OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Oakland Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2026

City CouncilWednesday, April 1, 2026
BodyOakland, California
SessionCity Council
DateWednesday, April 1, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:05:57

Transcript — Verbatim
1:46

We do have promoted parking.

1:47

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

1:51

Thank you.

4:29

Good afternoon, everybody.

4:31

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

4:46

Here.

4:46

Commissioner Maurice Rob.

4:48

Here.

4:48

Commissioner Zorzy Ahrons.

4:50

Here.

4:50

Vice Chair Natalie Sadoval.

4:52

Here.

4:52

You have a quorum.

4:53

Thank you.

4:54

And do we have a director's report today?

4:56

No director's report today.

4:58

An informational report.

5:00

No informational reports today.

5:01

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

5:06

That's correct.

5:07

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

5:14

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

5:17

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

5:21

We had no items signed up.

5:22

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

5:27

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

5:32

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

5:37

Thank you.

5:38

On to commission matters.

5:42

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.

5:55

Right.

5:56

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.

6:07

Okay.

6:07

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

6:23

Okay.

6:24

Thanks.

6:26

Any other commission matters?

6:29

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

6:38

Okay, I have one.

6:40

Um I just curious.

6:42

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.

6:54

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.

7:05

Right.

7:05

I will answer part of your question.

7:07

Unfortunately, not all of it.

7:08

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

7:13

I'm not on that item.

7:15

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

7:18

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

7:26

And that does happen occasionally.

7:28

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

7:32

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.

7:48

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.

7:58

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

8:05

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

8:08

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.

8:27

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

8:30

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.

8:42

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.

8:54

Okay, thank you very much.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use and Zoning█████████████████████████████████████████████54%
Procedural██████████████████21%
Affordable Housing██████7%
Public Engagement█████6%
Public Safety███4%
Transportation Safety██2%
Parks and Recreation██2%
Anti-Poverty██2%
Active Transportation1%
Summary of Proceedings

Oakland Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2026

The Oakland Planning Commission met on April 1, 2026, at 11:00 AM. The meeting was called to order with all four commissioners present (Commissioners Maurice Rob, Zorzy Ahrons, Vice Chair Natalie Sadoval, and one additional commissioner). No director's report, informational reports, or committee reports were given. The chair noted that the April 15 planning commission meeting is canceled, but the residential appeals committee will meet. Commission matters included requests for data on deed-restricted unit rents and vacancies (to be reported in May), discussion of SB 79 where staff and planning commission recommendations differed from council's final decision, and an update on the conversion of 1428 105th Avenue from senior to family affordable housing (code violations resolved).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • 6230 Claremont Avenue Project (Open Forum): Four speakers addressed the commission. Layla Goff (Rockridge resident, steering committee Rockridge Neighbors for Sensible Housing) stated that over 1,100 neighbors signed a petition against the project's height and mass, which she described as fundamentally out of scale with the neighborhood. She requested clarity on the review timeline, including CEQA evaluation and public notice. Kerry Goff (resident) raised legal concerns about the state density bonus law's constitutionality and argued it creates specific adverse impacts on evacuation, emergency vehicle access, and pedestrian safety. Paul Laurie (Rockwell Street resident) highlighted narrow streets and unsafe crosswalks, citing a recent fatal accident near the site, and urged an independent traffic and pedestrian safety analysis. Mary Biagini (60-year resident, employee at St. Paul's Towers) argued that 99 parking spots are inadequate for a luxury senior facility due to staff, service workers, and private caregiver needs.
  • General Plan Update (Public Hearing): Jules Brugier (resident, teacher, coordinator for South Prescott Lower Bottoms Neighbors Association) expressed support for the corridor and neighborhood center emphasis but advocated for more aggressive zoning liberalization, including opt-in zoning, to encourage development and housing.

Commission Matters

  • Data Request: A commissioner requested data on rents and vacancies for deed-restricted units by income (moderate income). Staff confirmed this will be reported as part of the Annual Progress Report (APR) coming to the commission in May.
  • SB 79 and Staff Recommendation: A commissioner asked for clarification on the planning commission's motion regarding SB 79 and staff's differing recommendation to city council. Staff explained that the commission's recommendation was carried forward, and council ultimately made a decision different from both staff and commission recommendations.
  • 1428 105th Avenue Update: Staff provided an update on this property, approved in 2017 as senior affordable housing. The owner converted it to family affordable housing in 2024, permitted by the state. The city opened an enforcement case for code violations, which have been resolved. The project is now operational without active violations.

General Plan Update – Draft Land Use Framework

Staff (Khalila Haynes and Daniel Finley) presented the draft Land Use Framework, the next step from the "Options for How We Stabilize and Grow" report presented last fall. The framework is based on the "City of Neighborhoods" concept, which was the most popular option, and incorporates strategies from other options. Key proposals include creating complete walkable neighborhoods, major centers (Downtown, San Antonio, Fruitvale, Coliseum), increased density along corridors and near BART stations, new technology and research areas, green low-impact industry buffers, a greenway network, and anti-displacement measures. Community engagement reached over 1,300 people directly.

Commissioners discussed several topics:

  • Public Lands Policy: Commissioners Lee and Ahrens stressed the need for a formal public lands disposition policy, noting the draft mentions it only once. Staff noted the Housing Element includes action items on using public lands for affordable housing.
  • Transit Collaboration: Commissioners emphasized close collaboration with AC Transit to align infrastructure and service improvements with land use densities.
  • Noise Element: A commissioner asked about coordination with enforcement staff; staff confirmed ongoing conversations and that the noise element will set high-level policy while planning code addresses specific decibel standards.
  • Trade-offs from Options: Staff explained that Option C (Waterfront District) was not fully carried forward; a new neighborhood center near the waterfront was included instead.
  • Anti-Displacement: Staff referenced the city's anti-displacement framework and ongoing research on green gentrification.
  • Racial Equity: Multiple commissioners praised the framework's continued focus on racial equity despite changing federal environment.

Key Outcomes

  • Public Lands Policy Referral: Commissioners urged that a comprehensive public lands policy be strengthened in the final elements, suggesting ground-leasing models from other cities.
  • General Plan Update Next Steps: The draft framework will be open for public engagement until April 23, 2026. Several community workshops are scheduled in April. Staff will incorporate feedback and produce draft elements for each of the four phase-two elements (LUTE, OSCAR, Noise, Infrastructure/Capital Facilities) in fall 2026.
  • 6230 Claremont Avenue Update: The project (PLN26025) is still in completeness review. If deemed complete, staff will have 60 days to make zoning consistency findings. The project is eligible for staff-level design review, appealable to planning commission.
  • March 18 Minutes Approved: Unanimously approved (4-0).
  • Meeting Adjourned at 4:04 PM.

Meeting Transcript

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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com