Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is it the same thing?

I don't know. I know whenever I sent it, it was only one item, one presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

uh

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

This will be the February 4th Planning Commission.

We are going to give it a few more minutes waiting for our, we do have a quorum, but

we have one commissioner who we are still expecting to show up.

Meanwhile, if you would like to speak on any item, please grab a speaker card from the

front here and fill it out and return it so that we can include you in the public hearings

or open form, list the item you intend to speak on.

And if you parked at the garage off of, what is that, off of 16th, we call it the Dalziel

garage.

We do have promoted parking.

It's a little bit complicated.

A few people here have become experts.

The rule now is you select the promotion number, which we have up here, before you start your

parking in order to get the promotion.

And again, some of your neighbors can explain that to you once the meeting started if you're

still working on it.

It'll be another minute or two before we get started.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting for February 4, 2026.

I'd like to welcome everyone today.

We'll go ahead and start with roll call.

Commissioner Alex Randolph.

Commissioner Alan Lee

Commissioner Maurice Robb

Commissioner Josie Ahrens

Vice Chair Natalie Sandoval

Here

You have a quorum

Thank you, Hanifa

All right, we'll go into commission business

and I do believe we have a topic to discuss for the agenda discussion

Yes, so it has come to the attention of the Secretary

that for item number two

which is an appeal regarding 3320 Grand Avenue the appellant communicated with

the staff team today that they cannot be available to due to a family emergency

and they are asking for a continuance and it is up to the Planning Commission

to decide if you would like to grant that continuance you may host the public

hearing and consider the appeal without the appellant present since they've

been invited and were made aware of this meeting in a timely fashion but you may consider a

continuance as well the staff team is here to answer any questions you might have about that

okay and i believe that the applicant the owner of the business for which the against which the

appeal is filed is here as well and i'm seeing a nod from the audience okay would the applicant

like to come up

Hello.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Is that better?

Yes.

Okay.

Can you please state your full name for the record please?

Thank you.

James Christopher Rochelle.

well we I didn't know if you had an opinion about continuing the hearing today but given that there's

a an emergency I would be inclined to consider a continuance but wanted to call you up and

see if you had anything that you wanted to communicate I don't really want to continue it

this has been going on since 2022 and like I really just wanted to be over I went through

18 months of the city going through their due diligence to find what they needed to find to

find out if I were in compliance or not and they found that I was and I really just want this thing

to be over and put to rest I talked to the city they said they don't have they haven't had any

other complaints so I would really like to just put this thing to rest today if

I can if we can okay understood would staff like to come up and I see Robert

Merkamp zoning manager coming to the front to answer any questions sure yeah

I'll just say thank you completely understand the desire to put this behind

you given the sort of emergency nature of this I would be inclined to consider

a continuance perhaps to a date certain so that you have a you know that there's

a sort of an end date in mind so maybe staff can let us know what that might

look like from a staffing standpoint in terms of a date that we might talk about

Thank You commissioners Robert Mercamp zoning administrator well I believe

Your next meeting is the 18th of February

But when we were looking at this this morning after we got the request we realized we have some

Staffing difficulties on our end being able to staff that meeting as we weren't we that agenda is already out

So we had already been

scheduled everything for that meeting

We're looking that March 4th from our perspective if the meeting if the items continued would work better from the staff perspective so March

I believe it's March 4th the first whatever the first meeting in March. Okay. All right. Thank you

Does anyone want to weigh in and we I would assume we have to do a motion for this

I think a motion to continue would be appropriate

Otherwise you hear the item today. Yes. Yes, okay

Anyone

Commissioner Rob?

I actually have a question.

So given the fact that we're talking about potentially continuing this to March 4th,

you talked about the urgency to move this forward.

Does March 4th seem suitable for you?

Or if not, please, I would love to hear why it's not a suitable date for you.

March 4th is suitable.

I've just been wrapping my brain around getting this whole thing put to bed.

And like I said, it's been going on.

This will be the fourth year.

So with this pending for four years, with my business and jobs and livelihood in question,

I made this a priority to be here.

So, I mean, I understand that emergencies happen,

but it seems kind of convenient that an emergency happened today.

And I'm not saying that it is not true or that it is true,

but it's been four years,

and I just really would like to get this thing over with

and put behind me and be able to, you know,

we celebrated when I got the decision from the city,

and then comes the appeal.

and I want it resolved if I can.

If it has to be the fourth, then so be it.

That's why.

Understood. Thank you.

What's our consensus here?

Mr. Randolph?

I mean, I understand the emergency basis, and it's unfortunate that it happened, but I do feel like I'm ready to rule on it today.

But I understand that it's important to give the other party time to present their case to feel their own end of closure.

So I'm torn, but I can go the other way.

But I feel I know you're willing and waiting to get this over.

Four years is a very long time to have this hanging over you and your business.

But I feel it's important for the other party to get one more opportunity to plead their case, no matter what the outcome may be, so that they have closure or feel that they have closure, hopefully, after the commission makes the decision, whatever that may be.

So I think for the benefit of both parties to move forward, I think it would be good for at least one hearing or one more continuance.

Yeah, and the date certain part makes sure that if for some reason the appellant can't be here again, we move forward and you get a decision.

So do we have a motion?

I motion to continue to the March 4th meeting.

So just to be really clear about this you're moving to continue item number two

The March 4th planning Commission agenda motion by Commissioner Randolph

Second and a second by Commissioner Rob

Please all right Commissioner Lee

Yes, Commissioner Rob

Yes, Commissioner Ahrens

Yes, Commissioner Randolph. Yes, Vice Chair Sandoval. Yes each year rank. Yes motion passes

this item will be moved to a date certain of March 4th so it will not be renoticed we I don't

believe we have any speakers on this item but now would be an appropriate time to hear any speakers

who'd like to speak and so I will just note to the audience that we do not have any speakers on item

number two if you believe you are here to speak on the item number two that's being continued please

let us know so you can fill out a speaker card and we can consider your comments.

I'm seeing no hands raised, so there are no comments on this continuance.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll see you in a month.

Thank you.

Is there a director's report?

No director's report today.

We just had one, so yeah.

Informational report?

No information reports today.

I don't think any committees met that is correct committees any Commission matters anyone and this is for the Commission to discuss

Nope, okay city attorneys report no city attorneys report. All right. Well, that's there we go. So we'll go to open forum

I understand we have some cards

So open that up

Yeah, and I think Hanifa is going through them. We have a few seeds so okay

And then, so again, we are going to be doing two minutes,

and I'd like people to really pay attention to the clock.

So thank you for that.

All right, so we have eight speakers,

and I'll be calling you all up three at a time.

So as I call your name, please come up to the mic and speak.

We have Anne Simone, Lynn Harlan, and Susan Shaw.

Please state your full name, and you have two minutes.

Thank you.

So if one of you could please come to the mic and start your comment now, thank you

Sorry, okay

Hello, I am an almost 40. Oh, I'm and del Simone

I'm almost a 40 year resident of Florio Street, and I'm here to voice my strong concerns over the proposed senior housing facility

at

6230 Claremont Avenue. Largely my concerns fall into two categories. First and foremost is safety. The current scale of the project cannot mean anything other than that there will be a

significant increase in large vehicle traffic. As I understand it, trucks providing services are intended to enter and

exit the new building via Florio Street. As a narrow one-way residential street in the block

up to Auburn, Florio is not and never was intended to be used as a main thoroughfare for large

delivery and moving trucks, not to mention emergency vehicles. I and my neighbors, particularly those

families with small children, walk on Florio daily to shop, to exercise our pets, and to walk children

to and from elementary school.

To turn what is a calm residential street into an often-used thoroughfare is a dangerous prospect.

My next major concern is that the scale of the proposed project is out of keeping with the existing neighborhood.

While I have absolutely no objection to creating more affordable housing for seniors in my neighborhood,

at seven stories plus, this project is simply too big.

The quality of life for everyone, all of the residents, must be considered as the Planning Commission reviews this proposal.

As an Oakland taxpayer and a long-time resident, I urge the committee to consider and address the safety, density, traffic, and quality of life issues before this project is approved.

Thank you.

Ready

Good afternoon members of the Commission. My name is Lynn Harlan. I'm a resident 30 year resident of Auburn Street

Which is one of the streets adjacent to where the building will be built

I am here to express serious concerns regarding the proposed

senior housing for the ultra wealthy seniors at

At 6230 Claremont Avenue our community has a long memory regarding development promises in the past large

Corporations like Safeway promised to keep heavy trucks off our narrow residential streets that promise was broken

They promised regular trashment maintenance yet today overflowing bins are a constant site on the Claremont sidewalk

We cannot afford a repeat of these failures with a project of this scale

the current proposed plans

plans to place a service entrance on Florio Street. This is a narrow, partially one-way

residential street that is fundamentally unsuited for industrial activity. Under this plan, Florio

would become the staging ground for garbage and recycling collection, turning our sidewalks into

a permanent staging area for dumpsters. Specifically, the intersection of Florio and Auburn is so tight

that large vehicles already struggle to pass. Waste management trucks frequently must honk

until residents come out to move their cars just so the truck can navigate the turn.

Only one car can go down at a time on both streets of Auburn,

and if one car is coming down, the other car has to go to the side

or get into a driveway in order for cars to pass.

It's really, really narrow.

Adding more commercial-scale vehicle traffic to this bottleneck

is a recipe for gridlock and a significant safety risk to pedestrians and cyclists.

The developer's own legal counsel has acknowledged Florio's constraints requesting setback waivers due to essential service functions.

They argue that Florio's neighborhood character makes a Claremont drop-off necessary,

yet they simultaneously propose burdening that same narrow street with heavy loading operations.

I'm sorry, your time is up. You may complete your last statement, please. Thank you.

We urge the commission to reject the use of Florio for these high-impact service functions.

Our neighborhood depends on thoughtful planning that prioritizes safety and livability over developer convenience.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Susan Shaw.

I moved to Rockridge 30 years ago, and I live one block north and west of College in Claremont.

I'm looking to move into a senior community like this is being proposed at 6230 Claremont,

where I can be my independent self and live where there is assistance if I need it later or become demented.

I think I'm probably what the developer is looking for when addressing this project.

I prefer a more intimate-looking building.

93 feet tall is just too big and too institutional looking for a residential area like this.

I like the current Red Cross building height, which is four to five stories high.

It's more appealing and in scale with the neighborhood. The Florio and Auburn sides

of the building should be terraced. Step back at the property lines. We also need to include a lot

of mature landscaping as a buffer to the small homes adjacent to the project. I wonder how many

people will occupy the proposed 203 units, maybe up to 300 more residents. Can our current

infrastructure handle this increase in population? How will the necessary senior services vehicles

be accommodated? How about emergency vehicles being routed? Where will the nursing and support

staff park? The major concerns are traffic and safety. Florio is a one-way, very narrow street

heading east from College, and then Auburn is a one-way street heading from Florio to Claremont.

All the traffic must be mitigated and concentrated to remain on Claremont, which is heavily trafficked.

So I think this project, even though it's needed, it's just too out of scale.

It needs to be way brought back.

Thank you.

All right, so we have eight speakers left.

We have Kerry Goff, Robin Mays, and Ben Hamburg.

Please state your full name for the record, and you have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kerry Goff.

Two weeks ago, I spoke to you about public policies in favor of access to sunlight and solar energy

as expressed in the California Solar Panel Mandate and the California Solar Rights Act.

The 6230 Claremont Tower will conflict with these policies by casting shadows over neighboring homes and their solar panels and make it unpractical for anybody else to put in solar panels.

These laws, however, are just policies and are not mandates.

SB 330, however, mandates that the city get some housing built.

Let's look at the key factors cited in the law that led to its passage.

I'm taking this right out of the law.

The absence of meaningful reforms that significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to California is a key factor in the housing crisis.

Next, the crisis is so acute that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals result in protracted unaffordability.

Next point, California is experiencing rapid year-over-year rent growth.

Next factor, the housing crisis exacerbates the need for affordable homes at prices below market rates.

The law mentions affordability and economic factors 16 times in its first three pages.

Getting affordable housing built was a major motivation for passage of SB 330.

Unfortunately, and strangely, and maybe due to political factors and lobbying, the law does not require affordability.

The project is promoted as senior housing.

The median income for Oakland seniors age 45 to 64 is $101,000.

For age 65 and up, $60,000.

The units will rent for $10,000 to $12,000 a month.

Now, that includes food, so you put in something for that.

An income of at least $400,000 per year, and this is based on economic analyses, is required to afford a unit in the building.

That's more.

than 99% of Oakland seniors can afford.

Bottom line, the project takes advantage of SB 330

but does not offer affordable housing to Oakland residents.

Thank you.

Hello and good afternoon.

I'm Robin Mays, a local resident on Mystic Street,

and I'm a local realtor.

I've lived in the Ruckridge neighborhood

for the majority of my 50 years,

and I live two and a half blocks from this proposed project

at 6230 Claremont.

One area where this project really needs some extra attention is the neighborhood safety, especially ensuring clear and reliable access for our emergency vehicles.

And to this point, just on February 1st, we had another vehicular and pedestrian fatality a block and a half from where this is.

Really, the streets are not being maintained in a way that's safe for us to even walk around.

So if we're going to add seniors to the area, we need to ensure that they're going to be safe to walk by.

florio street is also is narrow and has regular pedestrian activity um i have myself i have my

young children and my parents all living in this neighborhood and we already avoid claremont and

we walk on florio to access many of these shops and restaurants and if that street becomes just

as unsafe as claremont we're going to be severely limited in where we can safely walk with our

children and our seniors please ensure that it's imperative for fire trucks and ambulances and

other emergency vehicles that they can navigate the streets safely.

We see.

Please prioritize building access, loading, and service activities on Claremont Avenue.

Reduce the need for large vehicles on Florio Street and design curb space and driveway

placement with emergency turning access and clearance in mind.

Please make sure that they have to do a traffic study to ensure that we are safe in our use

of our citizens in this area.

We believe that thoughtful planning can ease any traffic flow and create safer conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and first responders alike.

We welcome the new residents of a building like this, and we want to support this project, but please make sure that we do that safely.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ben Hamburg.

I live two blocks from the proposed project.

I've been an earthquake preparedness instructor for the city for 20 years.

The Hayward Fault is described by the USGS as a tectonic time bomb.

A 6.7 earthquake on the fault will be at least 10 times greater than the 1989 quake.

A large quake has occurred on this fault every 120 to 140 years.

It has now been 157 years since the last one.

The proposed project sits almost atop the Hayward Fault.

A 93-foot-high structure with over 200 units presents a concentrated life safety risk inconsistent with Oakland's safety element.

In a major seismic event, elevators will be inoperable.

400 individuals, many with mobility challenges, will need to navigate numerous flights of stairs in the dark amidst debris, smoke, and aftershocks.

Evacuation time increases exponentially with height.

The likelihood of loss of life exponentially increases from 55 feet to 93 feet.

Our current outdated infrastructure in Rockridge will not support the immediate large-scale emergency power and specialized medical evacuation required for a high rise of this density.

Our streets are narrow, often congested, and the collapse of a 93-foot building, even a soft story damage, would not only trap hundreds of senior citizens, but likely would physically block the primary ingress and egress routes for the entire Rockridge neighborhood, threatening the lives of all residents in the neighborhood.

Rockridge's water and gas lines are aging.

A massive new structure increases the load on these systems,

which are already prone to rupture during ground shaking.

Adding up to 400 additional residents and staff will substantially increase the likelihood of a massive loss of life.

A 55-foot building is a rescue challenge.

A 93-foot building for seniors, many with mobility challenges, on the Hayward Fault is a rescue disaster.

To save lives, I urge the commission to require a comprehensive seismic risk and evacuation impact study and limit the height and size of the project.

Thank you.

All right, so we have five speakers left.

We have Victoria Griffith, Jack Gerson, and Paul McDonald.

So Victoria Griffith passed for speaking.

You have two minutes. Please set your full name for the record. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jack Gerson. I'm a retired Oakland teacher.

I also did risk analysis at one time for the State Department of Public Health.

public health. For the past 29 years, I've lived on Auburn Avenue, 6230 Claremont is right over

our backyard fence. I'd welcome a reasonably sized senior care facility, especially one with

affordable units, but I'm concerned about this project, its massive size, its impact on public

safety and public health, and it's providing zero affordable units. I'm concerned that state

legislation meant to encourage affordable housing rewards luxury senior care facilities with no

affordable units. This makes inequality worse. The state is effectively deregulating luxury senior

housing, and deregulation, as we all know, leads to increased inequality. It does nothing for the

overwhelming majority of seniors who can't afford rents of $120,000 or more a year. Where will they

go? The developers demand density-related waivers of many local zoning regulations whose purpose is

to safeguard public health and safety, among them height, footprint and square footage,

setbacks, stepbacks, and open space.

Because the state has limited your ability to regulate density commissioners, it's more

critical than ever that you exercise your local authority to protect our health and

safety.

To ensure there's adequate room for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to maneuver on

the property, take a look at the schematics and tell me how they're going to back out

of there.

to ensure emergency vehicles will be able to respond in a timely manner on the narrow neighborhood streets.

The bigger the facility, the more congested will be those narrow streets.

The bigger the footprint of the building, the less room for emergency vehicles to get in and out and maneuver on the property.

The higher the building, the more sunlight it will block, adversely impacting public health.

Separately, I will write to you analyzing the shade and sunlight study they presented, which is wholly inadequate.

Please ensure that detailed studies of fire safety seismic safety emergency vehicle access traffic and shadow sunlight are done carefully

Sorry your time is up please

When you do I believe you will find that the proposed facility is just too big

Is there a running clock that I can see or am I just relying on the beep?

Okay, okay

All right

Ready, set, go.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Paul McDonald.

I live on Auburn Avenue, one house down from the south side of the proposed 6230 Claremont project.

Please note that while I am a current board member of the Rockridge Community Planning Council,

I am appearing here today in my personal capacity.

I should also mention that my perspective is informed by my many years as a senior county executive.

So one might ask why are we here today at such an early point in the review process?

I can tell you I'm not here to express opposition to the project or comment on specific aspects.

You've already heard from others in that regard.

I'm here to talk about expectations for the review process.

Yes, there is a new regime in the state regarding housing development.

Cities have had their discretion limited.

But the process is not merely to rubber stamp development proposals. All parties have a role to play. The community to express concerns, the developer to make a good faith effort to mitigate the mitigatable, and the staff to conduct a transparent and thorough review to assure compliance with state and local ordinance.

and that includes

Careful review of any density bonus and waivers requested from the city

Approval and denial of such waivers should be reviewed carefully to assess health and safety concerns

apparently the defy deciding factor finally the Planning Commission's consideration

Should take into account all the factors when it reviews the project and make a reasoned decision as I hope

is your normal practice.

Thank you for your time today.

All right, we have two speakers left,

but I'm not sure which one of y'all are speaking on.

So it's Raul Maldonado and Tanya Smith.

I'm not sure if y'all are speaking on open form

or which item is it?

Okay, so you are, okay, you can come on up, Tanya Smith.

You have two minutes, and please,

please state your full name for the record.

Also, Raul Mordenado, which item are you speaking on?

Item number one.

Thank you.

We just have one speaker left.

Go ahead.

Tanya Smith.

I also live on Auburn Avenue next to the 6230 project.

I forgot my glasses.

The American Red Cross Blood Banks plan for 6230 Claremont

to have Ellis Partners build this massive high-end senior residence covering far more of the 1.06

acre lot than current city zoning permits and going up 85 feet, no step backs, also violating

current city code, creates many public health and safety issues, as you've heard. The developer's

attorney's cover letter expresses the belief that seniors don't require much outdoor space.

Clearly, this project puts dollars above people.

No affordable housing here, just one giant heat island,

soaking up solar heat on hot summer days

and radiating it back on neighboring homes and streets at night.

The vegetation and trees on the perimeter of the property will have been destroyed,

and their cooling impacts gone.

In the fall and winter, the giant building would cast a huge shadow over the neighborhood,

extending across Claremont Avenue to the public space in front of Safeway.

The neighbors fought for this public space

during the redevelopment of the new Safeway,

and it's unacceptable that it now be covered in shade

for when people use it.

Finally, the street and traffic safety

during construction of such a huge project,

I think that's been covered.

They're very narrow streets.

I don't see how it could be safe.

With this many more people in the area,

203 new units workers how will the safety of current neighbors shoppers

visitors from other areas as well as that at the residents of this new

project be assured I hope as appointed representatives of Oakland that you

will thoroughly investigate these things as my neighbors have been asking thank

you very much and she's our final speaker thank you thanks everyone for

joining. I will, for those that weren't here a couple weeks ago, I just want to remind everyone

that this is very early days for this project. I don't even know if it's been given a case number,

and I certainly haven't even seen any documents. So this is, this will be, you know, fully vetted

through the public process. So you're welcome here anytime, but just wanted to let you know

that this is going to be a little bit more of a marathon than a sprint. So, but thank you all.

and we will move on to consent calendar, which I don't believe we have.

No consent calendar.

So we've got public hearings, and then that will bring us up to number one.

Right, item number one.

Thank you, everyone.

Usually I summarize the proposal, but I'm going to read the whole thing today

because it's a little bit nuanced.

The item number one is a citywide proposal,

planning code and zoning map amendments designating areas eligible and ineligible for Senate Bill SB

79 height and density standards within transit-oriented development zones and designating

site exclusions consistent with government code section 65912.161b1a sites meeting 50 percent

of SB 79 standards, B1, B2 sites, and predominantly low resource areas with 40% aggregate SB 79

density and B1F local register properties.

And it looks like Laura Kaminsky, the strategic planning manager, will be making the presentation.

And KTOP, can you please bring up the presentation?

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, commissioners and the public.

My name is Laura Kaminsky, Strategic Planning Manager for the City of Oakland, and I'm going to be presenting on proposed planning code amendments for SB 79 or Senate Bill 79.

So just some background is that state law, Senate Bill 79, the Abundant and Hortable Housing, Hortable Homes Near Transit Act, was signed by the governor on October 10th of 2025, and it goes into effect on July 1st, 2026.

Areas within half mile of each of Oakland's designated transit stops will be designated as a transit oriented development zone.

And any parcels within the TOD zones could vest for development using higher density standards for housing.

Oakland currently has eight BART stations and 38 bus rapid transit or BRT stops that are along International Boulevard that qualify as SB79 TOD zones.

In addition, there's also one additional BART station, which is the Ashby one that is outside of Oakland, but has a half mile radius that goes into the city of Oakland, as well as a BRT stop that also is outside of Oakland, but has a half mile radius that goes into Oakland.

So that is a total of 48 TOD zones that are within the Oakland boundaries.

And the transit stops are categorized as Tier 1, and that includes essentially the BART stations in Oakland, and then Tier 2, which is their BRT tempo line along International Boulevard.

so just for some reference here the density standards um or i guess a little bit more

background for sb 79 essentially what it requires is that areas within these tier one and tier two

um that cities have to allow higher heights and higher density allowances than what the

existing zoning may allow within the city so um for oakland in the in the tier one areas

which are the BART stations.

That ranges anywhere from 95 feet and 160 dwelling units per acre

if you're very close to 100 feet in the transit stop.

The quarter mile, it's 75 feet, 120 dwelling units per acre.

A half mile, 65 feet, or 120 dwelling units per acre.

For the Tier 2, which are the AC Transit Tempo Line,

You know closest is 85 feet 140 dwelling units per acre quarter mile is 65 feet and then half mile is 55 feet with 80 dwelling units per acre.

So essentially with what happens with the state law is that the state law will kick in on July 1st of this year.

And so if the city does nothing then those are the regulations those densities will take effect.

There are options that are in the state law that allow cities to exclude some parcels from SB 79 requirements or develop an alternative plan.

An exclusion would suspend implementation of SB 79 and allow substitution of existing Oakland zoning until an alternative plan is developed.

And exclusions will expire in 2032, and SB 79 densities will take effect if no alternative plan has been adopted by that time.

the alternative plan would need to accommodate the overall required density

of SB 79 within the TOD zone but could replace default density and height

increases and allow a more tailored density and height based on local land

use conditions such as historic districts and lower density neighborhoods

so the rationale for adopting these exclusions would be there is you know

insufficient time right now for city staff to prepare and review an

alternative plan prior to the SB 79 effective date of July 1st this is a

very complicated process and there's just you know not enough time to do all

the analysis exclusions may be adopted prior to the SB 79 effective date as an

interim step to allow time for the city to develop an alternative plan and this

is really something that the state law intention the reason why they allow this

exclusions was just for that purpose to allow either a concern that cities would

not have enough time to do work on the alternative plan so this gives cities a

time to do so the city is already engaged in the journal plan update

currently a phase two that includes the update of land use and transportation

element with adoption anticipated in late spring of 2027 city staff wants to

develop its alternative plan in a comprehensive manner as part of the

general plan update process and not as a separate standalone process exclusions

will give the city time during this GPU to analyze which areas within the TOD

zones have potential for more density and which areas do not as well as receive

community input in addition when looking at our environmental justice element

There's policy EJ 8.1.

It talks about meaningful, relevant engagement.

Design and implement public engagement processes and events that emphasize participation from low-income communities and communities of color that are driven by resident priorities.

So almost all of Oakland's TOD zones are in low-resource areas.

And so this is another reason really why we want to have more time to get the community input and look at, you know, what areas we hear from the community about upzoning and what areas maybe stay the same and what degree of upzoning occurs within those areas.

So the alternate plan would allow a more fine grain analysis and have that community involvement resulting in aggregate density equivalent to the SB 79 requirements.

existing zoning densities already in a lot of areas exceed the SB 79 standards and many of the

designated TODs as a result of prior upzoning so you know the city as we all know recently adopted

our housing element in 2023 and we upzoned quite a few areas that are within these TOD zones during

that time in addition the downtown civic plan was also adopted recently in 2024 that updated core

areas and over you know the past you know number of years we've adopted quite a few specific plans

such as the central estuary plan the braille valdez district specific plan west oakland

coliseum area specific plan the lake merit station area plan and all of these really increased

density around the tier one and the tier two tod zones and so the city is already actually pretty

well ahead of the game in this manner and I think compared to other cities we

have actually you know already done a lot of these up zoning along our transit

areas and SB 79 standards are really they're a blanket increase in density

and that could actually override some of the prior planning and input that we've

gotten from the community so an example of that in the downtown specific plan

that we adopted recently you know that area way exceeds it's like I think over

you know 300 percent um so it's about 300 percent of of what the you know um to the sb-79 densities

would require and but we have areas such as old oakland which is a historic district that we have

as lower heights and lower densities and then we have other areas like the broadway spine that are

much higher than sb-79 densities so we really looked at that fine grain approach and if sb-79

were to kick in right now, then that would just say all those areas we already wanted

as lower density could be higher density, in addition to what we've already designated

as higher density, which actually would equate to even higher than what we already have,

which is already more than what SB 79 would require.

So what we are looking at in our proposal are the allowed exclusions that the state

has granted cities to adopt.

So exclusion one allows exclusion of sites

that are when existing zoning allows density

and residential floor areas at no less than 50%

of the standards on any individual parcel.

So essentially in Oakland,

most of our, almost all of our commercial zones

and some of our higher residential zones

actually meet that standard.

For exclusion 2, this allows exclusion of sites in a TOD zone that is in a primary low-resource

area, and the aggregate density within that whole area of the TOD zone shows that at least

it allows 40 percent of the aggregate density required of SB 79 standards.

And then exclusion 3 allows exclusion of sites in a TOD zone where the parcel includes a

historic resource so I'm going to start with exclusion 2 mainly because that is

the exclusion that actually excludes most of the areas within Oakland so again

this is the areas that are in a primary low resource zone so in Oakland of our

sites that we have of the 48 sites essentially there's only three of those

that are not in a low resource area and that is the rockridge bart station as well as the

macarthur bart station and also the areas of ashby bart station that fall within oakland

so again in order to qualify for an exclusion in a low resource area that at least 40 of the

aggregate density allowed by sb 79 has to be met and we did find through our analysis that

ALL OF THE ONES THAT ARE IN LOW RESOURCE AREAS IN OAKLAND EXCEED THAT 40 PERCENT AND SOME ACTUALLY

EXCEED IT BY A LOT. AND SO THIS QUALIFICATION ALLOWS EXCLUSIONS OF ALL THE PARCELS THAT ARE WITHIN

THE ENTIRE TOD ZONE. SO AN EXAMPLE OF THAT, HERE'S A MAP. THIS IS THE ANALYSIS THAT WE WENT

through. We did this for every TOD stop that is within Okinaw 48. And as you can

see the area in the very center is the area that's within the 200 feet of the

stop. The areas in yellow are the areas within the quarter mile boundary. And the

areas that are blue parcels are in the half mile boundary. So these show all the

parcels that could be eligible for SB 79. But we aggregated what the density was.

We looked at every single parcel to see what could actually be allowed, how many units

could be produced on those parcels compared to that to what SB 79 would allow.

And we showed in this particular area, it actually provides 307 percent of the SB 79

aggregate density.

And so this whole TOD zone can be excluded, and that is what we are proposing to exclude

all the parcels within this TOD zone.

And then here is the area of the TOD zone of Rockridge BART station.

And this is not in a low resource area, so we were not able to apply that same exclusion.

So all the parcels shown here are eligible, but as I'll go forward in a little bit talking

about some of the other exclusions, there are some parcels that can be excluded in this

TOD zone, but not all of them because it does not, you know, it cannot take advantage of

the low resource exclusion.

So just to kind of summarize here so you can actually see where we're at for these some

examples of the percentages.

So you can see for the 19th Street BART we're at 287 percent of the density for SB 79.

Merritt is 254 percent, Coliseum BART is 190 percent, and then West Oakland BART is a little

bit lower at 70 percent, and Fruitvale BART at 72 percent.

But we are still, you know, I think very high percentages in comparison to what SB79 standards

would be.

And I'm not going to go through all these, but these are showing for the Tier 2 TODs

in low resource areas.

You can see, again, there's a lot that are even at 380% or 400% or 100, you know, some

percent or even the 90 percentile.

And they do, some of them go down to about as low as maybe 46%.

And those are areas really getting out to far east Oakland and closer to the border

of San Leandro where we have lower densities in those areas.

So for exclusion 1, which is 50% of zone density and FAR, again, so these are areas if any

individual parcel itself where the zone density allows for at least 50% of the SB 79 density

standards can then be excluded.

And these also can be excluded even if they're in a low or in a high resource area or a low

resource area.

So parcels that are in Oakland with zoning that exceeds 50% of the density and FAR are

shown for the Ashby TOD parcels in Oakland and Rockridge and MacArthur.

And these are the only parcels, as I mentioned earlier, that do not qualify for the exclusion

of the low resource areas.

So here is the map of MacArthur-Bart area.

And you can see the areas that are pink are the ones that are proposed to be excluded.

And those, as you can see, are along the more of the major quarters, and they have the higher densities.

Again, those are pretty much usually your commercial zone properties or some of your urban residential higher density properties.

But all the areas that are in white, which are more your single-family zones or single-family zones and also parcels with single-family homes,

do not have a high enough density to meet that 50% threshold.

So we cannot exclude those areas.

And then similarly here, this also shows the Ashby BART area on the left and then the Rockridge BART area.

So along Rockridge, it's mainly the area along College Avenue.

That is shown in pink.

That also would be excluded.

But again, there's large areas that you can see that are white that are mainly, as you can tell by the pattern,

more single-family homes that again don't meet the 50% density so cannot be excluded.

And then just showing some examples of areas that overlap where, you know, where they already met

the low resource exclusion, but we also are just being triple prepared, I guess, when we're going

to the state, that we want to have every area show every exclusion that could be possible.

So here you can see especially like the 12th Street and 19th Street TOD areas that the

zoning that we've already done almost all of the zoning in those areas are pink which

shows that you know they're already above 50% or higher standards to meet SB 79 densities.

So the last exclusion is historic resources.

So this exclusion three which applies to all the local registered properties that have

designated by January 1st of 2025 and located in any TOD zone so again these

don't it does not matter if it's in a low resource or high resource area we can

exclude local register properties which is what we are proposing so again just

to show in these low in these high resource areas of the ashby TOD on the

left and the Rockridge TOD on the right the areas the parcels that are in purple

are the ones that are local registered properties so those individual parcels can also be excluded

as part of this exclusion that the state allows.

And then here are the areas within the MacArthur BART station.

And then here are some examples again in some of the other areas that also already qualify

for the exclusion to in the low resource areas.

You can see West Oakland actually has a lot of local registered properties.

same with the 12th Street and 19th Street TODs so in addition to these

mapping exclusions what we've also are doing we're proposing an s8 combining

zone that would be a new chapter in the Planning Code and this would includes

all the parcels of land that are within one-half mile of tier one in tier two

transit oriented development zones regardless of their zoning designation

It will define what are eligible sites under SB 79 as a site, which is a site that's zoned

for residential, mixed, or commercial development.

It defines ineligible sites.

That is a site that does not meet the above criteria, such as sites that are zoned for

industrial or open space activity, or they're within a right-of-way.

It also defines what is a covered site as a site that's eligible under SB 79, but it's

not been excluded as part of the exclusions.

then it applies the exclusions to certain sites that would otherwise be

eligible for SB 79 but qualify for exclusion as described in the government

code section so we will list again all these exclusions that I just went

through into this S8 zone it also amends the zoning map to show which sites are

eligible and which are ineligible and the regular and which sites are also

excluded or covered and it also clarifies that excluded parcels are

regulated by the underlying zoning and this also these exclusions shall be

applied comprehensively so a site shall be mapped as excluded if it is

designated as excluded under any of the exclusions that I went through of

exclusions 1 2 or 3 so tentative dates of the council meetings for this moving

forward would be February 24th to the CED committee and March 3rd for the City

Council first reading so staff's recommendation is that staff request at

the planning Commission recommend that the City Council conduct a public

hearing and upon complete collusion conclusion adopt an ordinance amending

Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code to add Chapter 17.86 S8, Abundant and Affordable

Homes to Your Transit, Senate Bill 79, combining zone regulations and identifying sites eligible

and ineligible or excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards, making

related Oakland zoning map amendments to designate parcels within the S8 combining zone and to

identify whether such designated parcels are eligible for or excluded from the Senate Bill

79 property development standards and making sorry cal appropriate California

environmental quality act findings and that is the end of my presentation and

I'm available for questions thank you Laura I will open up for questions who

Who wants to start?

It's a raucous group today.

Okay.

Vice chair, go ahead.

Thank you, Laura, and thank you to the planning department.

I know this is a lot of work to dive into something that is really new, and there are

still a lot of unknowns from what I understand.

I just want to understand a little bit more about, I guess I have a two-part question.

One is, you know, one of the reasons for the exclusion two is because we're in the midst of the general plan.

We're going to be doing all of this outreach in certain neighborhoods in particular.

Can you speak to which I think is important?

And should be a part of a planning process of protect particularly in under-resourced areas

You know like a blanket zoning could be really detrimental

You know displacement gentrification all kinds of things. So I do think that's really important, but can you speak a little bit more to?

what

Would be covered

What is being covered in general plan update part two?

that is also part of this exclusion and what is not so for example like the downtown specific plan

is already done so that would not be part of general plan update two we've already got that

community input in that plan so could you just speak to like how it would be interrelated

that kind of development of their alternative plan

um yeah so i mean even with the alternative plan we will have to present to the state and

even things we've already done we would have to show and prove like the downtown as an example

actually meets the qualifications of the alternative plan and we'll still have to do

that analysis um what we are doing with the general plan update phase two is we are already

looking at proposing different areas that we will be upzoning, and we've already started to get some

of that community feedback. You know, there's been interest in a San Antonio BART station,

and that is already along International Boulevard. So that would be one of the areas we are definitely

looking at already upzoning that would help increase that area for an alternative to meet

an alternative plan requirement. And we are looking at a number of new different neighborhood

centers. We are also looking at part of areas along major transit and boulevards of upzoning

those areas. And we've gotten feedback so far, initial feedback, and that was from the options

report. Right now, the stage we're in, we're developing the draft land use framework that

will be a result of the input we've heard so far from the options report. And that is set to come

out on March 9th of this year or around that time frame to get another 45 days of community input on

that proposal. Then we will still have the process of developing the elements even in more detail

in the fall, which will be going out for more community input at that point. And the hope

is where the goals are trying to get this all updated as well as new zoning that would go along

with these general plan changes in around late spring of May of 2027.

And our intention is to be as part of, we're looking at trying to look at areas that we

can upzone in all of these TOD zones to try to achieve what would be an alternative plan.

And, you know, I can't say that we will have everything ready to be adopted for that alternative

plan by that, at that same time.

but we are setting the stage and the groundwork and it may be a very short implementation action

after the adoption to then go through the formal process of actually you know showing all the work

of how we conform with the alternative plan any additional upzonings that are needed that haven't

been done to do that process and then submit that to the state but we also I think there's a concern

right now that even what we've heard recently is they're already looking at amendments to SB 79.

And so if we start that process too early, there may be different requirements. And so we want to

be able to have the time to be able to do that. And if that happens in October of this year,

that when some maybe additional amendments happen, you know, we want to be able to have the time to

be able to make sure we're meeting those requirements there is a spot bill it's sb908

that's been filed in january to kind of deal with these cleanups so but it's just a placeholder now

um so clear that there's a lot of unknowns um but would it be fair to say that the city

is planning to create an alternative plan as opposed to like waiting for the exclusions to expire in 2032.

Yes, we are going to do, the intent is to do an alternative plan.

Because actually, I mean, if you see right now what's happening actually is the areas that we can't exclude in Rockridge.

There's a large amount of areas we cannot exclude.

And so the only way to actually look at areas that maybe we want to have higher density as opposed to lower density is to do the alternative plan.

Because in the meantime, there's large areas of these low-density parcels that cannot be excluded.

And I think we would like to go through the same planning process and get input from the community and also look at, from a planning perspective,

Okay, what areas can maybe really realistically accommodate these higher densities, how those are distributed, maybe somewhere more mid-level across the board and potentially, as opposed to like all really high in some areas and really low in other areas.

So we want to do that analysis, and we really need to look at a fine-grained approach as to what is actually on the ground.

And that is, you know, something the state has not done, right?

They've actually just applied a very, you're within a certain distance, then this is the density you get.

Anything else?

Okay.

Anyone else?

Pusher Randolph.

Yeah, thank you so much for all this work to you and others.

Thank you for the briefing you gave, which was very detailed and helpful,

to wrap my head around the 1,200-plus pages of data and analysis and additional documents.

It is good to see that Oakland is kind of at the forefront when compared to some other cities who are trying to catch up or not going to be able to meet the July deadline because they don't even have the data analysis done that you've done already.

or even the mapping capabilities of even trying to figure out what areas of the city potentially qualify for some of these exclusions

that other cities like San Jose or even San Francisco are not able to do before July.

I do have a couple questions, and I know you had a question earlier about the general plan update phase two

and coming together with an alternative plan to make sure we don't let the exclusions expire

and then having to deal with SB 79.

And I asked that question yesterday,

and I thought you gave a good answer,

so I wanted to do a couple of these in the public sphere.

But if the general plan update phase two is delayed past 2027,

what is the city's fallback plan

to avoid approaching the 2032 deadline

without a replacement framework?

Yeah, so we do have a number of things pushing us

To get the general plan update phase two done next year and one of those is with our priority development areas

it's a requirement by MTC

to

Create plans more detailed plans for areas in our priority development areas that do not have specific plans

And so there are a number of areas that in

There are in priority development areas in Oakland that do not have specific plans

And so that is what general plan update phase two is looking at

We actually have a prior development area grant from MTC for that very purpose.

That is for helping pay for the journal plan update phase two.

So that is a reason that, you know, it may, it can always be a couple months here or there that it might be.

But, you know, we're definitely, the intention is 2027 to accomplish that.

And then, again, I think either as much as we can concurrently, if not, you know,

maybe very shortly after to do the alternative plan is the intent and the timeline.

And knowing that looking at your maps, West Oakland has a fair number of proposed exclusion zones,

and knowing that the West Oakland-specific plan is pretty old since it was updated,

Are you planning on either starting a new West Oakland-specific plan, or will it be part of the alternative plan to look at upzoning or making some changes to West Oakland, or would it also still be a part of the Phase 2 plan?

Yeah, so West Oakland, we actually, as part of the general plan of Phase 2, are looking at a number of changes in West Oakland.

That's one of the areas we're looking at, creating like an R&D area in West Oakland

and some other areas as well as some more new neighborhood center areas.

So there are, you know, we're really looking at proposals of upzoning in that

and doing updates of the West Oakland specific plan for the very reason that you said it is quite a bit,

you know, a long time ago that we did that.

A very long time ago.

Yes.

I appreciate that.

I know we mentioned the community hub potentially being located in West Oakland as well as part of the potential community hubs that you were identifying around the city as part of the phase two presentation.

Another question, I know that in the staff report and other presentations, you said that, you know, Oakland's capacity remains pretty high for achieving additional housing units or meeting our future and current VENA goals.

And we're doing a really good job compared to other cities yet again.

But given that many of these TOD zones already exceed SB79 density requirements, how do you expect housing production to continue in the new year term under existing zoning or potentially the alternative plan?

Yeah, so I would say with our housing element, we actually had like a 15% buffer of even additional housing units beyond what the minimum was required for the state.

as well as we have done a lot of up zoning so as you know you can see if you look at the the

zoning maps of the ones that are you know 50 or higher of what sb 79 density requires

as well as just these amounts that are already shown in a lot of the

areas that were in the low resource areas of already being higher than what sb 79 requires

So we already, I think the city has a lot of areas that people can develop housing.

And I think the issue more right now is just because of the economy and the downturn that we aren't getting as much development.

And it's just hard to financially right now to make projects pencil.

So I think that's really the biggest constraint.

It's not that our zoning is restraining that from happening.

It's just the economy and to get financing.

And actually what's happening right now is we're actually getting a lot more affordable housing projects that are being built and actually more affordable than market rate projects because we passed Measure U and other sources are still available for affordable housing funds to help those being built.

And that's often what actually happens.

That happened the last time in Oakland when we had a recession.

It was a very similar situation where we were having more affordable housing being built than market rate housing.

And it seems like it kind of goes in those flows because in the times when the economy is not doing well, there's often still subsidized money that is available for affordable housing.

Great.

And then I know that I received a couple of emails and I know there were some concerns around adopting some of these exclusions.

Are there areas where adopting exclusions could materialist low housing protection compared to SP-79 defaults?

And if so, are there any ideas to mitigating those risks?

Well, again, I think what we're looking at this is a temporary thing.

It's an interim measure to try to get us, you know,

so we can actually have the time to do the alternative plan,

make sure, you know, if there's any changes that happen in state law,

that we can then be conforming to those changes

and that we do get the community input that we feel is necessary.

And in the meantime, as I think we can see,

already so many of these areas are already zoned,

very high density allowance.

And we are not during this time really seeing,

we have a very much also a downturn in just applications being applied for

housing even.

It's, I think,

one of the lowest we've had in a long time of how many applications are even

coming in.

so I think to me this is sort of the perfect time you know to do this kind of planning

is when the economy is slow and we can have a little bit of time to actually plan in a

comprehensive manner and look you know get community input and then you know get to the

point where hopefully by the time we've done that then the economy is turning around and we're

prepared and we can take advantage of that when that happens and I'd say the Broadbell Dez specific

plan was a perfect example of that. When we were working on that plan, we were in a recession.

We started in 2012, and it was adopted in 2016. And when I was working on that plan, we had

quite a few people say, some from the Chamber of Commerce, why are you bothering with this plan?

Nothing's ever going to get built here. This is a waste of your time. And then the economy

turned around, and that plan was built out in five years. That was supposed to be a 20-year plan.

And by having the plan in place, we got to get what we wanted there as opposed to sort of just whatever sort of haphazard development.

It was planned in a way comprehensively.

We had community input of what was wanted there.

And it really shows, I mean, that these plans do work.

And yeah, so that would be my response.

Yeah, thank you.

I know that kind of looking at the map for the Bay Area and East Bay specifically, that Oakland has a large number, probably the largest number of low-resource TOD zones that are impacted by SB 79.

And I know through the Planning Commission's role and the role of just the goals of the city in general, I know we are really focused on environmental justice and equity in all of our development and zoning decisions.

I know staff puts a lot of time and energy into making all the decisions and zoning decisions based on equity and environmental justice now.

What metrics or outcome will you use to evaluate whether SB 79 implementation advances or undermines equity goals in low resource areas?

which I know part of your goal is doing these exclusions and having public meetings

and really putting a lot of intentions into our alternative plan and phase two,

so that might mitigate some of the issues.

But I know there's Oakland specifically.

I share and a lot of people share concerns that state bills

that are kind of doing a cookie-cutter approach across the state,

where Oakland is very unique in the density

and also the demographic differences of who lives in Oakland

and who makes Oakland Oakland is a little unique and different than other parts of the state.

So how do you kind of apply those metrics or ensure that our equity goals are still met?

Yeah, I think, you know, part of that is looking at, you know, the areas when we're looking at upzoning.

I mean, it's a combination of, you know, we're wanting, you know, it's good to have affordable housing near transit,

but you want to make sure that there is some affordable housing that's happening as part of these areas

and part of the up zone areas.

And then also looking at, you know,

there's separate regulations that we have with renter protections

and other types of policies and all those will,

we've already passed a lot of those with the housing element,

but we can look at additional ones of those

as we're doing the land use and transportation element.

So it's not, when you're looking at an update of an element,

it's not just, you know, like this is the density that's allowed.

You're looking at the different policies and other things

that can be put into place.

and different types of things that could be put in the planning code

that can try to help ensure protections of existing residents that are there

because we want to allow for new residents,

but we also want to protect and keep the residents that we have there now as well.

Perfect. Thank you so much.

I have a quick follow-up on that, sort of in the spirit of equity.

So, you know, the legislature did SB 79 for a reason, right?

So you have these concentric circles around TOD zones.

So if you're a property owner, you know, last summer, if you were within half a mile or a quarter mile of different kinds of transit stops, you would get this benefit if you checked all the boxes.

We are proposing some exceptions to that.

And it makes a lot of sense in all the areas where we've done the good work, right, with all the upzoning and all the density.

But I worry about what we do to the property owners in the lower density areas who will be excluded, who otherwise would have been able to possibly take advantage of SB 79 and now can't.

and while this may be kind of a placeholder it's a pretty significant placeholder while we do on

alternative plan but that alternative plan could also sort of set that that example back in terms

of their ultimate ability to get this kind of height and density so I guess that's a long-winded

way of saying you know what about the the little guys who are going to be out you know sort of

Beyond the higher density zones, but are still captured here who wouldn't be able to take advantage of this now

Yeah, I mean there are going to be areas that they you know, they will not be able to take advantage

I think as we have looked at again most of the areas that are very

Closes you know along the quarters are higher density and so and actually some of the areas we're looking at the density really isn't

isn't much different than what we already allow.

And you can apply density bonus projects to our site.

So even if maybe the height isn't as high as SB 79 allows,

you can apply a density bonus to actually get to that height

or potentially even higher through the density bonus project,

as I think we've already seen the discussion we've had earlier

of wanting to go to, I think it's 85 or 95 feet,

which is in a 55-foot height limit is that example,

and they're using a density bonus to exceed that.

So those are still options that we have on,

and we also have our S14 overlay zone that we did for the housing element,

so any housing element sites that also can take advantage of streamlined zoning

and higher density allowances.

For affordable housing, we do have the S13,

where we allow actually unlimited densities with two extra stories of height.

within those within all of Oakland essentially that allows housing and you know the the areas

that are still left you know again the idea is that it's you know we're talking looking at next

year that those changes would take effect and right now as I mentioned we're not really seeing

much development that's occurring currently at this time especially we're not receiving very

many applications. So again, I feel like this is the time to do the planning and this makes sense

to do this in a comprehensive manner. We are going through all the effort of doing a general plan

update phase two to get all this community input. And, you know, if people see that we didn't

actually take advantage of these exclusions in order to allow for that planning process,

I think a lot of people may be upset that we didn't take advantage of being able to do that

process that the state has allowed us and again I think the state did this

really you know for a reason like they knew that you know the amount of work

needed that that was just not enough time for cities to actually do an

alternative plan so that's why they gave us this option to have these exclusions

on a temporary basis to to do the proper planning okay thank you anyone else

before I open up the public hearing.

Commissioner Robb?

Thanks for your presentation.

I guess I'm going to kind of piggyback off of the questions that's been asked.

The one thing that I'm a little concerned about is, like, I understand this is thrust for you.

You have to, we have to plan accordingly and do the proper work.

And I understand that this is an alternative, but I guess my concern is when, how long are we going to take to work this out?

That's the thing I'm not clearly understanding.

Maybe I missed it, but I just want to have an understanding that we're going to try to come up with the proper alternative for Oakland, right?

But how long does this, will that process go?

Yeah, again, I think the intent is for us to do as much as we can as part of the general

plan update phase two and get that community input.

And I just, you know, I'm thinking the actual adoption, we may not be able to get that done

at the exact same time as the general plan update phase two.

I think that would be our goal to try to strive for that.

I just want to be able to

I'm trying to be realistic in looking at again, especially if there are changes that happen in October to the state law

of being able to have the time to be

Nimble and look at those changes, but yeah very much the intent is trying to do this as soon as we can

And next year would be the the commitment

Okay, thank you

Commissioner Aarons

Thank you. Thank you for your work. This is a Herculean task and I don't envy you. So thank you. And for the other planning staff, thank you as well. I do have a number of questions. So I'll just start at the top with what I have.

And some of these I asked when we met earlier this week.

Thank you.

And I just want to reiterate them at the meeting for the sake of it being public.

But my first question is about ministerial review.

So for the stations that are proposed to be excluded, that would take away access to

ministerial review under SB 79.

Is that correct is my understanding?

I'll let Mike Branson answer that city attorney.

Mike Branson- Sure.

Yeah.

I think I know what you're alluding to.

During the SB 79 process, there was a lot of discussion about the ability for applicants

to also use the streamlining that exists in SB 35, different Scott Wiener bill that's

available for mixed income projects.

SB 79 itself does not include any ministerial processes.

So it doesn't include a CEQA exemption, it doesn't include ministerial review, but it's

quite clear that it allows and enables applicants to use the existing landscape.

So you can still do an SB 79 project and propose density bonus.

You can do an SB 79 project and use an infill exemption that was just adopted as part of

the budget trailer bill last year.

All of those tools are available, but there's no separate streamlining process for SB 79

projects.

It actually goes, I'd say, out of its way to specify that, for example, if a city has

a demolition control, then an SB 79 project would still need to comply with those demolition

controls.

It does specifically reference SB 35, though, so you can stack that and get

ministerial review if you check all the boxes.

Agreed.

Okay.

Thank you.

That was helpful.

Yeah, so I'm still thinking about streamlining as well.

I guess maybe you answered the question.

I'm just thinking about is it easier to access streamlining through SB79 or through our current code?

And it seems like current state law and current code still exists.

And applicants would be able to take advantage of that.

sorry it's like a question but i'm also putting piecing it together out loud i think we might

want to understanding we may want to partner on this answer because i will say in oakland

currently the types of projects that we see using sp35 is largely affordable housing projects 100

affordable housing projects and the reason for that is because last housing element cycle

the city of Oakland met our market rate goals and so the threshold for a developer to use SP 35 is

I believe it's 50 percent affordable and there just aren't projects on the market that are doing

50 percent affordable 50 percent market rate so in other jurisdictions that did not meet their

market rate arena that threshold is lower I believe it's 20 percent I think you can do a

density bonus project to get to that 20%.

So it's a lot more accessible.

We have separate streamlining provisions.

We just adopted the ministerial design review process.

Those obviously have different criteria and different limitations to them.

But those are tools that are available locally.

Yeah, and we also, our S14 zone, as I mentioned earlier, so any site that's a housing element

site, if it has a certain affordability level, which would be more, I think what Mike is

talking about can also do a ministerial approval process.

MS.

Okay.

Thank you.

My next question is about some of the requirements that SB 79 lays out around inclusionary and

demolition and labor standards.

And I know that those specifics were not included in the draft update to Chapter 17.

specifically they're just sort of broadly saying we must comply with you know what is in the

california government code section which i understand since it sounds like there are

probably amendments coming and other things and you don't want to build in hard numbers um into

the code um but i'm trying to understand in places that are excluded though is it as i am i

understanding correctly that those inclusionary um requirements under sb 79 then would not apply

for instance that you know they say that some 7% of the units seem to be extremely low income 10

are very low and 12 are low income so I just want to make sure I'm understanding and you know for

excluding most or yeah most except for three of the stops those inclusionary requirements from

the state will not apply there well so essentially you know those requirements are only if they're

doing the SB 79 project so you know if SB 79 was in place and they didn't do an

SB 79 project those would not be required but the City of Oakland does

have our impact fee requirements and so we have you either pay the impact fee

or you provide a certain percentage of affordable on-site and so we have really

equivalent requirements of on-site requirements if you do not pay the

affordable housing impact fee so right now I believe it's I think 10% very low

affordable is required and 12% low and 15% moderate so those still would apply

if a developer wanted to do a density bonus project in the city and not pay

the affordable housing impact fees or they would have to pay the affordable

housing impact fees okay thank you and my last clarification clarifying question

is around the displacement provisions so I did ask this on Monday but I'm hoping

that you can just share a little bit about what the city provisions are

around demolition and anti displacement for rent-controlled units.

Sure I'll take this one. So let's start with what's in SB 79. So it first

references the replacement unit requirements that are in a different

Senate bill, Senate bill 330, Housing Crisis Act that essentially requires that

if you are demolishing what's called a protected unit, rent-controlled unit or

a low-income rented unit that the new project needs to replace those through

deed-restricted housing so that's the first step is an SB 79 project must

comply with that but more restrictive there is a provision in SB 79 that says

that a project that is using SB 79 cannot also propose the demolition of

two or more rent controlled units within the last that were occupied by a tenant

within the last seven years so it will be very difficult if not impossible to

use SB 79 to for example demolish a rent controlled fourplex to build a larger

building our rent control rent adjustment program is quite broad we are

prohibited from by state law of from applying our rent control program to single family homes

that is written into the cost of hawkins act so single family homes generally are not rent

controlled regardless of the age of the building an exception to that is if a single family home

has an accessory dwelling unit on the property that is two units on one property it does not

fall into the Costa Hawkins exemption and so the single-family home could also

be rent controlled and so if there was a proposal to demo two single-family homes

that meet that circumstance you would not be able to use SP 79 more generally

with Oakland's requirements it is not just cause for eviction to the

construction of a new building is not just cause for eviction so tenants

should not and cannot receive notices that say we want to build a new building you therefore

must move. That said there are other mechanisms available to developers and they are used

on occasion. One of course is that a developer can enter into a move out agreement with tenants.

That we have a move out agreement ordinance that outlines a process to make sure that

tenants are going into that kind of a negotiation with their eyes wide open, that they have

an understanding that they have a right to have a conversation with an attorney before

entering into a move out agreement, that they're not compelled to do so.

That's typically, I think, a tool that developers would use to try to vacate units before proposing

projects.

We also are not able to exempt Oakland from the Ellis Act, which does allow property owners

to get out of the rental business and that remains a tool that can be used.

I think typically a developer would look to a move out agreement first, but LS Act is

a tool that developers can and do use to advance projects.

We also have an LS Act ordinance that requires specific provisions be met before you may

proceed with an LS Act eviction and that does include relocation payments.

So there is a tapestry of requirements in place.

That is not to say that there aren't still mechanisms to navigate all those to remove

rented units from the market and build new construction.

Thank you.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lee?

Yeah, I just had a few, a couple of clarifying sort of confirmation questions.

So in the alternative plan, to the degree that density can be redistributed,

the redistribution has to happen within the same TOD zone.

Like you couldn't redistribute density from one zone to another.

Is that correct?

I'll refer to the mic.

I'm kind of expecting this question too, so I may read a little bit on this one.

The local alternative plan is really a whole different animal.

It has a different set of requirements that are pretty detailed.

It requires the city to look at the existing built environment,

how many housing units exist within our TOD areas,

how much housing could be built under SB 79,

and look at the difference between that.

That kind of becomes a target in the same way that like arena number becomes a target.

So we then have to develop an alternative plan that has the same capacity for development as that citywide target.

We then, any city cannot allocate all of that target into one TOD zone.

They are required to maintain kind of a baseline.

I believe it's, you can't decrease any TOD zone below 50% of what SB 79 would have already allowed.

So there's some room to shift between TOD zones, but you can't kind of fully upzone one TOD zone, one transit station, and downzone other ones.

There's also kind of across the TOD zone requirements.

So the state legislature also did not want to see specific parcels get really upzoned to accommodate all of the SB79 capacity

and maintain lower zoning.

The threshold is that every parcel that's within a TOD zone

needs to meet at least 50% of what is provided in SB79,

which, again, that will depend on whether you're a Tier 1,

a BART station, Tier 2, tempo line.

It depends on whether you're within a half mile or a quarter mile.

So we have to balance all of those elements

when doing the TOD alternative plan.

There are exceptions to that as well particularly around that 50% zoning requirement. So

sites that have a historic resource can once again be

excluded from that requirement that it meet at least 50% of SB 79.

There is a cap on how many historic resources can be within any given TOD zone. So there's

some work that would have to be done on that as well. And then there is an additional

Exclusion from that 50% requirement in our low resource areas

That are adjacent to tier two stops that do allow for a lower density of 30 dwellings per acre

With a residential far of 1.0

I believe the standard in the tier two kind of radius was something closer to 60 or 80 dwellings per acre, so

So going down to 50% of that is maybe 10 dwelling units per acre less than what would be required to hit that 50% mark.

Okay, thanks.

I mean, the way you're describing it makes it seem like there is some wiggle room to sort of redistribute some density from one TOD zone to another.

So I think if the alternative plans had those kind of features,

I would want to understand sort of the rationale if that were to happen.

And another thing I wanted to confirm is,

so SB 79 does have these requirements around inclusionary zoning

and prohibition of demolition of rent-controlled units and labor standards,

and those understandably weren't necessarily highlighted in this presentation.

But I just given how complicated it is to sort of compare those requirements and how they would impact sort of existing requirements on the cities.

Is there a plan on when sort of those requirements in SB 79 might be presented or included in materials?

Well, I think part of the intent is that we would provide like something on our website

that would be an FAQ as well as a guidance for staff to help with evaluating what meets

the SB 79 law requirements.

Because, again, I think we didn't want to put that into the actual code because if it

know does change then our code would not be up to date but the intention is to

have guidance to try to both help applicants and staff as you know they

navigate if they do qualify for SB 79 project okay thank you

Okay, I think we can open up the public hearing.

All right, so we have three speakers.

We have Naomi Schiff, Raul Maldonado, and Ali Sapirman.

You may come up. You have two minutes.

And please state your full name for the record.

How much time, Doug?

Two minutes.

Okay.

Cool.

Hi.

My name is Raul Maldonado.

I'm speaking on behalf of East Bay Yimby and more than 100-plus members in strong support

of SB 79.

It's promised to bring more housing near transit in Oakland.

SB 79 was designed to make it easier to build homes closer to TOD locations like BART stations, etc.

Especially, this is important for working families and living close to transit.

This is a great opportunity for them.

Housing near transit is critical for creating affordable housing in family-sized units

and preventing displacement, already previously discussed,

for families giving them an opportunity to live in the city they live, which is Oakland.

There are some concerns about some of the exclusions that were would be added. I think

That is generally a nice analysis

But typically an analysis with no target or deadline is just something that stays in limbo for some time

so I think with the

concerns and reservations like the exclusions and

commandments have there I think that should not be considered in the analysis that was

you know really done through SB 79 should just be you know you should like

sorry you should be able to just like rely on the state to handle that and

then also the additional amendments that would come in as well instead of waiting

on something that you know potentially other staff members and prospectively in

the future that would you know do some major or more exclusions to that in the

future. Anyways, getting off that tangent, we urge the Plain Commission to lean into

supporting existing SB 79's intent to avoid unnecessary exclusions or just other kind of

like dragging on situations like we've seen earlier in the open forum with a different

smaller project and more rich resource near-pod. Thank you for your time and have a good day.

Good evening. My name is Allie Saperman, the policy manager for the Housing Action Coalition.

Oakland has done real work to plan for housing, and that's not easy.

But I'm here to say planning alone isn't enough.

Oakland has the responsibility to deliver housing, especially in a housing crisis this severe.

SB 79 was passed for a reason.

It reflects a statewide recognition that cities haven't built enough homes near transit,

and this has real consequences.

Displacement, long commutes, rising costs, impacts to our climate,

and fewer opportunities for working families to stay in their communities.

The intent of SB 79 is not to create another planning process.

It's to create housing near transit and make it possible now.

We recommend not creating carve-outs that move away from the bill's intent.

As someone who lives and travels throughout the Bay, I see the impacts of underbuilding every day.

Friends and neighbors priced out, long commutes that steal time and money,

climate goals that feel out of reach because we haven't aligned housing with transit.

While the law allows some flexibility, broad exclusions and long delays risk turning the housing law into something that exists mostly on paper.

Oakland has the opportunity, and I would argue the obligation, to implement SB 79 in a way that results in real, usable housing capacity near transit,

especially in areas well served by jobs, schools, and services.

I'm urging the Planning Commission to recommend an approach that stays true to SB 79's purpose.

do not accept the exclusions and unnecessary carve-outs, which are a way to circumvent the law,

lean into housing near transit, and ensure this policy leads to homes being built.

Oakland can lead by showing that we take both our planning and our housing responsibilities seriously.

Thank you.

Naomi Schiff, did you want to speak?

Hello, Naomi Schiff for Oakland Heritage Alliance.

I want to thank the staff for that enormous pile of data.

When I saw that Section H was 1,600 pages, I rejected a request to print it out because

I didn't have that much paper.

I think that it's a good approach and that we really look forward to participating in the

whatever public process results in an alternative plan. And I would just remind everybody that a

great deal of Oakland's rental housing is in existing buildings, and those largely are the

ones that are affordable. The new stuff that we have seen has been largely unaffordable.

And so we're really interested in seeing some innovative approaches to reuse of existing

buildings that are underutilized and hope that the state will recognize that it's not

always new construction that generates new units. Sometimes we can get new units out

of old buildings and I really would like to see that this city includes that in

its contemplation thank you and I really thank the staff for a comprehensive

report all right we have one speaker left Aaron Eckhouse please state your

full name for the record you have two minutes

hello thank you my name is Aaron Eckhouse I'm the local and regional

Policy Program Director for California Yimby we were proud to sponsor SB 79 to support transit oriented development across California

And we were very grateful to have support from Mayor Lee as well as Councilmember Wong and many other members of the Oakland community

And passing that bill

I think we can see from this analysis. I have as an Oakland resident feel very proud of the work that Oakland has done

And the pro housing leadership that the city has shown I think that's reflected in the analysis

that if more cities were doing what Oakland has been doing,

we would have less of a housing crisis.

So very impressed, very proud,

and also very impressed by the analysis that staff did.

I will say I would encourage you not to adopt Exclusion 1.

I think that one specifically,

you will see it carves out subsets of TOD areas.

And the areas in Oakland where SB 79 makes the biggest difference for housing capacity are resource-rich neighborhoods in North Oakland around Rockridge, North Telegraph, MacArthur.

These are areas where I think Oakland has proactively done more planning work over the last years to create housing opportunities.

SB 79 provides an opportunity to lean in and do even more.

so I would encourage you not to remove College Avenue from SB 79 not to remove those stretches

of telegraph even though they may be eligible for the 50% exclusion I think you will get better

outcomes it will allow us to learn things potentially if developers are using SB 79

standards instead of local zoning standards about why that is and what constraints may exist in other

places and it will also honestly simplify the mapping process and the process for somebody to

determine is their property eligible for SB 79

Thank you

Here's our final speaker. All right. Thank you. I will close the public hearing and bring it back up for discussion

Who would like to start or do we have any follow-up questions for Laura?

Okay, vice chair Sandoval

Thank you and thank you for the public comment as well

I'm really less concerned with exclusions two and three here just because I think that they really kind of speak to

you know preservation of historic sites as well as making sure that

you know we go through a

you know

thoughtful public process and under resourced neighborhoods and

Really make sure that we're grounded and anti displacement strategies. I am

I'm less enthusiastic about Exclusion 1 around the Rockridge, MacArthur, and Ashby BART stations.

I just feel that those are some of the most more higher resourced areas in Oakland and are the neighborhoods where we could really benefit from more housing, more dense housing, diverse housing.

and I feel that SB 79 was designed particularly for such neighborhoods like that.

So those are just my thoughts in terms of moving forward on this.

I would like to, you know, if we were to consider exclusion one,

I'd like to see more detailed kind of parcel-based analysis of those stations,

really understanding what parcels would be eligible for SB 79

and how it would compare against the current zoning in those areas,

whether it would be making what the difference would be

between what's existing and how it would be impacted by SB 79.

I also just wonder if as part of that analysis,

which I know is a lot of analysis,

is just like the basic parcel typology,

whether it's single family home or multifamily,

just because I think that SB 79 is less likely to be applied to single-family home sites.

There is potential there, sure, but I don't think that is where the real difference will be made.

And so just understanding, you know, what are the multifamily and commercial properties

that would be eligible for SB 79 would be really helpful.

Thank you.

Thanks, Vice Chair.

Yeah, thank you for that as well and for the public comments.

I mean, I do share some of the concerns around the impact on equity and some of the things

that we discussed earlier today, but I think that SB 79 is an important tool to build additional

additional housing at a time where not everybody across the state is meeting their goals.

I know Oakland is doing a really good job of meeting our goals, but I think we can always

do better.

So I do share some of the concerns about exclusion number one and wondering if there's some flexibility

to remove some or allow SP79 to apply to some of these specific corridors that have been

identify specifically in Rockbridge and Telegraph.

Is there any flexibility there?

I know the good news is that the exclusions are temporary,

as you mentioned earlier.

We still have the opportunity with the alternative plan

in phase two to provide important tools that SB 79

is trying to achieve.

And we're not permanently making some of these areas exclusions,

which I would not be supportive of.

I know the goal is to pause and really identify and analyze

and have a public process that's really intentional

and deliberative.

But then I also have concerns of how long is it

going to take until we no longer have the temporary exclusions

and we have the alternative plan or phase two.

So I don't want to necessarily wait six years,

because six years in the process of building housing,

who knows what the world is going to look like in six years.

So who knows how many times SB 79 could be amended or changed.

So yeah, I guess my common question is, is there any flexibility?

Have you thought about what was brought up about some of these corridors that might not

be excluded right now, even temporarily, and provide SB 79 to become active in July?

Have you had any thought or was it really like, as soon as something is over 50%, we

put it on the list without any necessarily thought of flexibility um i would say when we were looking

at this as staff again we we realized you know we are in the process of the general plan update

and what we had looked at first was was it even possible for us to do an alternative plan

could we try to you know front loads um an up zoning um but as we were going through the general

plan process we just really thought that did not make sense because again we're we're trying to do

this comprehensively and look at how the transit connections are there the corridors the various

types of land uses as well as employment uses and not just residential you know where where jobs are

located and so forth so we wanted to look at that in a comprehensive manner when you're doing

land use and not in isolation of just okay we're just going to add density but what does that mean

You know, how do people actually get around? Are there, you maybe have a BART line, but do you have a bus line to, you know, to get around in Oakland if you're not taking a BART to go somewhere, you know, outside of the city or within the city?

As well as, you know, how are you trying to get to your job, where you're working, where are those destinations?

So we feel it's a much more comprehensive, which is what the land use and transportation element is, essentially.

And so we felt it made sense across the city to apply whatever exclusions we could in order to allow staff the time to do that analysis and also get the input from the public.

No matter where you live, you know, we want to get that input as well.

and ultimately you know they're still gonna you know the upzonings are gonna

have to happen some but they may be distributed differently than what has

been proposed so far with SB 79 and I would kind of not agree with some of

the statements of what the public said because obviously the state passed this

law with these exclusions in place if they didn't want cities to have the

exclusions they wouldn't have allowed them to be part of the bill and i think they recognized that

it wasn't realistic for any city to be able to do an alternative plan within such a short time frame

um you know just to get something for us through planning commission and council you know that's

almost a you know a three-month process in itself without any actual analysis to take place so the

idea that you could get that done and really what the state has said is that they have 90 days to

actually review our code after it's adopted before July 1st so essentially that really leaves us the

end of March that we have to get this adopted in order to get that review by the state the 90-day

review to make that July 1st deadline and something that was passed in October to you know that's

almost impossible for any city unless I think like San Francisco they had already worked on

their family zoning we're kind of looking at a lot of these things so they were ahead of the curve

in that process but you know we are somewhat ahead of the curve because we are already doing

our general plan update but we're just not quite there to be able to meet this you know deadline

of July 1st of this year and again we very much have the intent that this will be next year that

we want to have an alternative plan.

And I'm sure we're going to have pressure from the community because, again, there are

areas that are not excluded, right?

So they're going to want us to get this alternative plan done as fast as possible.

And I know you mentioned that yesterday during our meeting, and then just now is that the

state still has 90 days to review it.

Is that more of an administrative review where they look at, okay, well, have you complied

with state law and are you allowed to submit these or approve these exclusions or do they have

what do they do can they say no during the review and what happens if they say no

looks like mike is going to

i will say this is new for everyone right so we've not gotten answers from state hcd exactly what that

process will be like. We've done the preliminary work to

just ask them, who do we even submit it to? And that

actually took a little bit of effort to get that in place.

What the law does say is that

we have 60 days, the city has 60 days after

enactment to send it to state HCD.

We also have to send a draft to HCD prior

to adoption, at least 14 days before adoption, and they have an opportunity to provide us feedback.

So we will be doing that as well. After we send it to the state HCD, they have 90 days to review

the ordinance. They can ask for an additional 30 days if they so choose to. And there is a

presumption that if we do not hear from the department within that time period that the

ordinance is deemed compliant for purposes of specific penalty provisions. There is an additional

provision that says if at any time the department determines that the ordinance does not comply

with this section, HCD shall notify the local government in writing. HCD shall provide the

local government a reasonable time not to exceed 60 days to respond before taking further action.

This is similar to what we've seen in a couple other housing-related bills. Essentially,

We get a list of concerns and then the ordinance or sorry sp79 provides that in response to that

we as a city would either amend the ordinance to comply with

The comments from state hcd or we would enact an ordinance

That includes findings explaining why we disagree with state hcd's findings

And would that come back to the planning commissioner city council or who would be the entity to?

Yes, it would come to Planning Commission and City Council.

I'm fairly certain of that.

It's an amendment to the planning code,

so it would need to come to both bodies.

Okay.

And then I know this might be more of a rhetorical question,

but what is your sense that HTC actually has the capacity

to review potentially hundreds of thousands of documents

that will be submitted by cities within the 90 days or 120 days?

so I guess if you don't hear back we don't hear back with it might be good news this but is

I don't have an answer to that and I do not know what their capacity is

thank you yeah um uh I would also add an additional response to uh vice chair Sandoval

um the other you know staff did look at the densities allowed in these areas along college

avenue and um in the macarthur bart area as well as some of the ashby bart area but the really the

zoning densities along these areas are already quite high and some of them you know are already

meeting or exceeding what sb 79 densities would require um there are a few that are not

but they you know one of the areas as I mentioned earlier maybe the height limit

is lower but again because you can take advantage of a density bonus project and

and have higher heights that that allowance is still there and again if

you were to do SB 79 project you would have to do a density bonus project so so

we don't feel like again waiting this short amount of time to allow for this

planning process really is impeding much compared to what our already our density allows currently

um and yeah we just again we really feel as staff you know the principle of that you know if we're

going through general plan process that is the area of where we should be looking at the city

comprehensively and making those decisions and we understand we feel that you know really this bill

was meant for a lot of other cities that have not been doing the work and sit in Oakland

has been doing the work and it's been very diligent in our numbers actually show that

of where we're at of our densities and our allowances and so we feel that you know we

should be able to get given this short amount of time to actually do the necessary planning

and get community input in order to make these decisions.

Could we shorten the time frame of the exclusions?

Because by operation of law, they sunset with the next housing element cycle, right?

So what if we could consider having them sort of sunset with, I don't know, the general plan update

or something that keeps it more temporary than I think it is right now?

this was that something that I mean we could make that recommendation to the

City Council if we were so inclined yes there is language in the draft planning

code amendments that specify pursuant to our planning code what the expiration

date is so currently 17 86010 says that these exclusions are valid until January

31st 2032 or one year following the adoption of the seventh revision of the city of oakland housing element whichever occurs first

it's written that way because there's

Some strange nuances and state housing law about when we have to certify a housing element

You don't really know until kind of right before you start that process

It's our planning code if you want a different date you can put a different date in it. Okay, thanks Mike

Commissioner Rob

So I actually have another question and it kind of piggybacks off of what Commissioner Randolph and Commissioner Wright just stated.

It's more about logistics, about how we sort through this thing.

If we approve the exclusions today

But when the alternative plan comes and we don't find it suitable

Can we really come back before us and can we default back to

SB 79

Does that make sense?

Yeah, so the alternative plan would be essentially

upzoning different areas

in order to be compliant with what the alternative plan requires for SB 79.

And so that would have to come back to the Planning Commission

because we would be changing zoning maps and densities,

and then it would go to the City Council.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Randolph?

I mean, the deadline piece is a very interesting consideration

because I didn't think about that.

So when you say that the goal is to have an either alternative plan or phase two done or approved by 27, 2028, which is way ahead of the housing element probably, or 2032, I hope.

Do these exclusions then still remain on the book, even though we have an alternative plan and phase two approved?

would the phase two and the alternative plan replace the exclusion and basically remove them?

My understanding, and Meg can correct me if I'm wrong, is that you can't have both, I believe,

but I'm not positive. But I think the intent would be to have the alternative plan replace

the exclusions. But I don't know if Mike, have you? Because that's not how it's currently written.

So maybe there's some confusion to me at least.

Yeah, well, as currently written,

there's no references to the planning code about the local alternative plan.

And I think part of that is because we're on a limited timeline here.

I don't see anything that says that you can't have a local alternative plan

and exclusions.

It doesn't say that in the statute,

but that doesn't really make sense to do that.

So my assumption is that an ordinance that was bringing a local alternative plan or the general plan element would include something that would repeal some of this language, probably not all of it, but perhaps the exclusion section.

Or it may actually, there may be S8 amendments that come as part of the local alternative plan and may be built into it.

I don't think we've had opportunities to explore that at the staff level, exactly what the structure of alternative plan would look like.

I think also we're waiting to get a little bit more guidance from the state as to what they're looking for to see in the alternative plan.

So it's a little difficult to craft exactly what it would look like until we have that guidance.

Yeah, and I think, I mean, if you had the alternative plan, that would mean you're not subject to SB 79 anymore.

So you wouldn't really need the exclusions at that point because you've complied with an alternative plan.

And so we would be setting what those densities would be in those areas, which means you wouldn't be able to do the same densities on every parcel that SB 79 would have allowed, right?

Because we've now set the densities in the alternative plan what they're complying with instead.

So I don't see what reason you would need an exclusion at that point.

I'll just add, I think that there is some ambiguity in the statute for this.

and I do expect there to be guidance,

or perhaps it would be in the amending bills that we've been talking about

because just as a practical example,

SB 79 has these affordability requirements.

It has a labor requirement.

As you know, those labor requirements are often quite difficult

for cities to impose themselves.

So there's going to have to be some dovetailing about,

okay, if a local jurisdiction adopts an alternative plan,

it it still lives within the realm of sp79 because projects that are using that alternative plan

um i think it are anticipated to meet those standards or if it's just adopted directly

into the general plan then um i think there would be a concern that it's not meeting some of those

sp79 standards that were anticipated so um once again that's a good reason why we're looking for

guidance and perhaps some amendments are coming. I mean, I would worry about the alternative plan

being separate from the general plan update, because I understand we have pressures on,

you know, funding for that. And I've seen other cities just in a really race to get across the

finish line because the money's going to dry up. So my fear would be that there's going to be so

much emphasis on the general plan work, and then the alternative plan could trail. And I don't know

how long that could trail. And so then we're just, we've sort of, we're in suspended animation with

SB 75 until 2032 so that that's that's my struggle as it just feels too long but

Just because I don't want to get stuck in like analysis paralysis or

the very real

Case that you know, there's so much going on with city planning and you're doing all this good work

And it can just take more time than we're talking about today

I mean, I understand state law tries sometimes to be very flexible

and provide some wiggle room for the actual entities

that need to implement whatever they are codifying on the state level.

And it creates ambiguity, which can be helpful,

but then it can also be problematic

because the state is not always very good at providing the guidance

when cities or entities are trying to find that guidance.

So I think the question is, is it better to pre-plan for that and build in some type of sunsetting or expiration timeline or date and say, you know, when Oakland approves phase two or an alternative plan, it repeals the exclusions?

or is it better to wait and write it is it possible to write it into the phase two

in phase two approval process or the alternative plan and says with this approval of this

alternative plan or phase two we will also repeal the exclusions that were passed by

planning commission on x state or city council next to date so is it is it better to pre-plan

and do it now and say what if these plans are being approved or is it better to wait and build

that into the plans that we are proving in the future what is the cleaner way for staff or the

city to to do it are we able to write it something like that into the alternative plan saying with

this plan approval we are repealing the exclusions or um i think i'd like to focus first on what's

before you today so there includes language that says when the exclusions are valid until right

and the part that i read in says these exclusions are valid until january 31st 2032

or one year following adoption of the seventh uh revision of the city of oakland housing element

seven cycle um you could add language into that that says these exclusions are valid until january

31st 2032 or

Intel the city of Oakland adopts a qualifying local alternative plan

Whichever occurs earlier

Thank you

Sorry Commissioner Rob

Yeah, so my

concern goes back to what I originally asked is that this could drag on and

and we won't get anything done.

So can we actually set a deadline for when the alternative plan,

when it happens or anything like that?

Is that doable?

I don't think that you can set a deadline for when the alternative plan can be adopted.

I don't think there is a deadline under SB 79,

and I don't think jurisdictions are obligated to adopt an alternative plan.

So for some municipalities, they may decide not to.

I think what you could do is, again, put in a different date for these exclusions, if that's the interest of the body.

Thank you. That makes sense. Thank you.

Ed, did you have anything to say?

I always know when you step down that...

Hi, Ed. Thanks very much. Ed Manassi, W Director of Planning.

we hadn't directly talked about this issue but it's been extremely interesting

my assumption all along is that the exclusions would be in place only until we adopt an alternative

plan that they're kind of the the interim measure to get us to that point and so we would if that

were to be that shared vision, then we would build that

into the adopting regulations coming before this body

and council.

The exclusions would really have no purpose

in an alternative world where the plan is adopted

as an alternative plan because they would be necessarily

superseded because they you would have certain areas not if they're not if

they don't apply to SB 79 then they would have then local regulations would

apply and those locations would be an alternative plan so their necessity

would be overridden by the the additional amendments that would come

along with with that so I would be comfortable with what was suggested as

far as having that you know the exclusions that they would sunset as

soon as an adopted alternative plan would be adopted so and again our intent

is to do so as soon as possible concluding or shortly after adoption of the general

plan amendment just on a on just on a workload as soon as we get the general plan amendment

completed we would have to move a lot of our limited resource towards the sub-regional

planning that's required around the same time as when the housing element is due.

So we're going to need to do a lot in the latter half of this decade where we would

want to get this alternative plan done so that it wouldn't overlap so much with other

things coming up in the foreseeable future.

Yeah, thank you.

So I think I would feel comfortable hearing from staff

to make that amendment to the staff recommendation

to add that little piece to the expiration date

or with the adoption of an alternative plan.

So keep the two items in there, so the housing element,

the year after whatever, the 2032 deadline,

and then the third one would be the,

or with the adoption of an alternative plan.

I still worry about the lag.

My preference would be to tie it to the general plan,

but that's where I am.

I

Don't I mean, I don't think there's gonna be this huge window of risk

If we tied it to the general plan versus the alternative an alternative plan

I think it will actually motivate the alternative plan to happen sooner

I don't think we're gonna get flooded with if there was some time in between that we're gonna get flooded with you know

hundreds of SB 79 applications if there's that you know, there's a window but

That's speculation.

Yeah, I mean, I would be, I think I would like a little more time beyond the journal plan update of phase two finish.

Just because I know all the work that is involved and needed as part of that process.

This is something, you know, we've had the project scoped out.

and this is an additional item that is now being tacked on and we already had a very

tight timeline of meeting the the timeline already um so i feel that that um timeline is

not it to have it at the exact same time is is not realistic and then again my concern would be

again all the work we are doing as part of this process to then and committee input and telling

community this is what we're going to do and then oh no now all of a sudden time's up you know sb79

kicks in and everything you've worked to plan for is is gone

i mean i i share you i share your concerns around the lag but what my concern is that you might have

three different scenarios of time periods now.

You have the period of projects being submitted

during the period of exclusions,

and then potentially post-phase two adoption,

whatever that brief moment is.

And then all of a sudden you have another phase

with the alternative plan that might bring back

some of these exclusions or make some other upzoning changes.

So you might have three different phases

of three potential different projects

depending on when they've been submitted.

And that might create an additional confusion

to applicants, developments, or staff

to figure out what was submitted

and what of those three phases.

So I would feel, for me, the middle ground here

is still push staff to get the alternative plan done,

which I think they're planning to because they have to,

but make it a lot more temporary than 2032.

So that's why I think I prefer the alternative plan this

Inclusion in the deadline

Commissioner Lee just want to throw out an idea that might solve some of these these problems if maybe if we tied it to

one year after the general plan

Exclusions and one year after a general plan and then if something happens, and it's not it's that that time

I still doesn't work we can we can always amend the

The deadline right

Yeah, I mean, I would assume we can always mend the planning code.

We would have to come.

So I guess what you're saying is maybe we're not potentially going to meet that deadline

and we need another month or two, staff would have to come back and ask for an amendment

for that date to extend the date.

are we assuming that we would get the alternative plan done within a year after the

general plan yes yeah so yes so um i think the since we don't know exactly when the general

plan is done with spring summer uh it might be best to come up with a date uh that generally

meets that one year, so sometime in 2028.

So we could, I don't want to come up with a date on the fly, but June 30th, July 1st,

that is in the approximate range of when we expect the general plan to be completed one

year after that.

all right i don't know i think what owen lee was saying i mean maybe if we say

and this is a question for mike branson if you maybe say one year after the adoption of the

general plan because then that would or do we need a hard fast date we don't we don't need a

hard fast date but i do have a little bit of concern about writing into the planning code

one year after the general plan update that means something to everyone in this room you know we've

been really working on phase two and have specific deliverables but in the event that it doesn't go

as anticipated it becomes a little bit unclear as to what that means in terms of completion of

general plan update so i think you would need to be more specific with the language to say

something like a comprehensive amendment of the land use and transportation element

Again, I think you still need to be pretty precise with that language because

From time to time we do make land use and transportation elements

Amendments that are you know more targeted it could be for a specific project or something like that. So you just need to be

pretty precise with the

What the trigger is that you're referring to?

i will say i don't share that concern with the local alternative plan because

that is essentially defined by state law i don't have that concern with putting in a specific

sunset date i caused the timing discussion but i don't want to um lose sight of if anyone has

Any good sort of going back to the vice chairs comment about exclusion one

I mean do we want to talk about whether or not we're on board with all of these exclusions as written or

kind of

explore that thread

Then come back. I'd love others opinions on that. I know this is temporary

But just any thoughts on exclusion one as compared to two or three

Commissioner Aaron thank you yes I do share some of the concerns about exclusion one

you know looking at exclusion two I think it makes a lot of sense to remove Ashby and

Rockridge and MacArthur because they're not low resource they're high resource areas

but then looking at the map again for exclusion one it is and I know it's

because these parcels are zoned 50% density and residential FAR but I yeah I

guess I it's just like a lot of parcels along the key corridors which yeah I am

little bit concerned about I'll just yeah I'll just stop there I do have a

concern okay anyone else I share the same concern so I'll jump in with that

so I guess I wonder if there is a scenario here where we move forward with

the request for exclusions two and three, thinking about having this sunset date.

We'll look to you for the exact language there, kind of after the general plan update,

but more detailed. Is there a scenario where we're able to do that and then

request additional information related to exclusion one? I know that you're working

on this tight timeline so it is a question yeah i mean i think we would like planning commission

to make a recommendation today to move forward to council because we are trying to meet and this is

you know we actually already have this scheduled for rules at this time because we're trying to

meet this deadline of getting it adopted in march okay so i would say then sounds like

the request for more information related to exclusion one is really not part of the timeline

that we're working with. So if the commission were to think about exclusion one as maybe

possibly not including exclusion one as part of our motion.

Excluding exclusion one?

Yeah.

I mean, what does that mean if we exclude exclusion one? It's almost like a double negative in my

brain but and it goes to council for recommendation except exclusion one what

does that mean then you have to come back with exclusion one or you just it

just it just not it is not gonna get excluded so basically there's no

exclusion one it's just basically all those parcels would fall under it would

be SB 79 eligible unless the council overrides so the council could override

and add exclusion one back into the thing.

Yeah, because we're only recommending.

Correct, yeah.

So council could still say that they want to include exclusion one.

The one thing I would also say is that what we've done on purpose,

because the state law is, you know,

we're having to go by our best interpretation of analyzing,

like, the 40% aggregate density and the TOD areas

and so forth. So we are sort of trying in all areas to apply any exclusions that are possible.

So we are actually applying exclusion one to the low resource areas as well, because if for some

reason the state says we did some kind of calculations wrong or something, never than

when they come out with their interpretation and we see maybe we didn't interpret it quite

correctly and they're like well why don't you go back and start over again for your exclusion two

we want to have a backup of exclusion one in these low resource areas um of those because there's a

lot of zones in those areas that already have very high densities that meet that 50 percent

or higher so um if this is something you are wanting i would maybe ask that you maybe just

not have those exclusions for exclusion one in the particular TOD zones that you're concerned about

and not for all of the TOD zones?

Can I clarify what you're saying?

So that would mean the three-part stations in the higher resource areas?

If those are the ones that you're concerned about, then yes.

Okay.

and I'll just say from a process standpoint

what I'm hearing, what that looks like

is you're asking to remove

maps 1, 2, and 3 from attachment D

I would recommend that you also

include in your recommendation

some modifications to

the planning code amendments themselves

17.86060, that's the section that lists the exclusions

It has an a b and c that include the three different exclusions

a is exclusion one

and so there would need to be a little bit of amendment to that language to basically say not including

Sites within a half mile of ashby macarthur and rockridge

Can you say the section again Mike?

Yes, it is

17 86060

That is the exclusions section and then

And paragraph A under that is specifically this 50% exclusion.

And so you'll see just a list of zoning designations that meet that criteria.

It doesn't say anything about any particular TOD stops.

It's just applying it to those zoning designations.

So you would need to have in that intro paragraph 2A something that says not including sites within a half mile of Ashby,

McArthur and Rockridge Ashby McArthur and Rockridge part

oh thank you for that I like that approach but I had the one concern I also

had was this the parcels around West Oakland BART station because that is

another one of those areas that I think is important to build housing around.

So I don't want to start removing every single map,

but I would feel inclined to add map,

I think it's map four, to the first three maps.

Because that was one of the areas that I was concerned about.

Can I ask a clarifying question around that?

Can you confirm whether that West Oakland area falls under the 40% threshold?

Because I thought that it did.

It does.

So it already is an exclusion.

It's a low resource area.

Yeah.

West Oakland is a low resource area.

So I think staff would definitely have even more concerns about removing that.

Yeah, okay, that's fair.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I think based on like exclusion one, I think that does, I see where you're coming from.

I think that that does make sense in part because table three in the staff report, which is on, I don't know what page,

but table three, it does show that the SB9 aggregate capacity near West Oakland BART is higher.

It's like 22, almost 23,000 units and the current Oakland aggregate capacity is around 16,000 around West Oakland.

So I do see where you're coming from, but I do agree that because it is a low resource area, I am kind of concerned about eliminating that.

But I, yeah, I wanted to recognize where you're coming from and also note that that was one of the two BART stations where the SB9 aggregate is higher.

does anyone do we want to come back to the timing does someone want to make a motion

i do have a few more comments oh sorry i don't mean to cut anyone off go for it

I don't think that these are I'm not proposing any further like changes or motions but while

I have the floor did want to make a few comments so I think that part of the intent with you know

SB 79 there's a lot of intense but one of them is about you know some of the on-site affordability

options and the increase in demolition protections and the prevailing wages benefits like those are

all real benefits some of which oakland already provides and and um some of which we don't have

requirement like strict requirements around um and so i think that there is a benefit of um

you know having sb 79 apply to to some more areas um in the city and that's why i'm glad to see the

the high resource areas are not excluded.

I think one thing that I do like about SB 79

around the on-site inclusionary requirements

is that it does have a deeper level of affordability

than what we require in our impact fees.

The 15% moderate income that we have for our impact fees here

is not actually providing the deep affordability

that I think that the city should be prompting.

So I do like the 7% for extremely low income,

10% for very low income,

and 12% for low income that SB 79 does provide.

So I'm happy to see that that will apply

to some parts of the city.

And I just wanted to state that I do think our impact fees

and that moderate income piece at 15%

is still concerning to me.

and that we're not seeing moderate income in in the legislation um i am also very concerned about

displacement demolition and protection for renters i know that the limitations of costa hawkins means

that the city itself can't require rent control for renters in single-family homes but i'm just

thinking about uh single-family home renters especially in more low density parts of the

city along the brt out into east oakland and hoping that you know the city i think has already

done the most robust protections it can under the state preemption but just wanted to reiterate

through our updates to phase two of the general plan making sure that we're able to prioritize

protections for renters as as much as we can which is a little bit outside of this process

my last comments are about the downtown stations I do understand that they're

hello resource although looking at the maps the parts of downtown stations that

are low resource are not the parts that are right next to the lake and so it is

kind of this like mixed district area even though I know overall they come out

to be low resource but in an effort to provide consistency and direction I think

whole cloth excluding low resource stations is good but I do think that

we're missing out on some of the additional pieces at SB 79 prompts

around the affordability options and prevailing wages around these downtown

stations. And so, yeah, I just feel like, you know, that's our most transit dense core in Oakland,

in the Bay Area, and it's a little bit of a missed opportunity, even though I know the heights down

there are really high and in some cases already exceed SB 79. But some of those additional pieces

It's what I feel like we're kind of missing out on.

And those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'll make one more plaque, and I understand I'm going to move on.

But I feel like West Oakland, specifically the area around that station,

would kind of mirror what you were saying in your comments,

is that, yes, West Oakland is a very low resource neighborhood and community,

but the amount of lack of development and potential for development around the West Oakland

BART station specifically with the empty parcels, gas stations, and underdeveloped

community resources over there, I think that is such a prime positive way of increasing capacity

specifically for housing in Oakland around that station. And a lot of the projects that have been

approved already are not moving forward for various reasons. So I do hesitate of providing

broad-based exclusions because some of the parcels that are identified in MAP4 are not,

I think, currently housing or not the type of housing where you would displace a lot of people.

But I understand that there's a concern from staff, and I don't want to overrule staff necessarily

in this specific point. But I just think that it is a missed opportunity, and I hope that

The alternative plan gets moved forward very quickly,

and there's some really strong analysis being done,

specifically in West Oakland,

because I know that the plan has been not moved forward for a very long time.

It is outdated, and just a lot of things have changed in West Oakland

in regards to how it's being used and how it could be used,

specifically on housing and equity and community.

So I appreciate your focus on West Oakland,

hopefully with both Phase 2 and the alternative plan,

But just wanted to bring that up before we vote on it

Thank you for that

Does anyone else have comments Commissioner Lee sorry guys so

So the SP 79 requirements around inclusionary zoning would apply to an area even if it already exceeded the

Exceeded the

Density requirements

So if it were not excluded if if if somebody wants to

utilize SPC nine density and

Yeah, I would think some would only want to use SPC nine density if it's higher than what the existing zoning allows

so

And but it would then require those percentages of

Affordability in order to take advantage of the SB 79

As I did state and we already you know, we do have actually pretty equivalent requirements in our impact fees

Or the on-site

Already right now to for on-site affordability with our existing zoning

But yet I think to maybe your point is that somebody if the zoning already allows them to do that density

Then they would not be doing SB 79 because it actually would have more potential restrictions on them

Then doing with the zoning

Does that answer your question yeah

Commissioner what should we discuss and thank you for staying past five?

Yeah, we would miss you with this one

Should we discuss

timeline

as far as like when we expect to see this after the general plan.

Yeah.

Let's do a quick straw poll.

Yeah.

So I'll just jump in and then we'll figure this out.

But if,

if we were to make the recommendation to exclude these maps,

I would be less concerned about timing.

How's that?

I would still be a little concerned about time.

No, that's fine.

I'm just saying.

Just one person's opinion.

And so, and I don't know if what we've been hearing is that the cleanest way to do it would be to link it to the adoption of the alternative plan.

So I could get on board with that unless you wanted to do it sooner like we were talking about.

So.

I

Wonder if we could say something along the lines of like

You know within one year of the approved general plan

You said something about like the land use transportation element approval or

July 1st 2028 whichever comes first

And that would be a good bookend

Given that July 1st is the for this year is the deadline so

Yeah, I mean I think I mean I heard concerns by staff and

situation officer on just the

You couldn't confusion it could create if you have a specific date or

Linking it to something that is not mentioned in SP 79. I do feel more comfortable

If we link it directly to the alternative plan which I think is the cleanest and makes the most sense because the point of these exclusions is

to have enough time to create an alternative plan,

which we're allowed to do under SB 79.

We're not required, but we're allowed to.

And I have full faith that staff will come up with an alternative plan

that will address hopefully some of the concerns that we have here.

And I assume as part of the alternative plan,

it will come back to the commission for consideration.

So I think we will have hopefully ample time to have conversations.

the community and the public will have time for input and consideration.

So I would feel most comfortable, especially since we are removing some of these maps,

if we just keep it clean and tie it to the alternative plan.

Are you saying?

Vice Chair, oh, Commissioner.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Sorry about that.

Are you saying like more of an expiration date?

I guess I'm trying to understand what you.

Well, it would not necessarily be an expiration date,

but it would be a sunset tied to the adoption of the alternative plan by,

I guess, the city council.

Vice chair.

I think what I was thinking about what I meant when I was said the July 1st,

2028 or one year after was to see the alternative plan to have the alternative

plan come to planning commission.

So not necessarily like an expert.

I mean, let's just move on.

Let's get it.

Let's not be in the limbo zone.

So you would say as part of the recommendation to council that you request staff to submit an alternative plan by July something.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

And thinking, let's be optimistic, the general plan is kind of mostly wrapped up early summer 2027.

So that is a year to give staff to work and create that alternative plan.

This is what was going on in my head.

So I guess like...

I mean, I don't know if we can request that,

but I still mean it still doesn't solve my problem is

that I want it to be clear that if an alternative plan is adopted,

it repeals these exclusions.

So I'm fine with making sure or directing staff,

or if we can, to get an alternative plan submitted by a certain date,

but that still doesn't address my concern

around just the clear language of these exclusions are temporary and will be repealed if can we do

both i mean when we adopt the alternative plan we could make sure that the exclusions are rescinded

as part of the yeah reso or whatever you know ordinance or however we're doing that but i agree

which um michael branson might be part of the amendment and guidance we get from the state

anyways right correct yes I think it would be part of that guidance I'm

trying to work through the language I'm hearing kind of two different concerns

one is about kind of trying to put a date to make sure that something's

adopted soon enough and then also Commissioner Randolph's concern that you

want to write into the planning code that the exclusions go away once the

alternative plan is adopted. I think Commissioner Randolph's concern is fairly easily addressed

in that section 1786-010, the one I've read a couple times that includes the valid until date.

I would offer to amend it to say the exclusions included in section 1786-060 are valid until

January 31st, 2032,

adoption of a local transit-oriented development

alternative plan, or one year following the adoption

of the seventh revision of the City of Oakland housing element,

whichever occurs first.

So you sort of have three different triggers

for when the exclusions would be removed

from the books, essentially.

I'm not sure if that addresses the other commissioners concerns

I mean I'd be open to if we allowed to to request or

prefer to have an alternative plan submitted by a certain date

on top of that but I think we can do both

if we allowed to do that

You're looking at me.

So state that one more time.

I think the question I have is, are we allowed to request that staff submit an alternative plan by a date certain?

Like if we say we want the alternative plan by, I don't know, I'm making this up, by July 1st, 2028.

What I heard you say earlier Mike was that it was not about a date certain for the alternative plan

but a date a different date of when the exclusions expire because

We're not even contemplating this ordinance doesn't or code doesn't even talk about

You know an alternative plan is talking about the exclusions

so yeah the problem is i don't want to have a date and then the exclusions expire on july 1st

2028 but then there's no alternative plan yet in place so then we go back into these three phases of

exclusions no exclusions and then an alternative plan so the i think the cleanest for me is

you have the exclusions currently that are temporary and then you you adopt the alternative

plan that will repeal those exclusions.

But so that I think

is the cleanest way to address

the exclusions piece.

It doesn't address the concern

I think the commission has about

taking too long to submit an alternative

plan. So I think the question, I think

you're hearing the commission is very eager

to see an alternative plan as soon as possible.

So how can we

achieve that?

Two separate but related items.

The

Expert expiration time expiration to the adoption of an alternative plan

is easily

an amendment to the code

direction to have that alternative plan by a certain date is

A separate we couldn't really memorialize that in in the code itself. It'd be more

as party recommendation that

then could be

Uh part of the recommendation going to council that they could then include as part of their motion or some direction to staff

um, i'm not sure what the form would be and i'd wait i'm i'm looking to mike on that but

it's not it's it's something that would mean could be included in the recommendation not necessarily in the

in the code um

yes i agree i think i see this as a separate recommendation coming from planning commission

It's a recommendation that the council direct the city administrator to present an alternative plan to the city council by a date specific.

I think that's the best, cleanest way to do that.

I mean, I still, but I mean, if there is a window in between exclusions and an alternative plan, what's the worst that can happen?

We get a few or a bunch of SB 79 applications and we get some housing.

i mean i don't i don't under i mean if there is that window i don't think we're going to see

you know a thousand people running to city hall with sb 79 applications and if there were a bunch

then that would still be a good outcome so i don't see that problem but i'm not opposed to

what ed just suggested yeah i mean i could see you know some of the exclusions are historic

landmarks.

So if that exclusion goes away,

then maybe a landmark

maybe goes away.

So.

I just think it leaves up too many

potential unintended consequences that we can't

anticipate what some of these

projects are, but I don't know.

Does someone want to try?

Oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

Because now it's almost three hours into the meeting.

I don't know if this is maybe we're, I'm trying to, I'm going to offer something and hopefully

it's helpful.

Maybe you already said it.

Maybe not.

but in the 17.86.010 that last sentence or on that page one these exclusions are valid until

January 1st 2032 or one year following the adoption of the seventh revision of the city

of Oakland housing plan or the adoption of alternative plans whichever occurs first is that

that's essentially what I have written here in my notes I have it in a different order than you but

that doesn't matter and so that way the exclusion sunset when the alternative

plan is adopted and the second but related piece is that we can't dictate

a date when the alternative plan will be adopted but we can make a recommendation

to City Council or yeah about that

Yeah, I for making a recommendation I think one year after major revisions to the land use and transportation element

And that wouldn't go into the code, but you're referring to the direction of to the

local alternative you want the local alternative plan to be brought

Within one year

Upon of adoption of the comprehensive amendment to the land use and transportation element

I think that's what she said. Yeah

okay one moment

and then the third piece will be to exclude the three maps from

Right one two and three from exclusion one maps one two and three and then the other

Sections that you mentioned yes, here's what I have written so far

The recommendation from the Planning Commission is to adopt this proposed with the following changes

revised section 17 86010 paragraph 2 to state

the exclusions included in section 17 86060

are valid until January 31st, 2032,

or one year following the adoption of the 7th revision

of the City of Oakland housing element,

or upon adoption of a local transit-oriented development

alternative plan, whichever occurs first.

And then additionally, a recommendation to remove maps 1, 2,

and 3 from attachment D.

Attachment D is Exclusion 1.

Revise Section 1786-060 to include,

excuse me, 1786-060A to include, quote,

not including sites within one half mile of Ashby, MacArthur,

and Rockridge BART stations,

and recommend that the council direct the city administrator

to present a local alternative plan

to the city council within one year of adoption of a comprehensive amendment to the city of

land use and transportation element is that our hero yes

so i think we're done i'm kidding um so can so i think we need to if we're all i mean i'm just

looking around and i think if we're ready to do a motion and what he said yeah

Yes, so basically you're supporting staff's recommendation which also just to be clear

includes all the language that's on the last page of your staff report including the CEQA

determination.

Right, so you got to get that in there.

I don't feel a need for you to read it in full if you are pointing to the staff recommendation.

I have it written down.

I will send it to Hanifa.

You're welcome to say so moved if that is your desire.

You say we can just say so moved so moved

Second sorry motion by Commissioner Rob with the second by Commissioner Vice Chair Sandoval will call vote, please

Commissioner Lee

Yes, Commissioner Rob. Yes, Commissioner Ahrens. Yes, Vice Chair Sandoval. Yes each hearing

yes motion passes unanimously and this recommendation did you miss somebody

missed me I caused all this trouble I should be voting on my apologies Commissioner

Alex Randolph yes motion passes unanimously all commissioners have been

counted this recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council and Laura

and Ed thank you so much really appreciate it thank you for letting us

chew on all of this um okay so we obviously uh continued the appeal today right just uh

note specifically that's been continued to march 4th 2026 thank you so um let's uh

can i get a motion on the approval of the minutes for january 21st 2026 i moved to approve the

minutes from January 1st, 2026.

Motion by Commissioner Ahrens.

Second. Sorry, and that was a second

by Commissioner Robb. Did I catch that?

Yeah.

All right. Commissioner Lee?

Yes. Commissioner Robb?

Yes. Commissioner Ahrens?

Yes. Commissioner Randolph? Yes.

Vice Chair Sandoval? Yes.

Chair Rank? Yes. Motion passes.

Minutes will be posted to the website

as approved. Okay. Thank you.

Do we have any correspondence? No

correspondence any city council actions no city council actions related to recommendations or

staff reports proposals you've considered okay well then thank you i'll adjourn the meeting

today at almost six o'clock thank you thanks guys

Thank you.