stack bar chart when you're comparing the options, is that assuming um that there's roughly equal public investment, uh public resources in in each of the plans, or is there inherently sort of different levels of resources required for the different options?

Yeah.

I think some of that will I think get into as you know further into the more the next element um iterations, but obviously, you know, as some examples you'll see if there's two RD centers as opposed to three RD centers, the assumption with creating an RD area is that new infrastructure and other types of needs will would be needed in those areas.

So obviously, if you're gonna have more of the RD centers that would require a larger investment potentially.

Yeah, and you know, it need more electricity is needed and so forth.

Um, but yeah, so this is still, I think looking much more higher level, and then obviously as we get into the draft plan or draft flamework plan, they'll start to getting into more of those types of details.

We have very very exciting presentation.

It's really exciting to hear and see what Oakland could be like in the next 25 years, and really, really happy to hear that a lot of the youth, specifically from West Oakland where live is involved in crafting what our city needs to look like in the next 25 years.

Um similar to what Commissioner Lee has mentioned around just infrastructure needs or public revenue or resources.

Have you I mean you said it's more like a high level plan, but is this plan eventually going to um determine or hopefully influence budgetary decisions or grants or future bonds that are required to fund this and how much of this plan relies on public funding versus private investment, for example, as you know, development versus actually creating jobs, um, where where do you see that that balance?

Yeah, I can take an initial stab at it and then maybe I'll turn it over to Laura.

So as uh Laura mentioned, we did like um high level build out and um projections, right?

But as we move through the draft land use framework, we will uh get into detail, build out numbers and uh even we'll we'll look at like uh VMT or vehicle miles traveled and all those projections, and this will form the basis of the element development itself.

So we will have a new infrastructure and capital facilities element, so that will also look at all the infrastructure needs that the city will uh require.

Speaking to infrastructure improvements that we will need, um, new infrastructure development that might happen, and uh this will also have an action and action plan identifying which departments are responsible for implementing these actions.

So planning and building is most of the time leading these efforts.

But if you actually look at all the elements and the actions proposed, we don't implement a lot of these actions.

There are very few actions that we implement.

That's why we work very closely with we have an interdepartmental group with Oakdot, OPW, um, public works, the city administrator's office, and uh everyone else.

So we will seek their guidance on how detailed these actions should be.

Because at the end of the day, the general plan is a high level policy document.

So the action might be for the city to study something else or create something very specific, and we will identify partners and maybe some potential funding sources.

Yeah, I will also add that um, I think as Lakshmi did mention, but with the infrastructure element, uh, which is in would be a new element that the city does not currently have, and also looking at doing a long-year, like a 10 year capital improvement plan that would actually be looking at how do we achieve some of these things because often a number of the actions are going to be requiring a funding source that you're not gonna have immediately, but might be work towards getting the funding over a 10-year period of time to then do certain improvements or um certain build buildings, and um, so the idea is that we would be looking at I think you know, trying to look at the cost of these different types of improvements as well as even just the facilities that are needed as the city grows.

So new fire stations, um, new police stations, new parks, and what type of money is needed for those different types of things, because as you as you mentioned, um it would we would want to look at all sources of of revenue that we could have for that, so it's not just what the city produces, but yeah, what grants are out there, and if we show it on a plan, like if we show that's part of often what a grant, as we all know, you need to show that this is something that is part of a plan, you're you get bit more points in getting getting that grant funding, but we really do need a long-term capital improvement plan to try to look at things because instead of often have we been looking at it from a two-year standpoint, and that's not really long enough to look at some of these bigger investments that are needed.

And then thinking about what the role of the planning commission here is in the future based on this plan, do you anticipate that some of the actions coming out of this would have to come to the planning commission in regards to rezoning or upzoning?

Like we know we we just did the downtown Oakland specific plan.

How does that one play into it?

I know that the West Oakland plan has been out there for a very very long time.

Is that going to be updated to kind of feed into this master plan?

And and what do you kind of anticipate?

A lot of some of the job suggestions that you have up there, like RD, now we just we just changed some of things in for the downtown plan, right?

So do you anticipate that other areas would be impacted?

I know the Coliseum has its own plan.

So, how do all these things kind of feed into it or feed from this?

So, similar to phase one, um, all the elements will come through planning commission for a recommendation to city council to adopt it.

But some of the actions might be very detailed, like the zoning code amendments that were adopted as part of phase one.

We listed those actions in the housing element, but that was a separate process, and we came back to the planning commission to present, get your feedback uh through not just public outreach, but we also had like a zoning update committee meetings, planning commission meetings to get your feedback, and then come back for a formal adoption public hearing to um adopt it and provide recommendation to the city council, then it would be adopted via ordinance.

So I think as yeah, Lakshmi was saying is that you know we there will be times it you know, it depends.

It might also be some of the actions, especially with the open space and conservation recreation element.

Those may be actions to go back to the PRAC as an example, or things that are maybe more in the road network might go back to the BPAC bicycle planning advisory or bicycle pedestrian advisory commission.

So yeah, so those will be you know future um items essentially that you know could come back to various commissions and also go back to council.

So it just depends on you know what the item is that's being implemented.

And oh, as part of this process, we have presented the options report to BPAC PRAC, the Cultural Fultural Affairs Commission.

We will also be going to CED to get their feedback, and then we will repeat the process for all the steps.

And then the final question is um one thing that I didn't necessarily see mentioned in the presentation.

I haven't read the whole entire report that was just published, not just like a couple months ago, but where does the potential hopefully future removal of I-980 fit into this?

Because hopefully I'll see it in my lifetime, but who knows?

Yeah, but um, and that is a huge key in reconnecting West Oakland to the rest of the city, opening up large areas to development parks, housing, you know, commercial use, whatever.

That's a that's public land that's going to be opened up.

Where does that fit into any of the options?

And have you when are you considering that all as part of the master plan?

So staff are part of the uh advisory committee on the vision 980 plan.

So we meet with them and we provide feedback on the vision.

And as part of the options, we did not look, we know that there's a process going on I 980, and that would be analyzed as part of the draft land use framework, because at this stage in the process, going into that level of detail about whether I-90 is going to be um removed or are they going to realign?

Because Caltrans is working with the bus with a few options.

So we need to know what they are proposing before we can actually analyze how that's going to impact the preferred land use, the draft land use framework.

So at this stage, we did not include it uh intentionally because we are also working with them, given that that's a separate agency process on their recommendations, and we are hoping to get that uh report soon.

But Laura can speak more to that because she is serving on that committee.

Yeah, well, yeah, I will say that um it was it was something, yeah, that we if we included it like in one of the options and the other, it was made it skewed all the numbers and everything, and so um we you know we wanted to kind of wait till we got further in the process.

But I did realize I I didn't answer the other question you'd asked about how this works with the other specific plans like West Oakland and the Coliseum.

So since we are comprehensively updating the whole general plan, we are re-looking at these areas that did have past specific plans because those specific plans were based off of the old general plan.

And so it doesn't mean we're necessarily changing them wholesale or whatever, but we are looking at, you know, updates that need to be done and what we've heard from the community, and obviously things have changed since a lot of them have been adopted.

And certainly there's things, you know, with the Coliseum.

We don't have the sports teams that we had before.

So it's definitely, you know, we're looking at, you know, what types of things might need to be changed that were from those specific plans.

So they are part of the process.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And maybe this is more for the commission business, and I'll bring that up at the next meeting, then doing commission business.

But I would love to see maybe in the next couple of months if there's maybe an update we can get on I nine eighty.

Um, I don't know if that's maybe something for next year.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

I have good news for you.

One of Laura's staff has signed up to bring Caltrance in front of you to uh present an info report regarding that.

There you go.

Asking you shall I receive?

Thank you.

Yeah, and I think that's uh signed up for before the end of this year.

Perfect.

I will not bring it up next week.

Any other questions?

Yep.

Um so we got a couple emails about uh raising that um that there's not a public lands policy included um and that the in particular um the uh the policy public lands policy could be used to promote affordable housing such as through long-term ground lease and that other cities have them.

Can you can you just address that?

Sure.

So again, so we are in the process of looking at big picture ideas.

So we are not actually in policy development yet, but um um public lands policy could be a policy or an action item that could be looked at as part of the land use element.

And we will uh so we have also received those emails with the public feedback, so we will consider that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else before we go to public comment.

Okay.

Anifa, do we have speaker cards?

No, we do not.

Wow, okay.

All right.

Well, so with that, I guess I'll close public comment.

Um so bringing it back to the commissioners for discussion.

Thank you.

Uh so I want to extend my thanks to staff and all the consultants.

I assume everyone in this room is probably working on this project if you're not here to give public comment.

So thank you for your work and your efforts.

Um I was really impressed with the work done in phase one and anticipate that I will continue to be impressed with the work that the city does on this.

So um thank you for this study session and and for taking our input.

Um so I do have a few comments um building off of Commissioner Lee's point.

Um it is a priority of mine to see a public lands policy come out of this piece.

If we're talking about the land use element, we should have uh coherent policy moving forward about our approach to public lands, which I hope is not continuing to sell them off.

I think ground leasing is uh is a really strong policy moving forward.

Um I think some other quick strategies.

I know in your presentation you had a question about strategies.

Um this may have fallen in the previous element a little bit, but if it fits in this one to examine expanding buy right approvals um to stimulate housing, I think that that removes a lot of risk for developers, and if we're able to extend um buy right approvals, uh I would hope that that could see our numbers and housing um increase.

And then um to this the discussion earlier about uh funding.

Uh I would like to see uh any revisions or updates or new funding sources, but I'm thinking about impact fees in particular.

I know we talked a lot about that for housing, but uh for the transportation and um any other infrastructure items.

Uh, you know, do we need to be evaluating the impact fees?

Um I'm curious about the the funding piece, and that could be just one part of that.

Um I think overall.

Oh, before I go to overall, I I will say about the noise element, which I know didn't really come up much today, but um encourage the city as I anticipate you already are going to do to update ways to measure noise um to sort of current best practices and establish metrics.

Um I believe there are international standards about measuring noise.

Um, and I encourage staff to uh have the, you know, as we've done with objective design standards to have objective um measurements and and ways to evaluate noise, um, that eliminate a lot of ambiguity.

I think the I the noise element was last updated in 1983, which is before I was born.

Um, and so hoping that can just come into step with current standards.

Uh overall, uh, I'm really excited about options A and B.

Um I love the idea of having neighborhood centers and expanding and growing on what already exists and focus on um placekeeping and and efforts to really have uh most people's needs met within their neighborhoods and in safe, walkable, uh livable, vibrant ways.

Um I as a transportation person also love the corridors, um I wanna be able to get from uh Raymondi Park to the Laurel in m you know more than one way, not just have to drive.

Be beautiful to see ways that I could do that biking or with more reliable frequent transit.

I will say though from option uh C that I'm very supportive of the San Antonio station.

I know we gave our input on that at some point over the last couple of years.

Um and I think that the interim use as a as a transit hub to show demand is a great interim step for that.

Um option C, um I think the part about the midtown waterfront development is a little confusing to me.

I I saw that and thought that maybe that would be better as a um neighborhood plan or area plan specific for that part of town.

I didn't really see how focusing a whole option on that.

I know there are pieces that are across all the options, but um seeing that I was a little concerned about speculation, um and potential displacement if the city puts out a plan saying we wanna build out this area.

Um and so uh my input on that piece is that maybe that would be better as a area plan.

I I think it is a good idea in and of itself, but for a update for the general plan across the city, I think option A and B hit a little more um at getting at places across the city.

I understand you know, priority communities are along the 880 corridor and that we have a lot of environmental justice communities there where we want to mitigate impacts, and I understand that's why the midtown area was chosen, but I think that we can address um some of those concerns uh without having uh the general plan focus specifically on that area and have it be an area plan.

And those are my comments.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um just to uh layer on to that a bit.

I was looking into some of those public land use policies that some of our peer cities have.

I would see that say that in some general plans in California it they provide frameworks, whereas other cities provide policies, and if possible, I would lean towards policies as a recommendation so it's a more um explicit.

Um I also wanted to note that uh really appreciate elevating the equity challenges here, particularly on page 22 of the staff report.

I think that is like a critical piece of this.

So thank you for um putting that front and center.

It does say that specific policies and accountability measures will be developed in phase two, which um I'm looking forward to seeing and would love to hear more in the next update about what those accountabilities measures really are and how we um both as the commission but the general public can really track whether those um equity commitments are really um happening over time and so we can kind of always have that opportunity to check back to see if things like that it are working.

Yeah, also thank you for for this presentation and detailed information.

Um I don't think I can say I like one option over the other.

There's a lot of elements like other commissioners of each of the options that I'm really really excited about.

I do believe that Oakland just based on its history of you know, taking in other cities into this larger city um is has a very unique neighborhoods that should keep its own keep their own characters and history.

I'm glad to hear that you had a conversation with one of the owners and in in Laurel.

Um and I think every neighborhood has that, right?

We have business owners and neighbors that that really love their neighborhood.

Uh and as a return love Oakland, and that's what makes the city such a unique in diverse city because we have really amazing neighborhoods that that are not necessarily connected to each other, but are uh a place where you can really live and enjoy yourself, but you should also explore the other cities.

Um that's why I think the connectors are so important because, you know, a lot of neighbors and people in West Oakland and other parts of the city feel not necessarily trapped, but dislocated from other parts of the neighborhood in other cities.

So, you know, you West Oakland is not really walkable.

You can't really go to other parts of the city.

You can't even really go easily or bike easily to downtown or other parts of the city.

You have to like go through the freeway and other stuff.

So I mean, I would love to, you know, include in future conversations like, you know, how do you make you know plan to make you know Oakland will livable?

And I think it's part of the connectors and investing in the neighborhoods.

I think open space and parks are important.

So you don't have to bike somewhere or take a bus somewhere or drive somewhere, you can just walk somewhere.

And I think there's a lot of neighborhoods still in Oakland that lack open space.

Um we have an abundance of space, but it's not just necessarily usable or or open to use.

Uh parking lots, old warehouses, commercial space that's no longer really usable.

Um, you know, it's it's just would love to get more details on.

I know you're working on it, but how you would envision this park space and open space.

I know San Francisco and other cities have done a really good job of investing and opening up space to the public use and really making it unique to the neighborhood, my rec recreation centers, libraries, as you mentioned, I think all play key.

Uh I am concerned about the revenue and funding for it and actually building the infrastructure.

Uh I do believe that Oakland has a lot of space available to build housing, and we have approved a lot of housing developments.

Uh not just us, but over the years.

Nothing it's just nothing gets built.

And I think that Oakland and other cities have a challenge of yes, we approved something and we potentially able to permit something, but actually construction and and the um finishing of a project is not happening.

You see that at Bart, West Oakland Bart Station, you see that other downtown developments, they're just not being developed like Brooklyn Basin.

So maybe having some type of discussion or information in the general plan about how does the city envision improving actual developments actually or housing actually being built, not just depending on you know public funds to push that forward, but uh we do need private development to push some of this along that's already approved.

So how do we build the conditions, build the environment, um, and build the support to make sure that not only new housing units are being approved, you know, you have project that there's gonna be new housing units, but that the existing pipeline actually gets accomplished.

Yeah, I just want to echo what other commissioners have said.

Um thanks for this presentation.

Um I am also very interested in public lands policy and in particular to promote affordable housing.

Um I uh in my day job I do a lot of research around um financing and development in the University of California system and long-term ground leases is also a structure that they uh commonly use.

Um the uh and yeah, I'm also excited about options A and B.

It seems very strange to have two options where um that are uh sort of dispersed throughout the different areas of the city and have one option that's very concentrated in just one area.

Um and uh I look forward to hearing more.

I think you know it it I think um I'm interested to when there we get into more details to ensure that the public investment is not just equitable but really um puts more emphasis on on the areas that have historically been um underinvested, um not just publicly but also privately under underinvested.

Thanks.

Anyone else?

Okay, so I think on this item we're not necessarily needing to make a motion, although we could make a motion.

Um what is suggested here?

That is correct.

I believe staff would like a motion, and I think that they have asked one of their team to take some notes so they can repeat back comments to you, unless the comments, if you feel staff that the comments were clear enough, uh, you know, do you just want a motion to um provide the comments data today to staff for the future, or would you like the uh comments reiterated at this time with the help of BB?

Um I think what we're trying to do is because sometimes we have when they're individual comments, it could be that one commissioner might not agree with the other comments, um, and then it's not really necessarily a comment from the commission as a whole.

So I mean, I would maybe suggest one way possible could be is if all the comments that were made, if everybody said that they agreed with all of those comments.

We have been taking notes.

I think then we could say that those comments were a collective comment from the commission.

And I can summarize the key.

Why don't we start with that and then we can look at each other, decide if we all agree.

So um all the commissioners um desired for a need to have public lands policy included as part of the general plan elements, land use element.

Um there was also feedback about funding, um, looking at new sources of funding and investment, both public and private, um, the noise element to measure noise, uh objective uh ways to measure noise, and uh the need for transit access, safe transit access, safe biking and walkable cities or a city, and then um how can the city um encourage both pro equitable private and public investment?

So these were the key um I would say I think I I also heard that I think I heard a general preference for A and B as the options and then and the San Antonio uh BART station, but not so much the option C.

Yeah, but you know, at least you know, except for the stands to Hotonio station, but that's at least what I thought I heard.

That sounds like what I heard too.

Okay, um, other commissioners, anything missing from there?

Okay, I mean, and the only thing that I mentioned I think is just really a preference for really investing open space and yes, especially in neighborhoods that have been historically under invested.

I mean, East Oakland, West Oakland, there's a lot of parts of some parts of Oakland that just don't have a lot of open space.

Yes.

And we don't want to travel to other neighborhoods to be able to enjoy them.

Yes.

And if I may just add the EJ element does have an action directing the Oscar element into such a policy and then action.

So we've already kind of touched it on the EJ element, but we'd be and I don't know if this is necessarily, I I agree with that statement.

I think there was some discussion about impact fees and just evaluating and discussing or under having some type of plan around impact fees and how that could play into the revenue or plan.

Was that what you were thinking?

Because I I agree with that.

Yes, thank you.

I uh I'm interested in impact fees as a specific strategy, but to piggyback off of your point, Commissioner Randolph about just uh looking at funding sources, funding sources and a plan.

Uh and if we need new funding sources to achieve the outcomes we want.

I think yeah.

So I again if if you would like to make a motion to provide those comments to staff, I believe that would help them.

Okay.

Can we uh make a motion to provide those comments to staff for consideration at the further updates of the general plan?

And that's a motion by Vice Chair Sandoval.

Second with a second by Commissioner Ahrens and a vote.

All right, Commissioner Ahrens?

Yes, Commissioner Lee, yes.

Commissioner Randolph?

Yes, you vice chair Sandoval.

Yes.

Comments are successfully provided to the GPU team to further this effort.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um any uh appeals?

No appeals today, okay.

Okay, so then I think the next item of business is approval of minutes from the July 16th meeting.

Motion to approve.

A motion by Commissioner Randolph.

Second, second by Commissioner Ahrens.

All right, so Commissioner Ahrens?

Yes.

Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Commissioner Randolph?

Yes.

Evice Chair Sandoval.

Yes.

Any correspondence?

No correspondence to the Bureau of Planning.

Any city council actions?

No actions.

As you uh probably recall earlier in the meeting, I noted that there are reappointments in process.

We typically don't report out to you decisions you've made or recommendations you've made that are in process towards city council decision.

But again, we do have some reappointments in process.

I'll just reiterate that since I did note that at the beginning of the meeting based on your questions.

Great, thank you.

So with that, I think we can adjourn this meeting at 4 56 p.m.

Thanks, everyone.