Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Mm.

and this meeting may come to order.

Before taking roll, I will provide instructions on how to submit speaker cards for items on this agenda.

If you're here with us in Chamber and would like to submit a speaker card, please fill it out and turn one into myself or a clerk representative before uh sorry, no later than 10 minutes after the start of this meeting or before the item was reading to record.

Online speakers were due 24 hours prior to the start of this meeting.

This meeting came to order at 133 p.m.

and speaker cards will no longer be accepted 10 minutes after, making that time 143 p.m.

We'll now proceed with taking roll.

Council members five present.

Ramachandran?

Present.

Here and Chair Brown.

Present.

Thank you.

We have four members present.

And before we begin, Chair, do you have any announcements at this time?

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to Community and Economic Development Committee.

We only have about two items for consideration.

And these presentations will be from our planning and building department.

So we can start with the first items.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Reading in item one, approval of the draft minutes from the committee committee meeting held on February 10th, 2026.

And we have no speakers that signed up.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Second.

Thank you.

That was a motion made by Councilmember Fife, seconded by Chair Brown to approve the draft minutes from the committee meeting held on February 10th, 2026.

On roll, Council members Brown.

Or sorry, Five.

Aye.

Rama Chandren.

Aye.

Unger?

Aye.

And Chair Brown.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number one passes with four ayes.

To accept the drop minutes from the committee meeting from February 10, 2026.

Reading in item two, determination of scheduled outstanding committee items.

And we do have one speaker that signed up.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

To the administration, any um items for consideration or changes.

Nothing at this time.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

And we can hear from the speaker.

Thank you.

Calling in the name that signed up for item number two, Mrs.

Sada Olabala.

Okay.

Your sanctuary city status has an economic impact on African Americans.

You need to have a report on your sanctuary city status in that impact.

Uh the city of New York, for example, has committed billions of dollars to uh illegal immigrants in the form of housing, uh jobs, and so forth.

I don't know what y'all are doing, but you have to say you're not doing anything other than saying you are sanctuary city.

You have the need to uh have a report.

No, stop having reports on African American issues that are discriminatory racial practices that are going on in this city.

You are discriminating against African Americans as it relates to jobs, housing, education.

Come with the recommendations for corrective action.

When you decided to do a non-citizen contract for small businesses grant, you didn't do a study to make sure that it was to determine whether it should happen.

You just did it.

When you decided to be a sanctuary city, you just did it.

When you decided you needed to act on privacy and form the privacy commission, you didn't have a study or report, you just did it.

Why is it every time an issue comes up with African Americans?

You gotta have a study or some report to come up and to explain the issue with recommendations.

Stop that.

No more reports.

Correct the discriminatory practices that are going on in this city.

Lastly, Barbara Jordan's and I don't have enough time.

I'll do Barbara Jordan's uh investigative report in 1994 during open forum.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair that concludes all speakers on this item.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

I'll go ahead and uh make the motion to move um move the item.

May I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

We have a motion made by Chair Brown, seconded by council member five to accept the determination of scheduledule about standing committee items as is.

On roll council members five.

Aye.

Rama Chandran.

Aye.

Unger?

Aye.

And Chair Brown.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number two passes with four ayes to accept the determination of scheduled outstanding items committee items as is.

Reading in item three.

Adopt an ordinance as recommended by the planning commission.

One amending title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code to A amend chapter 17.96 S-14 housing sites combining zone to update.

Sorry, to update the definition of development projects and to include a conditional use permit procedure for non-housing developments, and B update workslash live and live slash work residential to non-residential unit areas as uh sorry as referenced through the Title 17 to correspond with the revision to the California Building Code and Oakland Building Code regulations and to making appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings, and we have four speakers that signed up.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

So for this first item, I believe we will be hearing from Laura.

Good afternoon, Council members and the public.

If we can have a presentation up from Ktop.

So my name is Laura Kaminsky.

I'm the strategic planning manager.

And the first item we're here to talk about today is the amendments to the planning code, which is Chapter 17.96 for the S14 and the work live and live work regulations.

Okay, so some background on this is that uh Oakland adopted uh chapter 17.96, the S14 housing sites combining zone as part of the housing element that was adopted in 2023.

And this is applying to all sites in the housing sites inventory.

While the S14 zone streamlines review, concerns have emerged that it may constrain activation of vacant or underutilized sites.

So staff committed to review and update this chapter based on the results of its implementation.

The filing project types are now clearly defined to not be included in the definition of a development project.

So you can see what's underlined is the what has is proposed to be changed.

So a development project does not include the making of improvements, renovations, or updates to an existing building, or adding floor area to an existing building that is occupied by business established in that building on or before January 1st, 2026, or the placement of temporary structures.

And now and the following project types are clearly defined to be a development project, which is adding floor area to an existing building that is occupied by business established in that building after January 1st, 2026, where the square footage of the building is increased by 50 percent or more than 30,000 square feet, whichever is less, and then there's also additional um opportunities for projects to go through not that are non-residential to go through a conditional use permit process, which is what I'll discuss next.

So in currently all development on S416 sites must be majority residential or meet one of four exemptions, existing regulations limit non-residential development constraints activation of vacant or underutilized sites, and so we've had as staff.

There's been some proposals that have come up.

Um, one example was a um a non-profit that wanted to in an existing building and wanted to do an expansion of their services, and currently they were not able to do that because of the S 14 restrictions, and we also had another project that was looking at doing in a very small portion of a corner of a housing element site to do a you know a coffee business there and wanting to help actually activate that area, but because of these strict restrictions of because it was non-residential, we could not approve the project.

Um, this is why we're looking at a proposed amendment that would add a conditional use permit option for non-housing development, and a CUP would be granted only if the project meets general conditional use permit criteria and also meets the following.

So it would provide substantial community or economic benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the reading sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city's remaining share in the regional housing needs for uh housing allocation in that housing element in this current housing element cycle, and this finding shall be consistent with the no net loss findings that are in the government code, and also the findings shall include a no-net loss of at each income level.

So then the second amendment that this package is looking at is for our work-live and live work units.

So the proposed amendments here are to align with and not contradict recent updates to the Oakland Building Code.

So recent uh building code standards do not allow work-live or work live to have more than 50% non-residential.

So amendment was made, amendments in the planning code were made throughout any time we had work live and live work still development standards to make sure we weren't requiring more than the 50% of the non-residential uh square footage, so that does not contradict with the building code.

So staff recommendation is that staff recommends that the city council conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt an ordinance as recommended by the planning commission amending Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code to amend chapter 17.96 S14 housing sites combining zone to update the definition development project and to include a conditional use permit procedure for non-housing developments and update work live and live work residential to non-residential unit area as referenced throughout Title 17 to correspond with revisions to the California Building Code and Oakland Building Regulations and making appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings, and that concludes my presentation.

Excellent.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Um colleagues, any questions or comments on this.

Right, where the there was the desire for there to be a uh coffee shop there, but based on it being a housing element site, um, we weren't, you know, not able to move forward.

So I think that that could that is one of many examples.

Um, and so this repres represents, in my opinion, some necessary amendments.

Um, so thank you so much for your hard work on on this item.

Uh, colleagues, any questions?

Council Member Fife.

Yes, through the chair, can you state for the record what will this ex what will an extension allow the city of Oakland to do while we're making these amendments?

What would um what would be we be able to plan out or what will be we be able to do um with a additional time to um these amend the state law or work work inside of there?

I think it's a it's a three-year-old.

So I think you might be talking about the second item.

So that might be about the S.

Are you talking about the SB 79?

I am talking about SB 79.

Okay.

I have to have the right glasses.

We'll get there.

Okay.

Okay.

Um do we have speakers on the side?

Yes.

Make the motion.

Okay.

Um we can hear from the speakers.

Thank you.

Calling in the names that signed up to speak on item number three in no particular order, you can come up to the podium, or if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand to be easily identified.

Kevin Daly, Asada Olabala, Derek Barnes, and Jennifer Corey.

It just seems like today is uh not focus enough for me.

You have a number of issues that are very pressing, and instead of dealing with those pressing issues, you're coming up with all these new innovative ways that we can do something differently.

That's all day to day.

So here we have the understanding that you have on a monthly basis 70 to 80 businesses closing in the city of Oakland, and you coming up with a way to open up new businesses when you haven't created or solved the issue of once businesses come to Oakland, how do we keep them here?

So that's where the focus needs to be at this point, but it's not happening.

You also have a lot of, and I've just pulled it up.

You have a lot of vacant parcels that you own that are suitable for development of housing.

You have uh 1911 telegraph, but Barcelona parcel, 1100 San Pablo Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard Lots, Foothill Boulevard, International Boulevard.

When I'm gonna hear the projected plan to develop your vacant parcel property into housing, you have land that can be used for housing.

When is that gonna happen?

And so we're talking about a coffee shop that can be brought.

And I know what y'all talking about when y'all bring in a coffee shop to any development, it doesn't include my people.

So can we get more focus on substantial issues that need to be resolved before we go on to these expanded new creative ideas of how we can create uh workspace, living space, whatever space, come on now.

We can do better.

And and we we're not we're not resolving this issue.

I want businesses to stay in Oakland.

Who's coming up at the next meeting of this body to thank you for your comments calling in the names that signed up again?

Kevin Daly, Derek Barnes, and Jennifer Corey.

If you're in chamber, please come to the podium, or if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand to be easily identified.

Switching to Zoom user Jennifer Corey, you can unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Jennifer, I see that you're unmuted, but we cannot hear you.

Trying one more time for Jennifer.

Jennifer, we'll try one more time.

Okay, at this time, Chair, all names have been called.

Excellent.

Um, thank you so much.

Um any other additional questions or comments.

Um, council member Fife.

Make the moon uh I'll move the item.

Excellent.

And so this would be a um public hearing for March the third.

Second it.

Thank you.

We have a motion made by Councilmember Fife, seconded by Councilmember Unger to approve the recommendations of staff and to forward this item to the March 3rd City Council agenda as a public hearing on roll.

Councilmember Spy.

I Ramachandran.

Unger.

Aye.

And Chair Brown.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number three passes with four eyes to board this item to the March 3rd City Council agenda as a public hearing.

Now reading in item number four.

Adopt an ordinance as recommended by the planning commission when amending title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code to add chapter 17.86 s-8, abundant and affordable homes near transit, uh sorry, near transit combining zones regulations identifying sites eligible and ineligible or exclude excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards, to making related Oakland zoning maps.

Amendments to designate parcels within the S-8 combining zones and to identify whether such designated parcels are eligible for or excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards, and three making appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings, and we have five five people that signed up to speak on this item.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

And we will once again hear from Laura.

Good afternoon again.

If we could have the slide presentation from KTOP, please.

Okay, so Senate Bill SB 79.

We're going to be looking at planning code implementation ordinance for this.

So we can go to the okay.

So for the background, the state law Senate Bill 79, the Abundant Affordable Homes Near Transit Act was signed by the governor in October of last year and goes into effect on July 1st of this year.

Areas within half mile of Oakland's designated transit stops will be designated as a transit-oriented development or TOD zone, and any parcels within the designated TOD zones could vest for development using higher density standards for housing.

Oakland has eight BART stations and 38 bus rapid transit stops, which are the AC Transit Tempo line along International Boulevard that qualify as SB 79 zones.

There is one additional BR BART station, which is the Ashby BART station, and an additional BRT stop that are not within Oakland, but their half mile boundary extends into Oakland.

So this brings a total of 48 TOD zones within the Oakland boundaries.

So as a clarification for SB 79, the transit stops by the state law are categorized as tier one, which is the BART stops, and tier two, which are the BRT or TEMPO line along International Boulevard.

So the density standards that SB 79 requires, and this again we will take effect on July of this year, July 1st, is that for in a tier one, which is a BART station, if you're adjacent or within 200 feet of a BART station, it allows for a 95-foot height limit, 160 dwellings per acre, and then for the quarter mile, this goes to 75 feet, the half mile goes to 65 feet, and then for the tier two, which is along International Boulevard, it's 85 feet if you're adjacent within 200 feet of the station, 65 feet within a quarter mile, and 55 feet within a half mile.

That SB 79 allows cities to exclude some parcels from SB 79 requirements or allows development of an alternative plan.

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

Exclusions will expire in 2032 and SB 789s will take effect if no alternative plan has been adopted before 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 for a more tailored density in height based on local land use conditions such as historic districts.

The rationale for adopting exclusions is there's insufficient time for the city to prepare and review an alternative plan prior to the SB 79 effective date of July 1st, 2026.

Exclusions may be adopted prior to the SB 79 effective date as an interim step to allow time for a city to develop an alternative plan.

In the city, we're already currently engaged in a general plan update of phase two that includes updates to the land use and transportation element with adoption anticipated in late spring of 2027.

City staff want to develop its alternative plan in comprehensive manner as part of this general plan update process and not as a separate standalone process.

Exclusions would give the city time during the general plan update to analyze which areas within the TOD zone have potential for more density and which areas do not.

In addition, the environmental justice element, which is a policy EJ 8.1 talks about having meaningful relevant engagement and 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.

And almost all of Oakland's TOD zones are in low resource areas as defined by the state.

An alternative plan would allow a fine-grain analysis and community involvement, resulting in aggregate density equivalent to SB79 requirements.

In addition, existing zoning densities exceed SB79 standards in many of the designated TODs as a result of prior upzoning.

So recently we had our housing element that was adopted in 2023, and there was quite a few areas upzoned during that time.

Also, the downtown Oakland Specific Plan, which was adopted in 2024, upzoned a lot of the core areas within that area.

Additionally, we've had a lot of specific plans over the years, such as the Central Estuary Plan, the Brawley Valdez District Specific Plan, the West Oakland Specific Plan, and the Coliseum and Lake Merit Stationary Plans, all that increased density around the tier one and tier two TOD zones.

And SB standards standards are a blanket increase in density that could actually override some of the planning that we've done in these specific plan areas because we've done a more tailored approach, which is what we would like to do in the alternative plan.

So an example of that is in downtown, we have lower densities and height allowances in old Oakland, but then on the Broadway spine, we have a lot higher densities than SB 79 would require.

So it you know ends up being actually as even higher than what SB79 standards would require, but it's not just a blanket, you know, anything within a quarter mile all has the same height, and everything within a half mile all has the same height.

So the allowed exclusions, there's exclusion one, which allows exclusion of sites that are within existing zoning allows density and residential floor areas of no less than 50% of the standards.

So any individual parcel where the zoning allows at least 50% is what is required by SB 79 can be excluded.

For exclusion two, any areas that are in a primary low resource area has and has an aggregate Oakland zoning density that allows for at least 40% of the aggregate density, then the whole TOD zone can be excluded if it meets that requirement.

For exclusion three, it allows exclusion of sites that are in a TOD zone where the parcel includes a historic resource that's been designated as of January 1st of 2025.

So starting off with exclusion two, which is looking at low resource areas that have a zoning density of at least 40% of the aggregate that SB 79 requires.

So in Oakland, all of the TOD zones are within a low resource area except for Rockridge, Ashby, and MacArthur BART stations.

Otherwise, all of the other TOD zones are in what the state defines as a low resource area.

And when we did our analysis, all of those zones that are within those low resource areas meet or really exceed the 40% aggregate of what SB 79 allows.

So the proposal is to exclude all of those TOD zones.

So this is one example of that.

This is on the 12th Street BART station, and actually, when we did our analysis, we found that 307%, it actually meets 307% of what SB79 aggregate density would require.

And so we're actually much higher than what SB 79 would require, but again, we have that more nuanced approach.

So it's not every single parcel, is meeting what SB79 requires, some are higher and some are lower.

And we would like to be able to retain what we have worked with the community to develop.

And you can see here, this is an example of a map of how we did this analysis for all the TOD zones.

So the areas that are in purple that are closest to the actual exits for the station are that meet the 200 foot requirement.

The ones in yellow are shown meet the quarter mile requirement, and the ones in blue meet the half mile requirement.

And then this is an example of the Rockridge BART station, where this is not in a low resource area.

It's actually in a high resource area, so we were not able to exclude this as part of this exclusion.

So just to further kind of show really how well Oakland is doing as far as already allowing density along these T around these TOD areas.

You can see these are all the BART stations that are in the low resource areas.

And you know, they have you know 19th Street is 280% of what's required, Fruitville is 72%, Coliseum is 190%, and West Oakland is at 70%, Lake Merritt 254%.

So most of them are higher, and then some are still quite close and would need just some changes in an alternative plan to meet that same density of SB 79.

And then for the tier two, which is all along International Boulevard.

There's a lot of stops, as we can see, and again, if you're closer to downtown, those are on the 380% to 400% of what SB 79 would require.

As we kind of get further away, we might be more like around 20 or on 10th Avenue, we're around 92%.

And as we get further out, further east Oakland, an example, we're around 90th AV, we're at 47%.

So you can see, you know, again, some of these areas will need to have some upzoning, but we want to do that through a more tailored process and with community input.

So getting back to exclusion one, which is the 50%.

So again, any parcel where the zoning meets at least 50% of the density of SB 79 required can be excluded.

And I will concentrate mainly on the three high resource areas that we were not able to exclude because they're not in a low resource area.

So here for MacArthur BART, you can see the areas that are highlighted in pink are the zones that we can exclude because they do meet that 50% density requirement.

And that essentially is because these are our commercial zones and we've you know have much higher density allowances for those, and the areas that are in white we cannot exclude because those are the are lower density residential zones, and they don't meet the they don't the criteria of at least 50% of the density required for SB 79 in those areas, and then similarly here is for the Ashby BART station and the Rockridge BART station.

So again, it would only be the areas in pink that could be excluded because the commercial zones in those areas exceed what SB 79 or the 50% requirement, whereas the areas in white again do not meet that requirement, so we cannot exclude those areas.

So we can already exclude the whole zones, all of the boundaries within those areas.

So for um exclusion number three, so it's anything that's a local register of historic property can also be excluded that individual property.

And so again, showing the areas here around the Ashby and Rockridge BART station is the areas that are in purple that can be excluded.

So there's not a lot of parcels, but there are some parcels within these areas, and then addition, this is the area around the MacArthur BART station, and it would be the areas in purple that would be proposed to be excluded under this exclusion.

And this is just an example again in West Oakland and 12th Street and 19th Street, you can actually see there's a lot of historic properties in these areas, but again, we already have the exclusion as well for because these are in a low resource area, we're able to exclude all of the parcels within these areas.

So there's one in addition, we're we also are proposing an S8 combining zone, which is a new zone to be added to the planning code that would define which sites are eligible under SB 79 that are zoned for residential mixed or commercial development, and which sites are ineligible because state law does not allow SB 79 on sites that are zoned for industrial or open space activity or if it's within a right-of-way.

It also defines what is a covered site, which is essentially any that are eligible, but we have not excluded, so any that are not excluded as we just went through these exclusions earlier, would then be covered, and that means that a developer could develop under the SB 79 densities, and it applies exclusions to certain sites that would otherwise be eligible, but qualify for an exclusion amends the zoning map to show which sites are eligible and ineligible.

So we plan to have a GIS map that the public and staff can use that will be online that would show all the parcels that fall within SB 79, and then somebody could click on their parcel and see whether it's ineligible because it's in an industrial zone, or it's been excluded under one of these exclusions, or it's still covered and they can still use the SB 79 zoning densities.

So in addition, I want to highlight Planning Commission's recommendation.

So Planning Commission had three different recommendations, and staff had been was had already provided in this packet to council the revisions of A and C here.

So A is that there should be clarifying that these exclusions would only be in effect until either January 31st of 2032 or when an adoption of a local transit oriented development alternative plan is is done.

So that is already included in the packet, what you all have, that amendment.

And then in addition, it also they also recommended the city council direct the city administrator present a local alternative plan to the council within one year of adoption of a comprehensive management or amendment to the for the alternative plan, and that also is in included in the ordinance language for council as part of this packet.

And then addition the planning commission also had recommended to not include sites within the Ashby, MacArthur, and Rockridge BART stations for the exclusion of the 50% zoning requirement.

And staff had still wanted to include that at least for council's consideration that amendment, or there's to not to keep it as staff had originally recommended, and mainly because the reason for that is that staff is working on land use and transportation element update, and we are wanting to be able to look at that in a comprehensive manner, just like we are for all the other areas of the city, and we wanted to you know look at the particulars of areas that we think should be upzoned versus downzoned, or sorry, be upzoned higher than SB 79, or keep lower than SB 79 and have that more nuanced approach as well as to get community input and feedback.

And so that is why staff had recommended keeping that exclusion in as is, and so then staff requests that the city council conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt an ordinance recommended by the planning commission, amending Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the planning code to add chapter 17.86 S8 abundant and affordable homes near transit, Senate Bill 79 combining zone regulations identifying sites eligible and ineligible or excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards and making related Oakland zoning map amendments to designate parcels within the S8 combining zone and to identify whether such pro designated parcels are eligible for or excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards and making California Vulnerable Quality Act findings.

That concludes my presentation.

Excellent.

Thank you so much, Laura.

I know that it takes a lot of uh work from all of our city staff to put together, you know, and make make changes to the key ordinances based on, you know, new state law.

Um and so I guess I'm curious, um, did you want to shed some light on SB 79 and its kind of current status in the legislature right now?

Yeah, so I think part of the reason we want to have more time to work on this alternative plan is that at least there has been discussions in the state legislature about still making further amendments to this bill, and so it makes it difficult for staff to be working on alternative plan if we know things may be changing and we don't want to go down a certain path and then amendments are made and then it's it's different, as well as I think a lot of it was trying to there's been a lot of requests for clarification on different items in the bill, and that's I think what some of the amendments will do is help provide more clarity.

And we've been actually at staff meeting with other cities to try to get their interpretation, and it seems like we even amongst ourselves we sometimes have a different interpretation of what some of the state law is saying, and also we've heard similar issues with the the metropolitan planning organizations or MTC is one of those, that there's also been some confusion and disagreement between language with um with them and also the state HCD or housing community development, which is in charge of sort of the implementation of this.

And then at this time, I know you mentioned MTC, did they have a vital role to play in this?

Yeah, so MTC is actually there's they're supposed to be providing maps that show these boundaries, and they have not actually provided that yet to any cities, and we were lucky enough to have very good uh GIS staff who could do this analysis for us, and so we were able to move forward, but there's a number of cities who have not moved forward yet because they're still waiting on those maps from MTC.

Excellent, thank you so much.

And then I think my my last comment is um around the I think you mentioned the land use and transportation, like the city's land use and transportation plan, and I know that there has you know been a lot of conversation around transit-oriented developments and and what we you know, of course, like all local cities, what we're doing, and so what is the city's plan to actually you know create an action plan around TODs?

Yeah, so I mean, one I will say, which is why I think we've done so well is we've had a lot of specific plans where we got grant money that was for areas around BART stations specifically is why we got those grants.

So the the downtown specific plan, the Brodyville does specific plan, the Coliseum area specific plan, and the West Oakland specific plan were all done because they're near BART stations, and so we already did a lot of that planning and increasing of densities because of that, but then the land use and transportation element will go even further because as an example, we don't have a specific plan for Rock Ridge, and we also have um requirements of there's priority development areas that go through MTC that allow for additional funding for grants, and one of the requirements is to from MPC was we needed to do more detailed plans around those areas that we don't have specific plans, and so that's one of the primary things that the land use and transportation element is looking at doing to provide that gap.

And so certainly we're looking at Rockridge and the MacArthur BART station and the Ashby area and the Fruitville as well.

That um, but even all of the areas we've done already, we're we're still analyzing to make sure because West Oakland specific plan is an example was adopted a while ago, so we will be doing updates to those areas, and we're keeping in mind certainly that we do want to be adding um new density along around those areas, and we're looking at now that we know we have SB 79, trying to make sure that we're meeting at least the the requirements of what SB 79 is is going to be requiring us to do, and that we make sure that whatever densities we're trying to do for a general plan will be able to accommodate that.

Excellent, thank you so much.

And then um what what is the timeline for um uh putting together a a TOD action plan or the was it spring 2027?

Is that it?

Well, so the land use and transportation element itself is when we plan we plan to bring that to council for adoption in late spring of 2027.

Um what we will be doing with that is we will be um again trying to make sure that the it's more this the ceiling, the general plan sort of sets the ceiling on development, and so we're wanna make sure that our um what we do for the general plan amendments in those areas are at least allowing for the SB 79, but it'll be I think more of an implementation action out of the land use and transportation to do the upzoning and the zoning changes that would to do an alternative plan because we want to make sure again that we have enough uh information, especially if the Senate does make changes that don't happen until late October of this year.

We want to have enough time to analyze what is all the requirements to meet that alternative plan.

It's there are nuances, it's not as much as just like aggregate density, you could have minimum densities in each tier and and so forth.

So it is fairly complicated, but that would be the idea would be to have that as the very first thing as implementation after we adopt the land use and transportation element.

Excellent, thank you.

Um I did want to make space for council member Unger.

Did you want to um highlight your um amendment that you have?

Yes, I I can.

Um so first I just want to thank the planning staff and uh Michael Branson, city attorneys and others for all the work on this SB 79 legislation, especially given the time constraints.

Um, I just want to ask a couple of questions.

There seems to be unanimity between planning staff and the planning commission that we should take the permitted exclusions for the low resource areas and historic sites.

Is that right?

Uh correct.

And that would, and that would basically mean all of the station areas except those in D1, MacArthur, Rockridge, and our little corner of the radius of Ashby.

Correct.

Okay, so um if that's the case, I'm I'm comfortable with that, especially if it works for my colleagues who represent those areas.

But I think the um the point of disagreement between planning staff and the planning commission is about the possibility of taking the exclusions in district one, which is a high resource area and doesn't qualify from the other major exclusions.

Is that right?

Correct.

Okay, um, so the planning commission recommended unanimously uh six to nothing that we not take the exclusion one in district one.

That yes, that is correct.

Okay, so um I'm inclined to side with the planning commission on this, and I appreciate that staff want as much time as possible to continue with the general plan update.

Um, but I I'm worried that this is whether you agree with 79 or not 79, we've created a little bit of a perverse situation here where we will be because the um on July one, the sort of interior parts of the neighborhood portion of this go into effect, but we are excluding the corridors.

So we've created this weird donut hole whereby we will be pushing development into the interior of the neighborhoods and excluding it from the corridors, and I'm I'm worried about that because this is all gonna take effect anyways a year from now.

So I I don't want to send the message that we want development in the interior.

And I think even folks who are maybe here because they don't support 79 don't want this sort of perverse outcome where we push the development into the interior of the neighborhood rather than the corridors in the neighborhoods.

That's why I am you know introducing this amendment, and if KTOP could put it up there, that'd be great.

Um basically I'm recommending that we not take exclusion one in District One.

So this will only affect district one, and it will mean that we can continue with um moving forward with more development along the commercial corridors, which is where I believe that um development in D1 should take place rather than in the interior neighborhood.

So I'm introducing this amendment, and I'll give you all a minute to digest it.

Um and if we don't have any immediate questions, um I would like to hear from the public speakers.

Calling in the names that's signed up for item number four in no particular order, you can come up to the podium.

Um, or if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand so you can be easily identified.

Jennifer McElrath, Naomi Schiff, Asada Olabala, Derek Barnes, and Kevin Daly.

All right.

Kevin Dowley from Transport Oakland.

I appreciate the amount of effort the staff went through to follow SB 79.

It is, it has some weird provisions.

I think Oakland could go further just because the state requires us to provide high density housing near certain transit stops, doesn't mean we have to limit ourselves to those transit stops.

For example, light rail, Oakland was built around light rail, the key system.

Most of Oakland would be right next to a light rail system if it hadn't been torn out and replaced by AC transit.

Why aren't we?

Should we consider high density housing near any AC transit stop that's 15 minutes frequency or better?

That would substantially increase the amount that's covered.

You know, my neighborhood of Glenview or Diamond and District 4.

I think pretty much all of it would be included by 15 minute intervals.

What can we do to push forward and consider going beyond what the state requires?

Thanks.

If you still wish to speak on this item, you can come up to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom.

Naomi Schiff for Oakland Heritage Alliance.

First, I want to thank you for the new screen.

It's the first time in years that I've been able to see what was displayed, and that's very exciting.

So thank you to whoever did that public works or whatever.

Our organization has participated in every specific plan and in all general plan updates since time immemorial.

Well, at least as long as I've been around.

And we really appreciate the thoroughness of the staff effort here.

It is incredible.

Somebody asked me to print out the attachments, and then when I got to the second to the last one, it was 1,600 pages, and I didn't have that much paper.

And so what I know is that the city staff is well armed to move forward into an alternative plan.

I don't think that we should exclude uh maps one through three, uh, McArthur, uh Ashby, and Rockridge.

I think we should uh follow the staff's inclination here.

Uh I have faith that they have looked at this in enough detail to be able to proceed and come up with a good plan.

And I also know that the densities have increased enormously in the last 10 years.

And even at that, many of those projects didn't get built for reasons that have nothing to do with zoning.

It isn't really about zoning, it's about money.

And so, uh my experience of that is if you zone it high, you might get some applications, but it doesn't mean you get a building.

And so I am more interested in a comprehensive long-term good plan than I am in worrying about aggregate density, which is already beyond what the state requires.

I really appreciate the uh thoroughness of the thank you for your comments.

Hello, um council members.

I strongly urge you.

My name's Jennifer McElrath.

I strongly urge you to agree with the staff's recommendation on this item by delaying action until 2032, as provided in the state legislation and recommended by the staff.

You will give folks most affected uh to have a chance to study their neighborhoods to decide where up zoning is appropriate.

People in Rockridge will be very disturbed to find out that parts of our community have been upzoned without anyone's knowledge.

The subject could be referred to the Rockridge Community Planning Council for analysis with a firm uh date set, then the discussion could occur in public.

Hardly anyone in the community has any knowledge of this issue, which is incredibly complicated to a layperson.

Rockridge's concern has been height, not use.

We welcome the reuse of the CCA dorm on Broadway for the homeless and opposed the 19-story proposal.

We worked for years to arrive at a much more reasonable height for CCA.

We welcome housing in our community as long as it does not overwhelm the houses adjacent to the main corridors.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clark.

I don't know what y'all are talking about.

So I'm just going to read some more crazy legislations because this is crazy.

AB 1870 is home subsidies for illegal immigrants to provide interest-free loans for first-time home buyers for their down payment.

AB 2216 forces land laws to take in pets.

AB 2498, illegal immigrants, rental subsidies.

Now the ones that I really want to see happen is ACA 7.

This measure would repeal Proposition 209 and reinstate affirmative action.

ACA 8 would end involuntary servitude in our uh prisons where they are essentially under the uh label of being slaves.

So y'all continue to have this talk about whatever.

I just brought up some things that's of interest to me.

Uh y'all do some crazy stuff, and uh I don't know what this is gonna do in District 6 and District 7.

So, at least the one thing you could have had is by districts, who would be impacted or what districts would be impacted.

I think it's the rich white folks that are gonna be impacted, and poor black people in districts six and seven, this has nothing to do with them.

Uh, but y'all carry on with some more insanity.

I'll keep talking.

Oh, that's my sister calling.

Let me go.

Um, thank you for your comments.

Chair, all names have been called.

Excellent.

Um, thank you so much.

Um, and so uh I just wanted to.

Oh, yes, that's fine.

Hi, uh my name's Steve Cook.

Um I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the staff for their obviously humongous amount of work that they've put into this project and under, I'm sure very tight deadlines.

Um, I recommend you you accept their recommendations.

I do oppose Councilmember Unger's uh amendment.

Uh I think the uh Rockridge Community uh Planning Council had previously done a study about the probability of high density development in Rockridge, and that study was um determined that development outside of the corridor area, commercial corridor areas was infeasible financially for most uh any serious projects of any significant magnitude, uh leaving those areas for for infill, which is really nice.

We get a lot of uh ADUs and things built in the in those low density housing areas now, and that will increase the overall density.

Meanwhile, we should give time for people to think about doing it properly, which is what uh the staff has has requested time so that they can plan carefully because in fact they are planners, and that's what they're supposed to do to ensure the long-term viability and livability of our city.

So I recommend you give them all the time that they can get because they're gonna need it.

It's a lot of work.

Um finally, I would like to point out there was a lot of real estate development taking place prior to the pandemic, a lot of which is still languishing because remote work came into a thing, and a whole huge sector of the workforce no longer works in offices.

We now see AI coming to the fruition, and that's going to be at least as consequential on the job market.

And what are you gonna do when a hundred thousand people who currently work in San Francisco don't have jobs anymore?

Do you think they're gonna be wanting to live in a tower near a BART station?

Yeah, they're gonna be living up in Fairfax in that mega development that all the high-tech billionaires are financing in the night.

Thank you for your comments, sir.

Your time is up.

Excellent, thank you so much.

Um, before I call on my colleagues, um I just wanted to emphasize uh I think it's page 11 and I think page eight in the report, um, you're able to tell which districts are impacted based on whether it's in tier one or tier two, and we know that throughout the city of Oakland, um, in council district um seven, five, two, and three, you have your BART stations, and then of course uh there's also it also outlines all of the AC transit stops as well throughout the entire city of Oakland.

So all in all, um, all of our council districts, the entire city would be impacted.

Um, and I think maybe lastly, um, for my colleagues' consideration of this item, I think I continue to be focused on.

I know that a lot of the conversation at the state level right now is around how we are increasing you know housing around our train like transit-oriented development.

And I think that one of the things that um our planning and building staff has have really done an amazing job of is really outlining um action plans and detailed plans around some of our key development sites, as was mentioned, and so I I feel as though um in this moment I'm interested in taking staff's recommendation on this item, and that I'm hopeful that um in the um further development of the land use and transportation um plan, um, maybe we can put a component in there for a transit-oriented development action plan um that could dive into some of these locations around Rock Ridge Bar, MacArthur Bar, are and some of the key areas outlined in the report.

Um so that's just my initial feedback.

Um, I'm gonna call in Council Member Fife, because I and then Councilmember Unger.

Excellent, excellent.

I wanted to, through the chair, um, get an understanding from staff's perspective about councilmember Unger's proposed amendment.

I will say that uh in this presentation, and thank you for the briefing that we had earlier this week.

I see that my district around uh the development locations and all the BART stations are protected because we have so many historic buildings and a lot of the parcels will be excluded from from this particular plan.

Um, but I also understand that we are elected to represent the districts that we represent because a majority of the residents in that area voted for us.

Um, and so I assume and Councilmember Unger, please correct me if I'm wrong, that you're doing this based on feedback that you've heard from your constituents, and I want to find out where staff see the amendments that Councilmember Unger proposed as impacting the overall uh work that you're trying to achieve.

You explained it, but I would just like a little more clarity about this particular amendment that was presented to us today.

Yeah, I think um in general, when we were looking at this project of SB 79, and we knew this was happening from the state.

We, you know, ideally what we want to do is an alternative plan.

So we were looking at what are the tools that the state bill allowed for us to do to essentially delay SP 79 taking effect until we developed an alternative plan.

Because you know, we really, as planners, you know, as someone stated in the audience, you know, that is is what we do.

And we have been doing this already in a lot of these areas and have been looking at more strategic upzoning of areas, and so that is why we as staff wanted to look at, you know, taking advantage of all the exclusions no matter where they were located in order to have that additional time.

I will say in the the Rockridge bar area and MacArthur as well as the um Ashby Bart area well I say more more for the Rockridge and the MacArthur bar areas that a lot of those areas of the commercial zones do actually already are the equivalent pretty close or even as what SB 79 would require there are a few of the commercial zones that allow lower densities than that that would be you know could then take advantage of SB 79 so I think it's not whether it's those areas are excluded or not excluded it's going to be a small amount of parcels that we're talking about of a difference really but again from you know staff's point of view is just wanting to have that comprehensive look overall of what we can do.

I can I can also see what councilmember Unger is saying is that you know the the bigger concern could be in Rockridge right now and other areas are the areas that we cannot exclude because you do have a large area of residential lower density zones that do not allow us to exclude them and so I think that's what I'm hearing from the concern is that if we don't if we exclude the areas along the main corridors is there a potential push for development to happen off those corridors because we cannot exclude those areas so I do hear um that um of what the council member is saying and it's I you know it's hard to obviously predict um what could happen um yeah uh through the chair uh director Gilchrist do you want to add some color to that I think the key here is timing.

And so maybe you can articulate timing.

Thank you to the chair thank you ACA Baker I yes I I just wanted to uh stress that point that what we're talking about doing um eventually we could end up you know taking the time to come up with alternative plan we could land in an area council member unger where you're concerned at this moment it really is a question of going through a process that might take us to the same conclusion it's not it would it would it would not preclude the opportunity to look at the concerns you have and have those as part of the alternative adoption.

So it's I think a question of timing as well so nothing that we would adopt today would prime efficiently presume we could not come back and revisit or review in alignment with your um amendment so it it could work either way.

Okay.

Yeah I wasn't I didn't get a satisfactory answer to my question.

I just wanted to know is the amendment that council member Unger is the amendment that he provided problematic for what you all are trying to do and if timing is the issue can it how how do we address his concerns is what I'm trying to find out or can they be addressed I'm trying to figure out how to move on on how to vote on on this topic and I want to understand um the staff's assessment of this amendment.

Yeah um I mean I don't think that staff sees it as a I guess a huge problem I would say I think again we can still continue on with our planning process in place as as we are doing and again I think there's quite a few parcels that already allow for this existing density that SB 79 would also allow in these areas so we are talking about a smaller number of parcels but again I think you know from as a a planner you know my preference always is that we want to go through the planning process and we are going through that process right now with the public and getting input and so forth and so that is essentially why we have our recommendation as we have it.

Um but again I would add that um most of these areas a lot of the the zoning is already similar to what S B 79 would require of the areas that we would exclude.

And I I chose the wrong noun.

I shouldn't have said is this a problem what impacts would it have if we so what that what that would mean is um right then on July 1st if that's when it still does take effect that is what is proposed right now from the state the state is looking at potential changes but right now the proposal is that this from the state is that this um law would take effect on July 1st so that means that any areas that are not excluded could then use the SB 79 densities that are allowed and that also means they can you know get a planning application in I believe it's a pre-application that could be a vesting um project so let's say we later on as a city maybe do different zoning and we have lower zoning for some of these areas and a project has already been vested in nerdy approved under a higher density like we would not be able to reverse that at that point.

So through the chair if I may uh chair Brown to council member Unger what you're asking the committee to support through your amendment is to not allow this to take place for these three um BART station locations so there's a lot of double negatives and exclusive I know exclusion here's what I'm saying I want to be able to develop along the commercial corridors in the high resource neighborhoods of North Oakland.

I want to develop there and if we adopt my amendment we will be able to do more development along the commercial corridors in that high resource neighborhood.

If we do not adopt that amendment we will not be able to develop along the corridors we will only be able to develop in the residential neighborhoods until this plan is completed.

I see and uh through the chair to staff that's correct.

That is your understanding of the interpretation of this the state law so well again I would I would clarify it's not that we cannot develop it's just the SB 79 densities would not apply in these commercial corridors at this time at as of July 1st.

So we wouldn't be able to take full advantage of the development opportunities.

We would or we would not if we adopt my amendment we would be able to take full advantage of the SB 79 development opportunities if we accept my amendment.

Okay thank you and I I do have one just clarifying question.

One of the the speakers mentioned that it would be delayed until 2032.

Is that your understanding?

Well so what is written in the the ordinance is that the state law says we can only have the exclusions until 2032.

So they will expire in 2032 but or in the city until the city adopts an alternative plan.

And if we don't adopt an alternative plan before 2032 and we those exclusions will expire and so the intent of staff and that's actually something that the planning commission made is one of the recommendations is that we come back with an alternative plan no later than within one year after adopting the land use and transportation element.

So you're not proposing that we take the exclusions all the way through 2032 but rather just until the next general plan update is adopted next year.

Correct that's correct okay so this is I mean I I think we're we're gonna end up we're gonna end up where my amendment is like we're likely to end up where my amendment is a year from now so the question is whether we do it now or whether you have the capacity to do it now or in a year.

Well I think you know there will what we're looking at again is the aggregate or the it's what the alternative plan can do is look at um what areas would be um upzoned and other areas maybe stay lower and so some may be higher than what SB79 is requiring and some may be lower.

So I I can't say that all of the areas, especially as you get further away from the in the half mile boundary, that we would necessarily have the same density allowances that SB79 requires, we might have lower there and have more higher in the areas that are directly like much closer to the BART station as an example.

So that's what we're talking about of having a more nuanced look at this is actually, you know, is trying to have maybe even higher right near the BART stations and maybe lower once you get real farther away, because the likelihood that you're gonna get that kind of development, and to tell you kind of your point earlier, or some of the the speakers' points that when you have a lot of single-family parcels, small parcels, it's gonna be hard to develop something at a higher density in those areas.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you so much.

Um administrator Baker and then Councilmember Ramashandran.

Thank you.

And through the chair, um, just to clarify that would be one year after you have an extension of one year after the uh the planning um is is sort of the amendment or the general plan amendment is actually made.

You have one year after that.

That's what we're proposing.

So it wouldn't be it wouldn't be one year, it'd be one year after that in terms of when this would go into effect, the potential new plan.

Yeah, which is I'd say two years.

Yeah.

So that's the one clarification.

Um through the chair, that would be the the latest.

I think that would be the latest, yes.

I think we as staff are hoping to do it earlier, but we just want to make sure we do have enough time, especially not knowing what the changes might be from the state.

Yeah, because I think the the ordinance reads like whichever comes first, right?

Okay, excellent.

And just one other point to uh uh to the council member, we staff are proposing that the community uh really be engaged um in this decision, and that's where we're seeing this as a one to two year potential delay.

That's kind of the sweet spot.

Um we're not looking at 2032, but we're also not saying today, right?

So that's when we say timing, we want to make sure that we have full community engagement as we look at the the plans and and let that play out.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh Director Gill Chris.

Thank you, uh Chair.

And uh just wanted to point thank you uh through the chair to ACA Baker for uh making sure we're clear on the timing.

I do feel from the gist of the conversation, what I'm hearing, we are also very much aligned in terms of in terms of having a logical outcome of where the intense development occurs and where we were more mindful that the cities and the neighborhoods we have need to work at a scale that is really appropriate for them.

And ultimately we have got to get the uh densities, overall densities aligned under the SB 79, but what we're really looking to do is to get an opportunity to make this context sensitive to the city of Oakland.

So we're looking neighborhood by neighborhood, corridor by corridor.

There was a reference on transit uh earlier, and certainly along international boulevard, this is an area we want to look at you know very mindfully as well on these impacts.

So the whole idea of taking this through this step of doing um a more deliberate plan rather than having it sort of you know just sort of planning by diagram under under the broader legislation, is really what we're trying to achieve.

And we do um, I think tying in another point earlier about the action items, what comes out of the general plan update that we will certainly have as these are priorities that we must get this work done.

Excellent, thank you so much.

And I just know that so much of the the reason why SB79 is currently going through amendments is is because of um, you know, the the propo the the state legislation that was proposed, you know, sometimes um things are um put forth as like a one size fits all, and I think a lot of the feedback from a lot of the cities was hey, we're we're not sure how to interpret, we're not sure how this works, and so that's why um ultimately um they're back to the drawing board on this, and so more than likely once um the legislative session wraps up, there's probably gonna be more changes um to be considered, um, and so therefore more work for staff.

Um, Councilmember Ramashandrin.

Thank you.

Um, a couple of clarifying questions.

So, one at a very basic level, if there's a street with single family residences within half a mile of a BART station, how can those be required to be upzoned if it's all built out and they're single-family homes?

Would it then be if there's a vape, if if if someone buys a house and or four houses on a block, all of a sudden they can demolish it and build a 20-story, or how how does it work with the single family homes?

Yeah, well, with with any of these projects, is is basically where a developer would say would look at the SB 79 and say, Oh, I can you know build um this density, and so yes, they would need to acquire a property to do that, or it could be obviously if somebody who is an existing homeowner who decides they want to develop their property more intensively and sell it for that purpose, um, could do with that as well, or it could be where again they maybe get an uh an offer from a developer because now this land is worth more money, and so that could be a potential.

But yes, certainly I think if something is um, you know, to build these types of um higher densities and higher heights, you would generally need to like a 4,000 square foot parcel would not be large enough alone to do that.

So you would often have to acquire probably a number of parcels, and you'd have to have people willing to do that, and then does that still potential pencil out, right?

Because depending on how much they have to pay for that property compared to how much they could then build and sell it for.

Okay.

If I make the chair, no, that I think that answered the question there, but to your point, and to the chair to the council member in terms of requiring the property to resubdivide, they when they did once they did that, then the density they they'd have the opportunity to take advantage of that.

Okay.

So I do have a question because this amendment was originally put forward by the planning commission, correct?

That they supported this as well, correct.

Um, so what was I guess what is we've heard just now that the big issue is you want more time to plan more comprehensively, higher zoning in some areas or lower density in other areas, which I understand.

But um, if this were if if the amendment were to move forward, which was the planning commission's original recommendation, could it be modified in in a year when you go through more comprehensive planning?

Or if this is it, we're stuck with it till state law changes.

Well, I mean, ultimately what we are proposing is an alternative plan.

So the alternative plan would then um take place of uh development being able to take advantage of SB 79.

So that instead of using the blanket requirements of what SB 79 would allow is then the adopted um the alternative plan would then say, yeah, these areas maybe you can achieve what SB 79 had, but these other areas would be less than that, and so once we do adopt an alternative plan, it will replace whatever um SB for the if this amendment were to move forward, it would replace that allowance for those to be able to take advantage of that density and it would look at whatever our alternative plan was allowing.

And if I may again do the chair and I may also um ask uh representative from city attorney's office to address this as well, but um to the extent that we are moving forward with an alternative alternative plan as we're going through the loot uh and the update, we still would have an opportunity to revisit this as well.

I mean, amendment or non-amendment.

If it turns out that we're able to get a clear alignment based on input about areas that would take advantage of density, and we can do a closer examination then, you know, by the time that the year after we complete the loot, we could also you know revisit this this area, you know, irrespective of of the action that's taken today.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um, thank you so much.

Um for the robust conversation.

Did you all want to hear from the city attorney's office at all?

Um, okay.

All right, well, um, I think we have two, we have two options um that we can make um, which is um adopt the recommendations from staff, um, and or um the proposed amendment that council member unger um put forth.

Um so is anyone have any further questions or comments or would like to make either motion?

Councilmember Fife?

I just want to be clear about what we just heard uh Chair Brown from Director Gilchrist, is that regardless of the amendment, we can still review what council member Unger is suggesting?

I don't think I think that is my understanding, um and of course, Director Gilchrist and team let me know if I'm if I'm off base.

But ultimately, in considering staff's recommendation, no matter what, our planning in building the apartment is actively working on a uh land use and transportation action plan that would further align with what is being proposed by staff's recommendation.

And so even with the amendment that we see before us, I think that there was already going to be engagement around this.

And then if we adopt the amendment from Councilmember Unger, maybe maybe that's your question.

Then Councilmember Fife.

That was exactly my question to Director Gillcrest.

And again, as I have a city attorney behind me, I may ask him also to make sure this is right right online.

But the answer is yes, we still would have the opportunity going through this exercise to look again through the completion of the loot, part of the general plan update, and also within this year's deadline, less than this year's dead, the additional year's deadline, to um adopt a plan which may again through our investigation have us revisit some of the assumptions either under the amendment or not.

So that was that two through the chair to the council member.

Is that responsive?

That is exactly what I wanted to hear, and I will say that it it also you know sits with me that the Oakland members of the Oakland Heritage Alliance who are oftentimes opposed to staff's recommendations spoke out on this item in support.

Um, and also there is a history in in this area of Oakland where there are people who push back on additional housing and housing density growth.

And I just want to see how we can if we are going to move forward with the loot.

Well, in less than a year, you said we can um review what what council member Unger is talking about.

Yes, ultimately the loot will come before this body for well this committee and then referral to the council of the whole for adoption to the chair to the council member.

So what what is finally uploaded as the loot what has the force of law will be the determination of the council?

So you there will be more bytes at the apple, so to speak.

Um but I again I just want to I think that the the principal concern as I'm hearing it is that we want to be clear that today's action, we still have an opportunity through the loot and then through the uh adoption of the specific TOD uh program within less than a year's time thereafter, that we will have that opportunity to craft that in a way that is responsive to the work that we've done.

Thank you.

That's what I want to also through the chair to the body.

This is Michael Branson, deputy city attorney.

Over the long run, the difference between the staff recommendation and uh council member Unger's proposal is um there really isn't much of a difference because staff will need to bring forward either a local alternative plan, or if one is not brought, then all of the SB 79 provisions would fall into place.

Uh, the difference is in the short term, so um in the period up until the local alternative plan is adopted, um, council member Unger's amendment would allow for developers to choose to use the densities and standards that are in the planning code, or to use the densities and standards that are in SP 79.

So it's putting a different option on the table for um for the you know the year or two years up until the local alternative plan is adopted.

Um, as mentioned by staff in many areas along, for example, on College Avenue, the density provided by Oakland is very similar to what is provided in SP 79.

There is a difference in height.

SB 79 allows for more height than uh the local zoning allows, so that could provide an opportunity for developers to take advantage of additional height.

I will also note that often when people are doing large housing projects, they use a different state law called the state density bonus law, which also allows a developer to seek additional heights.

So my opinion is that it's unclear that there are significant benefits that a developer would gain from using SB 79, but at the same time, there also does not seem to be significant um uh issues that would come about with implementing SP 79 as proposed by Councilmember Unger.

Administrator Baker.

Thank you.

And through the chair.

And we can, but we can't undo development.

And so we have to think about that 18 month gap where there is an accelerated opportunity to take advantage of the parcels, which is something that actually can't be undone, right?

So in terms of yes, we can change the policy, we can change whatever we we adopt later, we we can't actually undo whatever's happened in that time frame.

And I think that's important in terms of how we evaluate the timing of this decision.

See, I had my mind made up until ACA Baker, you just said that.

So now could you just are elaborate on the point that you're making?

We can't undo development.

How does that statement respond to what we're hearing from from my colleague and city staff?

So we heard um, and thank you for that question, and through the chair, we heard um the question of what is it take to develop density, right?

And you would acquire one or more parcels, you would build up that could happen right now, um, under the amendment.

Um, that can't be undone.

The building's up.

That's what I mean.

But what can be undone is um whether or not we decide to do that or not, right?

We can decide that we don't want to move forward with density or we want to move forward with density at a later date.

What we can't do is undo the actual density that might happen uh during that gap.

And and if I'm I may again to the chair and uh appreciate ACA Baker's observation, I was discussing this very same point with the city attorney a moment ago, is that essentially it's it's a vesting of sorts that anyone who's taking advantage during that window and they get to the a point of development on the project, then irrespective of what we do afterwards, they would still have the rights to develop that way, which is exactly the point ACA maker is making.

And again, I have the city attorney behind me to back that up.

I'm I'm here as available, so uh if the council um if it pleases the council to have me, I'm happy to answer further questions.

I think basically what we're talking about is um vested rights under California law.

Um the standard way that vested rights occurs is if you start building a project that you have received entitlements for, the city cannot take away your right to build that building.

Um there are some additional ways to get what's called vested rights.

Um there's a significant expansion of vested rights in recent years under a different SB called SB 330.

Essentially, what that says is if a developer submits a pre-application that has very specific information in it, they are essentially putting uh a marker in time that they are subject to the standards that were in place on that date.

So it is a way for developers to kind of lock in the existing code.

So it really advances that vested rights.

So if somebody applies for a project, um using certain rules, and the city changes the rules later, the city cannot uh take back any of the rights that that applicant had under those previous rules.

That's what vested rights are right.

Well, I think at this time um I think we have a couple options.

Um, you know, I'm always um in favor of ensuring that all of our colleagues on the council can weigh in on a particular item.

Um, so we could have a motion to move this item to the full city council so that we can further kind of engage stakeholders on the item, um, or we could accept the amendments as is um colleagues.

So we can accept we can accept staff recommendation as is and then we can take further time to consider the proposed amendment from council member Unger.

Or even vice versa whichever you all but we can move it so that the full body can weigh in on it.

Councilmember Unger.

Um I've got an amendment on the floor and I'd like an up or down vote.

Okay.

So you um made the motion to um go ahead and move that is there a second.

Second thank you we have a motion made by Councilmember Unger seconded by council member Ramachandran to approve as amended the recommendations of staff to forward this item to the March 3rd City Council agenda as a public may I get get some clarity I'm so sorry um city clerk um it's the um recommendations from staff plus uh council member unger's amendment okay perfect excellent thank you okay sorry just restating the motion uh there was a motion made by council member unger seconded by council member Ramachandran to approve the recommendation of staff as amended to forward this item to this March 3rd city council agenda as a public hearing okay on rule council members five I'm sorry I'm unclear on the motion we're including council member unger's amendment in the motion yes when it contradicts with the staff's recommendation exactly it does yeah I we have an amendment on the floor I think we just need a second so which which we had a second from council member so we need to vote on the amendment before we move forward with the motion that was just made I'm I'm I'm just trying to get clarity.

Council member uh Ramachandran oh I just like to ask the parliamentarian to weigh in because I know we have voted on an item with an amendment before meant several times so okay so it is the most important so just the amendments council chooses make a motion because it is his amendment that is the motion there's no need to make a secondary motion.

So just say then you have a motion to amend the original motion he's not doing that is incorporating the call into years with the original motion.

So just so I'm stating right so normally we say you guys make amendments we say that here's the recommendations of staff as amended to move it to the March 3rd so you can come back and if that might be okay.

So my understanding is Councilmember Unger made the motion to to adopt staff recommendation with his own amendment that changes the stop staff recommendation so it's one single motion that moves the item with the amendment.

It if it's simpler I'm happy to withdraw that and just vote on the amendment by itself and then we can vote on the whole bill would that make it simpler.

I think that would not be a complete motion because then it doesn't move the item so I mean we would we can't vote on just the amendment by itself.

I don't think so no I think if if somebody else had made moved the original item then you could have moved then you could have made a motion to amend that motion with your amendment so if somebody moved the original item you can then make a move motion to amend the original motion with your amendment but that's as as you had moved the item um already you could I mean you could withdraw the motion but as I think what you did before was was a was appropriate motion to just move the item with okay all right, we'll do that then with with the proposed amendment okay okay just for clarity, I will restate the motion with the amendments.

So the motion is made by council member unger, seconded by council member Ramachandran to approve the recommendations of staff as amended with the following amendments to remove maps one, two, and three from exhibit C and to add a planning code section 17.86.060.

The words not including sites within one half mile of Ashby, McArthur, and Rockridge Bart stations.

For the phrase beginning sites with the following zoning designations are excluded to the March 3rd city council agenda as a public hearing.

Okay.

On roll council members five.

No.

Councilmember Ramachandran.

Aye.

Councilmember Unger.

Aye.

And Chair Brown.

No.

Okay.

Uh motion fails with two eyes and two nose, Brown and Five.

So I think at this time I will I would make the motion to just adopt staff's recommendation and move it to uh for consideration to the full city council, please.

Second.

Thank you.

We have a motion made by Chair Brown, seconded by Councilmember Fife to approve the recommendations of staff as is and to forward this item to the March 3rd City Council agenda as a public hearing.

On roll, council members five.

Aye.

Ramachandran.

Aye.

Unger.

Aye.

And Chair Brown.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number four passes with four ayes to forward this item as is to the March 3rd City Council agenda on as a public hearing.

Now moving on to open forum.

We have one public speaker that signed up, Mrs.

Olabala.

Lengthy conversation, and you have not had one conversation about the Oakland Housing Authorities.

Where they have authority to interact with HUD.

And just a few weeks ago, beginning of February, HUD is proposing to change the requirement that all members of the households receiving federal rent assistance.

You must verify the your U.S.

citizenship status or your eligibility as an immigrant and other in order to have living accommodation at with HUD.

The housing authority with HUD is withholding funds in certain situations.

Violations of landlords are not being dealt with under HUD Section 8.

Thank you for your comments, Miss Olabala.

Chair that concludes all speakers.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you all so much.

This meeting is adjourned.