We do have promoted parking.

Please come to the front to get the code number for the promoted parking.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody.

This is the April First Planning Commission, and I will call the meeting to order.

Here.

Commissioner Maurice Rob.

Here.

Commissioner Zorzy Ahrons.

Here.

Vice Chair Natalie Sadoval.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you.

And do we have a director's report today?

No director's report today.

An informational report.

No informational reports today.

I don't think any committees have met since the last meeting, so no committee reports.

That's correct.

I will note only because I heard some questions amongst our citizens about what's happening on April 15th.

So if you don't mind, I'll take a moment to explain.

There will not be a planning commission meeting on April 15th.

We had no items signed up.

However, the residential appeals committee meeting will occur on that date.

So there will be a meeting that happens under the Planning Commission's auspices.

It's a committee meeting on the 15th, but no planning commission per se.

Thank you.

On to commission matters.

Yeah, I just wanted to know if we get an update about there was a request for data related to rents and vacancies for deed restricted units by income, in particular moderate moderate income deed restricted units.

Right.

My understanding is that will be reported out as part of the APR, and it's terrible to use the acronym, the annual progress report, which I believe is coming to this body in May.

Okay.

So it's definitely scheduled to come before the body, the information.

Okay.

Thanks.

Any other commission matters?

There's one from the secretary, but if nobody uh I'll wait and see if any of your colleagues have additional items.

Okay, I have one.

Um I just curious.

There was a question about SB 79 and the motion that the planning commission made to planning staff that was then taken to city council.

If you could just clarify um the what went to city council and just speak to the fact that it was different than what planning commission had suggested.

Right.

I will answer part of your question.

Unfortunately, not all of it.

So I am I won't be able to speak to what specifically was brought to council.

I'm not on that item.

That isn't something I'm deeply familiar with.

Uh, but I do understand that the recommendation from staff was different from the recommendation from the planning commission.

And that does happen occasionally.

We don't have data on how frequently that happens.

Uh the planning commission is may disagree with staff's recommendation and provide a motion different from what staff recommends, and staff might have a different recommendation to planning commission than what planning commission might recommend via motion.

The critical aspect of this is that the staff carries forward the planning commission's recommendation, one way or another, whether staff agrees with it or not.

Uh and that was my understanding is that planning commission's recommendation was communicated to city council.

That and unfortunately that's about the best answer I can give you.

I can come back with uh in the future if you like, with the recommendation made uh by staff to city council that said my understanding is council uh didn't agree with staff's recommendation either and made a decision and provided direction that is different from staff's recommendation.

So if it would be more helpful, I can come back in the future.

I know uh the decision and direction from council was reported out to this body at your last meeting on March 18th, but if you would like that reiterated, I would be happy to come back with that.

Um I recall what you met what it what did was approved by council, so I don't feel that that needs to be reiterated, but it does any of the fellow commissioners have any questions there.

Okay, thank you very much.

And then I have an item at your last meeting.

Uh a council council member Houston visited us at Planning Commission and asked about uh site.

Let me pull up the address here.

Uh the what's happening at 1428 105th Avenue.

Uh it really wasn't a question about what's happening.

Uh the councilman or uh council member reiterated some comments received from community members about this property again at 1428 105th Avenue.

Uh the historically just to give you some background, so and then explain um the situation today and and why the project or the the I shouldn't say it's a project, it's a development has been converted to family housing.

I can I can explain why that's happened and uh the city's authority there.

This is a project, it was a project approved in 2017, and it was approved as an administrative case, so it did not come to the planning commission.

It was subject to a senior housing density bonus, and it was funded by state tax credit.

So it also was not subject to the city's deed restrictions because it was benefiting from a completely different uh stream of financing, and they were providing 100% affordable housing as part of that project.

And I'm just looking at the notes, uh apologize for the pauses here.

Uh and then the owner manager of the project once it was built, came back to the city in 2024 to request converting from senior housing to still affordable housing but open to all ages.

And the city did uh communicate with the state about this to see if this would be permitted or not, and the state said it is allowed that kind of conversion from senior affordable housing to family affordable housing is permitted by right.

Therefore, the city did permit uh the revision again as a density bonus project for affordable housing.

That does trigger the standard condition that the city has for uh the regulatory agreement and deed restriction via um housing and community development.

There was public notice about this change.

We did receive concerns from tenants and neighbors about uh ongoing maintenance issues and other concerns at the property, and the city opened an enforcement case to address a number of identified code violations, and our understanding is those have all been addressed at this point, and the project is operational without any active code violations on the property at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions on that?

Okay.

Um moving on, the any city attorney's report.

No city attorney's report.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And now we'll move on to open form.

I believe we have a couple speakers.

Yes, we have four speakers.

We have Layla Go, Kerry Go, Paul Lori, E.

May, Mary, Biagini.

You have um four two minutes, and please state your full name for record.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name can you hear this?

Is it on?

Okay, there we go.

Okay.

My name is Layla Goff.

I am a Rockridge resident, have been so for 26 years, and I serve on the steering committee for Rockridge Neighbors for Sensible Housing.

Despite the rain last night, over 60 residents gathered to discuss the proposed project at 6230 Claremont.

To date, over 1,100 neighbors have signed our petition stating this building's height and mass are fundamentally out of scale with the neighborhood.

At our meeting, architect Javier Arismendi presented the developer's plan, and there was audible gasps from the audience when the actual scale of the project was visualized against the existing neighborhood fabric.

The community is not just concerned, they are shocked by the lack of compatibility.

According to Asella, the submittal for the plan 26025 was deemed complete on March 30th.

While we've requested a meeting with the director and staff, we're receiving conflicting information regarding next steps.

Really, what this means is we just don't understand what we're gonna do, what happens next.

So there's mentions of a CEQA evaluation.

There's also suggestions that this body has only will only see it on appeal.

So we would like some clarity.

Uh, since the plan was deemed complete on March 30, we understand there's a 60-day window for formal zoning consistency determination.

Does that clock start on the 30th, making the deadline May 29?

Does it start after the CEQA review?

How long does CEQA take?

When will the mandatory notice go to the neighbors?

Is there a complete application?

How does that all work?

So given the unprecedented neighborhood interests, we asked the commission to ensure the proposal receives scrutiny.

It deserves, and that the public is granted a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the termination is finalized.

That's all I have.

Okay, thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name's Kerry Goff.

I've also lived the resident for 26 years.

This application for the project excessive 230 raises serious legal questions that haven't yet been resolved by the courts.

First, the constitutionality of the state density bonus law, insofar as it overarts or overrides our city charter authority to enforce its zoning policies, which balance growth, infrastructure, environmental impact, community character, and land use.

Second, the unconstitutionality of placing the burden upon the city to defend its charter authority.

Ordinarily, the burden is upon the party seeking an exception to the law to uh sustain the burden of proof.

However, uh under the current law, the burden has passed to the city.

There are exceptions to its policies, which would cause a specific adverse impact upon health or safety.

These are the things that this plan will do.

The need to override local regulations must be clear, compelling, and narrowly applied.

The project guts are zoning, height limits, and public safety elements.

It will create the following specific adverse impacts upon the ability to evacuate the mobility impaired seniors from the upper levels of the building upon evacuation from the area on its narrow congested streets, upon ingress and egress of emergency vehicles such as fire trucks on narrow constrained streets upon firefighters who much enter the building and climb smoke-filled stairwells because the ladders will not extend to the upper levels.

Upon traffic safety, because of congestion created by delivery trucks servicing the facility, food, maintenance, and garbage removal, and other services, not only during emergencies, but every day.

Upon pedestrian safety, as they navigate the narrow streets and sidewalks in the face of delivery trucks, trucks servicing the facility.

Is that your time is up?

You may complete your last statement.

Hopefully, litigation will not be required by the city or anyone else.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Paul Laurie, and I live on Rockwell Street, about two blocks from the proposed senior housing development at 6230 Claremont Avenue.

To begin, I would like to point out that my wife and I have one car.

A 2016 Hyundai Sonata, a pretty average sized car.

Unfortunately, we are not able to park our car in our garage because the entryway is too narrow.

Our house was constructed in 1927.

I call this to your attention because it reflects on the condition of the neighborhood, and my house is not unusual.

These houses were constructed in streets laid out in the 1920s, a time when cars were fewer and smaller, street trolleys were popular, and people walked and rode bikes more frequently.

Well, much has changed through the years.

More vehicles, motor vehicles are more abundant and larger.

The trolley system is gone, and people tend to walk and bike less than they used to.

The layout of the streets in this neighborhood have not.

Crosswalks in the area are confusing to drivers and unsafe to pedestrians.

Just last month, the 72-year-old man was killed while crossing Claremont near college, only a few yards away from 6230 Claremont after being struck by a car.

Similar to other streets in the neighborhood, Florio is only 25 feet wide.

High-end luxury senior lives living facility without severely impacting the streets and sidewalks nearby.

As a consequence, I strongly urge the commission to conduct a thorough and independent and impartial analysis of the impact of the development on traffic and pedestrian safety before acting on the proposal, and to include the city of Berkeley as necessary where the very dangerous Claremont Alcatraz.

Is that your time is up?

You may complete your last statement.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Mary Biagini, and I'm a resident in Rockridge, and I've lived there for over 60 years.

And I was at the meeting last night and was informed about the parking situation that will has been proposed for this project.

And I believe it's 99 parking spots for such a building.

And I work at uh St.

Paul's Towers in Oakland.

I've been there for 13 years.

Um the parking there, what they need there, that's a much larger building, of course.

But the parking needs to include all types of service employees from kitchen staff, cleaning staff, administrative staff, services in terms of I know there isn't a skilled nursing, but there will be some sort of nursing and medical emergency sort of care there.

Also, I wanted to say that in this type of luxury living in Oakland as is at St.

Paul's, which this new project sounds very similar to most every person in that facility has a private caregiver.

Okay.

So you're adding to the parking besides just the staff that formally works for St.

Paul's, there's a multitude of people that are coming and going all day long.

Parking is not adequate there for the those people.

They're overparking in the streets, you know, doing the two-hour parking here and there.

Um, I just wanted to uh bring this up as I didn't think the 99 parking spots for such a business would be adequate.

Uh it's much larger than one would think.

So that's my comment.

Thank you.

She's a final speaker.

Okay, thank you very much.

And uh, that will close public comment.

And um I'd like to ask um planning commission secretary Payne if you could provide an update on this project for us, which to note is not in front of Planning Commission at this time.

That's right, it's not in front of the planning commission.

And I'll start, but I will hand it over to Mike in just a moment.

Uh so there is a status change since I we had speakers during open forum on this item at the last meeting, a few of the last meetings.

And at the the last time uh that we had public speakers and we were staff was asked about this.

Excuse me.

At that time, the case was still in what we call intake, meaning uh we had not started reviewing it.

We didn't have a case file for it yet.

Someone was trying to submit.

So now at this time, the case is made it through intake.

We've actually assigned a case file number, and just for reference, the case file number is PLN 26025.

Uh, the applicant has not yet paid.

I believe they were just invoiced within the last two or three days, um, business days, and there will be a 30-day completeness review before we start conducting any uh substantive zoning review or analysis and before we confirm what the path forward for this case in terms of moving through decision making might look like.

Uh so a 30-day completeness review, at which point it will either the case will be deemed complete, and staff will start to conduct that review and determine a path forward for decision making, or the case will be incomplete.

Applicant will need to uh resubmit new items, items that were missing or items that were incorrect.

Uh and they'll uh we will have another 30 days to review that once uh that that those additional materials are submitted.

So that's where we are now.

But um, before I I can see some of you look like you may want to ask me some questions, I'm gonna let Mike speak as well to this because I believe he has some additional thoughts to share.

Thanks, Catherine.

I think I'm mostly repeating um what Catherine added.

We're still in completeness review.

Um they've gone through several rounds of completeness review.

So the list of things that need to be addressed.

Um has you know, it's a funnel, it gets narrower each time.

Um so I I can't say with certainty what the outcome of that completeness review is, but it's certainly we're moving towards a complete application.

Umce a completeness letter goes out or a 30-day period runs, then we're in uh the phase where staff has 60 days to make uh zoning consistency findings.

So we're not in that 60-day period right now.

We're still in a completeness review.

There's a PLN number, I think, to get a planner assigned to it and for the convenience of the public to actually be able to access that PLN number and see um the plans on Excela.

Um and in your understanding now, will this project come to Planning Commission?

As submitted, it's a uh it's a regular design review that's eligible for staff review.

Um that is appealable to planning commission.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to our agenda, the uh consent calendar.

No consent calendar today.

Okay, then moving on to our public hearing and agenda item number one.

Yes.

So this is regarding the general plan update, specifically the land use and transportation element or loot, as we call it affectionately in the city of Oakland.

And today, the team, the general plan update loot team is bringing to you uh the options for how I'm sorry, I'm gonna get this probably wrong.

Uh they're going to it's the options for how we stabilize and grow.

I'm saying the wrong thing.

I'm gonna let what I'm going to do is I'm going to invite staff up from the team to uh both announce, say who they are and announce the title of what they're bringing forward.

But this is not, these are uh options for how to uh move forward developing the loot.

They're not uh this is not a final presentation on what's being proposed at this time.

That part I believe is correct, but I will allow our two, we have two planners on this to introduce themselves and make their presentation.

Hello, everyone.

I'm Khalila Haynes.

Um just wanted to clarify that we're presenting on the draft land use framework, which is the next step from the options for how we stabilize and grow that we presented to you guys last fall.

Um to Daniel Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Daniel Finley, um planner in the strategic planning division, planning and building department.

Um I'm here with Khalila Haynes.

Yeah, so we can start the we do have a we do.

Okay.

We do have a presentation.

Um, thank you.

Uh so we'll be presenting um on our draft land use framework, and um we hope it's informative.

So uh as mentioned, um I'm the name's Dana Finlay.

I'm with my colleague Khalila Haynes.

We are a uh co-project managers for the general plan updates, um, and representing on the draft landings framework.

So a bit on the agenda, I'll provide a brief overview of the general plan updates project and our timeline, and then we'll get into the meat of our presentation, which is on the draft land use framework, and we'll conclude with some next steps and discussion.

So, what is the general plan?

Um, the Oakland general plan.

Um, so some of you are I'm sure are all familiar with the general plan, but just in case I'll provide a bit of background.

It's the general plan is uh essentially the guiding document for how the city grows and develops.

Um kind of consider it like a constitution.

It lays out a citywide vision with goals, policies, and implementation measures to guide long-term growth, preservation, and stabilization.

The general plan reflects on past challenges and accomplishments to help ensure a consistent direction for future developments.

And with this update, we are being very intentional on using this as an opportunity to address racial inequities and promote inclusivity by ensuring meaningful engagement with communities that have been traditionally left out of the planning and decision-making process.

The general plan uh will advance racial equity by establishing more just policies related to land use, parks, open space, and transportation.

The guiding principles up on the screen are to make sure people are housed, healthy, safe, and foster community cohesion and connection and celebrate Oakland's rich cultural uh history and diversity.

So this is taking place over two phases.

Uh in phase one, you may recall that we came to the planning commission to discuss the housing safety and environmental justice elements.

Now in phase two, we're focusing on four elements: the land use and transportation element or loot, open space conservation and recreation element, or the Oscar uh the noise element and a new infrastructure and capital facilities element.

The loot uh sets the rules for what gets built where and works to create an inclusive multimodal transportation system that balances mobility, safety, and connections.

The Oscar builds uh and builds an equitable accessible parks network while also protecting existing open spaces and improving access to each.

The infrastructure and capital facilities elements will focus on keeping a central systems like water, sewage, electricity, and internet reliable and resilient, and ensures public facilities such as schools and libraries are well maintained and equitably distributed.

Finally, the noise elements uh will work to reduce and mitigate noise pollution and its impact on health and our communities.

So, real quickly on the on the phase two timeline.

Last fall we came to the commission to discuss the options for how we stabilize and grow report, which had three three big picture ideas for how Oakland could grow and develop over the next 20 years.

We used the community feedback we received to craft one preferred option for growth, which is laid out before you in the draft land use framework.

So, what is it?

So it's at its core a guidance documents.

It lays out key strategies and maps for achieving community priorities in the general plan.

These uh strategies will serve as the basis for developing the detailed policies within each of the phase.

These two elements again, the loot, the Oscar, noise, and the capital facilities and uh infrastructure elements.

So community engagement.

We've done a tremendous amount of community engagement really over the last uh five years since the beginning of the general plan update uh in collaboration with our community partners from the DLP route collaborative, reaching over 1300 people directly through meetings, workshops, walking tours, and more.

And we we have estimate we've had um uh you know, we've reached um about approximately 1.6 million residents uh or views um uh from our advertising over uh various media platforms.

So the two photos on the slides before you are just uh just two of our many community engagement events.

On the top is our walking tour with the mayor's uh committee uh commission on persons with disabilities, and the bottom one is our um kickoff event for our phase two at the Oakland Museum of California.

Really fun event, had a lot of people come out and talk to us about um about their neighborhoods and what they like and dislike.

So some of the key community priorities that have surfaced from this outreach include creating equitable neighborhoods, improving infrastructure, meaning streets, parks, and community facilities, ensuring access accessibility of streets and transit for all users, and supporting affordable housing and jobs.

And so to achieve all this, I'm gonna give uh just kind of a brief overall strategy on our city of neighborhoods, the preferred um uh strategy for uh accomplishing the general plan updates.

So the draft land use framework proposes is an overall strategy which draws largely from the city of neighborhoods concept originally proposed in the options report.

It also includes preferred strategies from other options from the other options presented in the options report as well.

The framework focuses on fostering complete walkable neighborhoods throughout the city where people have access to transit, green space, and neighborhood amenities.

Downtown, San Antonio, Fruitvale, and Coliseum will serve as major centers, with downtown being the largest and most dense.

We're proposing to increase density and mixed uses along major corridors and near BART stations to create vibrant corridors and transit hubs.

This is paired with improved improving walking, biking, and transit connections between each neighborhoods, between neighborhoods.

We've also created a new technology and research land use category to support in green industries, advanced manufacturing and artisan production.

So up on the screen now, um, this map kind of represents the overall strategy in map form.

The neighborhood centers you see uh are the pink polygons, uh, the technology and research areas uh in upper West Oakland and west of the Coliseum are the purple circles.

The major centers in are the red polygons, downtown Fruitville, San Antonio, and near the Coliseum, and then the smaller green circles represent proposed um locations for new parks.

So I'm gonna turn it over to my colleague Khalila now.

She's gonna go a bit more into the strategies.

Okay, so I'll get into some of the specific land use and transportation strategies.

Um we're presenting these together because they um support each other.

So creating mixed-use walkable neighborhood hubs requires things like improving walking and biking connections, making it easier to trend to use transit and get between neighborhoods, as well as making sure to locate parks and open spaces close to homes, reducing vehicle speeds, and creating more public spaces and plazas.

Creating mixed-use centers and high density housing near transit ensures people are closer to the things that they need and can make more troops without a car.

It's really about giving people more choices.

So part of it is in the framework we highlight optimizing bus service to meet Oaklanders' needs and improving service along key routes to support higher densities along major corridors and in the core of neighborhood centers.

We're also creating a new transit-oriented mixed-use land use designation, um, and also laying the foundation for a future inflow Bart station in San Antonio neighborhood.

The strategy also talks about minimizing conflicts between homes and industry, uh, protecting tribal cultural resources, embedding disability inclusion and accessibility in our design and construction processes, as well as continuing to collaborate with communities to develop um more detailed policies within the elements.

Okay.

So the Hagen Burger Corridor is an important part of our city.

It's anchored by the Oakland International Airport, I-880, the Coliseum.

The general mix of businesses in the area are related to visitor services, transportation, logistics and warehousing.

And these strategies in the section focused on fostering Hagenburgers at Thriving Hub with a variety of businesses, creating uh organizations to support the development of the corridor and supporting creative industries.

So I'll go into a little bit of the technology and research areas.

We proposed those in like we saw in the map in those purple circles in East and West Oakland.

And those aim to attract green forward thinking jobs, support the creative economy, and focus infrastructure improvements to support more flexible industrial uses.

These land use changes would be supported by workforce development programs to ensure that we build a cut we build a career pipeline of residents to get into these jobs.

So this map shows how land uses are laid out across the city.

I'll just go over some of the key colors so that you can get a sense of what's going on.

So the dark yellow, gold, and brown areas, those are where we're proposing increased densities along the corridors.

Um in neighborhoods, the dark purple of the technology and research areas.

The light purple shows the areas around the BART stations that are transit um oriented mixed use, and then light gray is a new um that use category that we propose called green low impact industry, which you'll see primarily in East Oakland and a little bit in West.

Okay.

So one of the key parks and open space strategies is creating a greenway network that connects communities, promotes active transportation, and also supports our natural habitats and increased access to green space.

Investments will be prioritized in EJ communities, and we will set standards for increasing maintenance and programming to meet the needs of different communities.

We also want to protect our natural resources like our creeks, fund opportunities to use open spaces for protection of tribal cultural resources as well as support our hot house residents who use parks as places of refuge.

This map just shows the overall parks and open space strategies that I just went through.

You'll see the thick green lines represent the Greenway Network, the dashed green lines represent um uh park connectors, and the green circles are proposed new areas per parks.

The it's kind of a little bit hard to see, obviously, but the light green areas are um resource conservation areas and the darker green ones are our existing parks.

Okay, so there were some other key topics that came up in community um feedback related to housing, economic development, arts and culture.

And so some of the strategies we are proposing in these areas include developing affordable housing near transit, continuing to implement our housing element and building on it, supporting small business development and ensuring community serving businesses have access to commercial space, as well as integrating arts, culture, and history into neighborhood centers through placemaking and strengthening our cultural districts program.

Okay.

Ford to infrastructure and the environment, the draft line use framework proposes exploring new strategies to address illegal dumping, prioritizing funding for resilience hubs, finding other sources of funding for infrastructure projects, planning for sea level rise and supporting our urban greening um projects.

So we'll go into some discussion questions now.

So want you to think about does this overall strategy represent um uh you know, does it help achieve the guiding principles and vision that we've laid out?

Um does it help achieve your commission's priorities?

Are there specific ideas for policies that these strategies raise for us to consider for each element?

Um, are there an is there anything that's missing?

And then for next steps, we'll be in a public engagement period until April 23rd.

There's a QR code there if you want to scan public and uh look at the framework.

It's a really interactive system.

You can comment on any part of the plan.

It's very easy to use.

You don't have to sign up, don't have to log in.

Um we'll be doing um a bunch of different community meetings, but you can find the whole schedule on our website.

Um, of note, we'll be having a bunch of workshops next week, district one on Thursday, April 9th at Chapel of the Chimes, District 6 on Friday at Rainbow Rec Center, and District 3 on Saturday at the Fermary Rec Center.

All the information is online.

Yep, and that's the end of our presentation.

Love to hear your thoughts.

Thank you very much.

Um, and do we have any uh speakers for this item?

Yes, we do.

Okay.

Um so before we go to speakers, any clarifying questions for staff.

I mean, there's references in the draft plan to using uh public land for to support affordable housing.

Um and you know, this is a something that's come up in uh at the commission uh several times the the need for a public lands policy, public land disposition policy that's that includes sort of equity and inclusion um as as uh it's it's uh guideposts, and I wonder if is there some way to lift up the need for public lands policy.

Um, because I think um you know it it I think it's good to include um to to have that in the draft plan, but it's hard to imagine how that gets implemented without a public lands policy.

Is there is there some way for us as a commission to sort of ask to um the creation of public lands policy is uh needed um to effectuate some of these goals uh so Laura Kaminsky strategic planning manager.

I will say in our housing element, there actually is an action item.

Um I don't have it in front of me, but there is a an action item that talks about how to use public lands um when it relates to housing and going through that process and it um commits to I think the city, you know, going through the requirements of the state where you first you know offer something for affordable housing, and then if obviously if you if nobody responds to that um request for proposals, then you can open up the for other uses.

It also talks about a commitment to the city releasing a certain number of sites for housing um per year um over the eight year cycle of the housing element.

So that is something that um speaks not I think exactly to what you're saying, but it does talk about how we use public lands uh as it relates to housing.

Okay.

Um thank you for that.

Um yeah, I just wonder what uh maybe this is not the mechanism, but I wonder if there's a way that we can sort of stay on the record that we we should we need to create a public lands policy.

Um maybe this is not the item to to discuss that.

Um but I think it would be important to do to effectuate some of these goals.

Um I also so some of the public feedback we gotten has been around um uh around the collaboration with transit agencies um between the city and and the different transit operators and sort of um desire for a better sort of master planning that's um similar to um some previous plans around bike lanes, for example.

I I didn't notice I did see that there's there's been coordination with AC Transit uh in developing the the loot and uh I was wondering if you could just give some color or some detail about what um what kind of that planning has looked like between uh AC transit and in this general plan drafting process.

Yeah, sure.

Good question.

So we have a general plan advisory committee, which includes two subcommittees, a technical advisory subcommittee and a community advisory subcommittee, AC Transit along with BART, along with Alameda County Transportation Commission are both are all part of the trend the technical advisory subcommittee.

We have regular meetings with them.

We also had um working meeting with the NC Transit to go through the land use framework and the proposals that we had in there.

And so I think um some of the comments that we've received you know from ESPA for everyone and from the D6 resident um are about how we can strengthen the language in the framework and in elements going forward to be to have a more sort of um a more progressive, more sort of uh stronger transportation vision, and that's something that we're definitely um wanting to work through with our transit providers.

Okay.

That's it for me.

Thank you.

I have a question about the noise element, which I know hasn't gotten a lot of attention.

Understandably the other sections are bigger.

Um but I'm wondering how you're working with enforcement staff and and other staff in and building um as the representatives from the city that go out to investigate noise complaints.

Um, how are you taking their input into updating the noise element?

Uh yeah, so we have been having conversations already with our you know code enforcement staff in particular, because they're the ones who often are the ones going out responding to noise complaints.

And you know, there's two different things.

There's the there's the noise element itself, and then the city also has in the planning code um noise standards as well.

And so I think the the noise element itself will kind of set more the higher policy um perspective, whereas then I think there will still be a need in addition to also um make amendments to the planning code, which has more specific standards in it, and I think that'd be the intent to have the the noise element still be more higher level, so that any if you want to make a change to like a certain decibel reading or something, you wouldn't have to make uh an amendment to the general plan as opposed to amendment to the planning code.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

I just first want to say um kudos to staff who've done a tremendous job on phase two.

Um so much work has gone into this.

I know, and a lot of workshops, impressive to see all of the engagement that's been done.

So thank you for that.

Um, and great job.

Um, I just have a couple of questions.

Um, one being, you know, ultimately when we saw this last, there were the three separate options.

Um, and if you could just speak a little bit to the trade-offs in the in the approach that was chosen, the neighborhood city of neighborhoods.

Um, and just curious what was maybe not carried forward um as part of this new option and direction.

Yeah, so if you remember we had three options.

Option A was a city of neighborhoods concept that this framework is quite based off of.

That was the most popular option.

There's option B, which was connected corridors, which really focused on development and transportational improvements along the corridors, which a lot of the strategies under that option are reflected in the framework.

The third one was the waterfront district, and so that's probably where we see the biggest trade-offs that really focused development um in the waterfront area, creating a new neighborhood neighborhood center in that area, um, and really um intense development standards.

And so the framework before you does have a new neighborhood center identified along the waterfront, but in terms of the investments proposed throughout the framework specifically focused on that area, we don't see that in the framework where we saw that in the options.

So I would say that's probably the biggest thing that people um who maybe liked options that you don't see here.

Okay, thank you for that.

And then um as we move into this next phase, what are the biggest policy decisions still ahead?

Um versus those that are being set by this framework.

Like what are we looking for in the next iterate?

What are we gonna what should we expect in the next iteration?

Oh, okay, got it.

So what will come out this fall will be a draft of each of the four elements.

So a draft of the land use and transportation element, and draft of the open space conservation recreation element, draft of the noise element, and draft of our new infrastructure and public facilities element.

And so the type of the feedback that we're gathering now from communities, from commissioners, from um residents and our agency partners is uh, you know, does this framework setting a good precedent for how we should develop the strategies that are going to that are going to be reflected in those four documents?

And so um, you know, part of the question before you is do you have ideas for specific um policy considerations that these frameworks should should flesh out?

Heard from Commissioner Lee about you know public lands policy.

We can see how that ties into you know the loot or the Oscar as appropriate.

But yeah, if there are other things that you want us to be thinking about as we go, you know, at the end of May, start developing these elements, definitely want to hear that um today.

I think to add to that um also is that you know we're showing um a land use map itself with different land uses and different densities.

So that's another thing we're trying to get you know, comments on from the public, you know, or where we've designated the land uses.

Um, do people agree with that?

Do they agree with the densities?

Should some of the densities be higher or lower in certain areas, should there be, you know, maybe some larger commercial areas than then what we've shown, or some areas that maybe should be commercial that we haven't shown at all.

Um, so those what will what is decided really in the comments we get from the land use framework will then go into as we're actually as Khalila mentioned, doing the actual land use and transportation element as as one of the elements that we're looking at.

And so then you know, we would be making any changes that we heard from the public to you know some of those areas that we've designated as a certain land use or a certain density.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Rob.

First of all, thank you all for your presentation.

Um I have a question regarding one of the bullets that you all mentioned.

Um about minimizing conflicts between residential and industrial land.

Um just curious to hear a little more detail about maybe some of the strategies around that strategy.

Just want to hear about it.

Yeah, good question.

There's also some copies of the framework there.

If anybody wants to take a look, we didn't have the map in the presentation, but there is a map in the document that talks about some of the industrial changes.

And so basically what we're really trying to do is make sure that where there's how homes that are near sort of industrial businesses, that there is some consideration that those things should be separate.

So part of that strategy looks like the new green low impact category that we've introduced.

You'll see a lot of that in East Oakland where there is sort of heavy industry, then there's that on the outside to sort of create that buffer between homes and industry so that there's not heavy pollution near where people live.

And so that green low impact category is going to be specifically for um uses that don't have uh negative adverse environmental or air quality impacts.

So that would probably be the biggest change that you see, as well as um the technology and research area technology and research areas, which are um really looking to also attract jobs within industrial land that don't also have those sort of adverse impacts on environmental health.

Kind of we'll have a follow-up to that.

Um so thanks for the answer.

Um, but is this like neighborhood specific, or is this kind of a general strategy that's gonna kind of apply to every neighborhood across bull widows um where industrial land meets residential?

Yeah, it's a it's a citywide strategy, and so you'll see maybe we could pull the slides up.

I don't know if that's too hard to do to pull the bike to pull them back up.

Oh, yeah, I see them.

Okay, let me go back to the map.

It's gonna be a little hard to see, but it will be a little helpful, I think.

Um so if we're looking, let's look at um East Oakland by the Coliseum area.

So you see there's like a dark gray area, right?

Then there's a white, sort of whitish light gray area surrounding that.

So that's all area that we've changed to this green low impact category.

There's a little bit in West Oakland, not as much.

And so um, you know, we've seen we've made a lot of changes in West Oakland through the West Oakland specific plan.

East Oakland hasn't had that work, and so that's why most of the changes are concentrated in that area.

Um, but obviously open to you know feedback to see if that should be extended to other places in the city, um, or if this um these changes, you know, accurately uh separate, not accurately, adequately um separate um industry and house houses.

Um yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any additional comments or questions?

Commissioner Erns.

Thank you.

Could you expand a little bit on some of the anti-displacement strategies you imagine falling into the plan?

Yes.

Um, so we want to build on like the I mean our housing and community development department just released an anti-displacement framework, I want to say last month, earlier this year, uh at the beginning of the year.

Um and so we're looking at some of the stuff that they've outlined in that document to make sure our land use and transportation element is alignment with that.

Um we're also continuing to um do some research and explore case studies from other cities about how they are using anti-displacement strategies when it comes to uh new developments with within our parks and open space systems, because that's been a huge concern of sort of you know, green dentrification and so making sure that um we're looking to uh cities that are sort of leading in this effort, some of the cities that we're looking at are sort of like Los Angeles, they have a huge working group that's sort of tackling this issue.

Um so I don't think we have any specifics right now to share, but if there are other strategies that you've seen in other jurisdictions or other parts of the world that are working that you want us to consider, definitely open to that feedback.

Sorry, I I would add to that, you know, there are already in the housing element quite a few um you know strategies already that are already in place, and some of it also has to do with the some of the state laws and the codes that we've already enacted in the state in this the city as far as um you know have protection of tenants through the SB 330.

So if you're gonna demolish a unit that has a protected tenant in it, then there's certain you know, parameters that you have to do uh that are required in order to be able to do that.

Um and provided, you know, actually like deed restricted affordable housing for any of those types of units.

And so there are already there are a lot of things already in place, but certainly we are always looking for to add more things uh as we're we're going through this process.

Great, thank you.

Um and with that, I think we can go to uh public comment.

We have one speaker, Jules Brunlet.

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

Thanks.

Can I be given a heads up when I have one minute left?

Yeah.

Okay.

So my name's Jules Brugier.

I am a um a resident, homeowner, and public school teacher here in Oakland.

And I rushed over here to give comment from my classroom.

So I've been talking about the general plan update with over two dozen of my friends and neighbors in both in West Oakland where I live.

I'm also uh help a coordinator for the neighborhood association, South Prescott uh Lower Bottoms Neighbors Association, as well as people in other districts.

So uh we're across five city council districts.

And um and looking at the land use of the general plan update, uh, I really like what I see with the emphasis on corridors and um uh neighborhood centers, and I want to see that happen, but there are many barriers to development um of quality buildings and housing there.

Um we think that in order to do that, we need to really lift zoning restrictions, which is promised through this update process.

Um in our opinion, uh we would like to move Oakland to an opt-in zoning system so people can opt into zoning rather have than have it mandatory because these plans just slightly reduce uh reduce the restrictions of zoning.

And SB 79 is one example of uh a state law that lifted the restrictions a little further.

But if we're able to loosen up zoning a lot more, that should be able to encourage the case.

I'm sorry, your time is up.

You may complete your last statement.

That's all.

Thank you.

He's our final speaker.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, with that, I will close public comment and bring it back up for any comments or questions.

Uh thank you to staff for your incredible and thorough work on this.

This is a Herculean task that you will probably remember for the rest of your career.

So thank you for your attention to detail.

Um, it's very exciting to be able to review this and and thank you for uh you know clarifying the changes that you made since the last time we saw this.

Um I'm very excited about this option about the neighborhood centers and corridors.

I think that Oakland is a city of neighborhoods, and people often think about that, but maybe not consciously.

And I think a lot of the strategies in this um plan are gonna help us have even more neighborhood identity.

Um, I do think to the point about how we get between neighborhoods, um, you know, getting more people out of their cars and onto transit um and bikes is a way to meet so many of our goals around equity, um, around livability, around um climate change.

And so I would just encourage as much collaboration with AC Transit as possible.

Um, you know, the city is responsible for the infrastructure and the streets, but AC Transit runs a service on those streets, and so we really do need close collaboration between um the city and and transit agencies, but especially AC Transit to get us to some of these goals.

So just wanted to plus one to um Commissioner Lee's comment and and implicit suggestion, perhaps.

Um I do also want to echo Commissioner Lee's request around a public lands policy.

That's something that I have brought up as well on this body over the last three years, and this feels like uh the most tangible way to get the city to actually develop um and implement a public lands policy.

I know there is um some work like uh Laura shared that we're required to do from the state around the surplus lands act, um, specifically around affordable housing, but I think that a public lands policy is even broader than that.

It's about what we do with all of our public lands for housing or not.

Um, and the practice of the city to sell us public lands is a horrible practice.

We are not printing any more land, it will not continue to be available.

Um, and I want to push for us to have a ground lease policy like other cities have.

Um, like Commissioner Lee shared, it's really the basis quite physically and literally on which the rest of our um policies and infrastructure sit.

And I think it's been a detriment to the city to not have an explicit public lands policy.

I know there's been things over the years and conversations about that.

Um, when uh OEWD came a few meetings ago to talk about business development.

I did press on some data about how many times the city has granted exemption um to the sort of de facto not using not selling the city land, and I haven't gotten an answer on that.

And so I'm really hoping that loot can be the time where we focus on that.

So to you know, to answer your discussion questions, that's for me is the is the biggest me missing piece here is is that public lands policy.

I was a little disappointed to see it only mentioned once um in the draft framework on page 36.

So I'm hoping in the fall that can be a stronger piece.

And then my last comment, I'll just say um and reiterate my thanks for a continued focus on equity, especially on racial equity.

So many government institutions are moving away from using that language and that framework because of the change in the federal environment.

And I hope that other cities and government agencies can look to Oakland as an example to continue to have a proactive and thoughtful focus on addressing historic and current racial disparities, and I just want to say thank you for not shying away from that, keeping that at the forefront.

I'm sure that that feels uh potentially scary around federal funding, but just to say that I support that and I recognize it, and thank you for your continued focus on racial equity.

So I think those are my comments.

Thank you again for your work.

Commissioner Lee.

Um, yeah, I just want to thank the staff for shepherding this process and um creating this um and all the work you've done so far.

It's um really impressive.

Um I appreciate in particular how racial equity has been lifted up and some of the things that are emphasized in this planned, um, like greenways and um the importance of neighborhood centers and and things like that.

And you know, when I look at when I look at these maps, I can't help but imagine um, you know, there was a time in the city when, you know, I think for like 10 years or longer, um, there was a plan to have a park that would have extended from Lake Mary all the way up through Trussell Glen to Diamond.

And I'm just looking at this map and imagining um a park that size, sort of in in the middle of the city.

Um, I think there's you know, a lot of um a lot of uh development that's happened in Dublin planning that's happened in the city that didn't emphasize some of the things that we emphasize now.

So um I really appreciate um um some of the the things that have been lifted up in in this draft guidelines.

Thanks.

Just echoing my fellow commissioners, congratulations.

It's been great work.

Um I also want to do a plus one to um the land use policy.

No, what are we talking about?

Public land policy.

Um we've talked about it a couple times um as Commissioner Aaron's mentioned, and um does seem like this could be a good opportunity to implement that.

So hopefully that's something that we can consider.

Um but I really appreciate all the great work and um just for the public's uh further engagement with the public, which sounds like they have the opportunities to do, especially this month, um, and look forward to seeing the next iteration of the plan.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Look forward to what's next.

Um moving on to our agenda.

Are there any appeals?

No appeals.

Okay.

And commission business.

Um, there's uh approval of the minutes for March 18th.

I move to approve the minutes from March 18th meeting.

Second.

Motion by Commissioner Ahrens and second by Commissioner Robb.

Commissioner Lee.

Yes.

Commissioner Rob.

Yes.

Commissioner Ahrens.

Yes.

Vice Chair Sandoval.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Minutes will be posted to the website as approved.

Any correspondence?

No correspondence to the Secretary.

Any city council actions?

I keep notes and I didn't think to look at them this morning.

I apologize.

If you give me one moment.

I will see if there.

I don't think um SBC.

We talked about SB 79.

I don't believe there's been anything since your last meeting.

That said, when we meet again, I will report everything since March eighteenth.

If that is a deal we can strike.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

And with that, I will adjourn the meeting at 4 04 p.m.

Thank you.

Okay, one thing to her.