Yes, Planning Commission, when the planning commission and their Secretary is ready to get started.

Meanwhile, if you would like to speak on any item on the agenda, including open forum, please submit your speaker card now so we can determine how we will move this forward this meeting forward efficiently.

If you've already filled out your speaker card, we thank you very much.

So we'll take a few more minutes just to um determine how many speakers we have today.

Commissioner Lee.

Chair Rink.

Here.

You have a quorum.

All right, we'll go to commission business and we'll start with agenda discussion.

Um, I'm gonna uh Catherine has a couple of announcements to make, but I wanted to just let everyone know that for today we're gonna do uh one minute per speaker.

We have a big crowd and we have um three major uh items on our agenda today today.

So we have a lot to cover, so we're gonna limit folks to one minute today.

Um Catherine.

Right.

And I am letting you know if you have not already looked at your June 3rd agenda, which is published, uh, you will note when you look at it that your election is scheduled for that day.

So we will be, you will be electing a chair and vice chair uh on June 3rd.

Thank you.

Was that it?

Did you have something else?

Um, I, you know, I wanted to mention that there's an article in now I can't remember if it's in the East Bay Times or OpenSide about Planning Commission.

If people are curious about how the planning commission operates compared to years past, uh there's an interesting uh article for your reading pleasure.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Okay.

Is there a director's report?

No director's report.

Okay.

And so that'll take us to our informational report.

Right.

This is item number one.

Exactly.

It's item number one on your agenda.

And this is an information report to review and monitor the progress made in 2025 to implement Oakland's 2023 to 2031 housing element.

Updated the uh update the general plan and meet the city's share of regional housing needs allocation, otherwise um uh enduringly referred to as the RENA.

Staff will also present supplemental reports on the results of the 2025 ADU survey and a review of deed restricted moderate income rents in Oakland.

And I see that BB is here to initiate the presentation for staff.

Thank you.

Great, thanks, baby.

Okay, and K Top, can we have the presentation?

K Top presentation, please.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm speaking into the mic.

Okay.

Um, hello, I'm Bibi Lagarder.

I am a planner with the planning and building department, and I will be presenting today on the 2025 housing element and general plan annual progress reports.

I'm also joined with by Caleb Smith from the housing uh Oakland HCD, um, and we'll be happy to answer questions after the presentation.

Okay, so the purpose of the general plan and housing element annual progress reports or APRs is to assess the city's progress implementing its general plan and the housing programs committed to in the sixth cycle housing element.

The housing element APR also tracks Oakland's progress meeting its regional housing needs allocation or RENA.

In accordance with Action 5.2.11 of the adopted 2023 to 2031 uh Oakland Housing Element, a public hearing on this report was previously conducted before the ZUC, and additional hearings will be conducted before the community and economic development committee and city council in the coming weeks.

So I'm first going to provide a quick overview of the content reported in the 2025 general plan APR.

Uh the 2025 general plan APR includes updates from staff regarding general plan implementation and update activity that occurred during the count the previous calendar, or sorry, the 2025 calendar year.

Um in 2025, the city conducted extensive community engagement to inform phase two of the general plan update, which is focused on the four elements shown on the slide.

In addition, in 2025, staff also continued working on major long-range planning initiatives to implement the Oakland General Plan.

Uh these are grouped based on the primary uh element that they implement.

Um, however, some may uh impact multiple elements.

Uh and this slide just lists plans and projects that were approved or ongoing in 2025 and that propose amending the general plan uh or general plan land use maps.

Uh so now I'll get into an overview of the content reported in the 2025 housing element APR.

The APR form provided by the state collects information on housing units proposed, entitled, permitted, and completed in the reporting year.

Uh those definitions of each of those mild stones are included on the slide.

Uh 1,007 units were proposed, uh, 1,944 were entitled, 712 were permitted, and 1,391 units were completed.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development uses six categories of affordability for the annual progress report, as I've shown here.

Um, just to note acutely low and extremely low income are were not categories that existed when our or that were um included in our our RENA, and so any uh units include that meet those affordability requirements are counted towards our very low income RENA.

Okay.

So only building permits for the construction of new housing units are counted towards meeting arena.

Building permits ensure that any new construction complies with all health, safety, and building code standards.

14% of Oakland's total RENA has been met in the first three years of this housing element cycle, and at 19% and 25% of RENA respectively, we've been pretty successful at permitting very low and low income units, while production of moderate income units and market rate units is underperformed, with each of those categories only meeting 9% of our arena to date.

Where units are located is also important for understanding the story of housing in Oakland.

We have put together an interactive map and dashboard that includes all this data, and that is linked on this slide and accessible on our website.

The most market rate units permitted in 2025 were located in council district one.

Deed restricted affordable units were concentrated in council districts seven and three.

And I just wanted to note that no deed restricted affordable units were permitted in council districts two, four, five, or six, and ADUs were distributed pretty evenly across the city, ranging from 10% of all permits for ADUs in Council District 3 to 20% in Council District 4.

The state uses a series of opportunity maps developed by the Tax Credit Allocation Committee and California HCD to define areas of low to high opportunity.

These impact funding availability for affordable housing with sites in higher opportunity zones being more competitive for funding.

Most of Oakland's own residential capacity is in the low opportunity zones or sorry, low resource areas, largely because a significant portion of Oakland, including much of downtown, is considered lower resource per TCAC's opportunity map.

And so now I'm just going to give a little overview of how we're doing compared to other Bay Area cities.

Oakland has permitted 14% of its RENA requirement, as I mentioned mentioned previously.

This is roughly average compared to peer cities.

San Jose has permitted 14% of its RENA.

Fremont has permitted 12%, and Sunny Fail has permitted 16% of its required units.

As you can see from the purple bars on this chart, Oakland has permitted a larger share of its very low income and low income RENA than any of the peer cities reviewed.

Oakland's permitting of very low and low income units represents 42% of all low income or below units permitted in Alameda County so far in this housing element cycle.

Studies have suggested that ADUs are a form of affordable by design housing.

And housing element action 3.2.6 monitor affordability of permitted ADUs, committed the city to running two surveys of ADU owners to in order to better understand the on-the-ground affordability of these units.

And given a low response rate, we are still relying on the ADU affordability estimates that were established by the Association of Bay Area Governments, which estimate that ADUs are affordable at 30% to very low income units, 30% to low income units, 30% to moderate income households exceeding the 10% target established by the housing element.

So we are seeing that ADUs are providing affordable housing.

However, we're not, we don't have enough confidence in those results to use them in our in our APRs.

And this just gives kind of a little bit more insight into the affordability levels that we found.

Okay, and that brings us to our moderate income analysis.

So at the request of this commission, we reviewed moderate income rents against market rate rents in Oakland.

For some context, 385 moderate income units have been permitted in Oakland so far in the sixth housing element cycle, of which 206 are deed restricted units and multifamily buildings, and 179 are ADUs based on the Association of Bay Area governments ratio.

In comparison, Oakland has permitted more than 1,900 units affordable to lower income households in the same period.

In addition, Oakland permitted only about 6% of the moderate income units targeted in the previous housing elements cycle, while permitting about 55% of the targeted number of lower income units.

The low number of moderate income units permitted in Oakland was identified as a concern, a concern by state HCD and community members in conversations with staff.

So the goals of the analysis were to compare rent prices at recently completed market rate buildings to moderate income rents across the city, and then to understand vacancy rates in Oakland and how those might be impacting rental prices, and to review how neighboring cities report moderate income units on their housing element APRs.

Moderate income units are included in Oakland's S13 Affordable Housing Combining Zone, which was created as part of this housing element.

And that combining zone allows for bonus height for eligible affordable housing projects.

I also want to note that Oakland HCD does not provide financial support to projects that include moderate income units, and no moderate income units were permitted in 2025.

So the left side of the screen shows the one bedroom moderate income rent limit, which is the red line on this that chart, compared to the citywide one-bedroom rents from 2016 through 2025.

The right-hand graph shows the same information for two bedroom units.

And we can see from these graphs that moderate income rents have increased over the past 10 years while citywide rents have stayed relatively stable.

However, in 2016 to 2017, moderate income rents for one bedroom units were much closer to the citywide rent.

And the citywide rent actually exceeded moderate income rent for two bedroom units in those two years.

Since Larina and Oakland's S13 zone apply only to units in new buildings, it makes sense to look at the rents charged at recently completed units.

We identified 12 fully market rate buildings completed in the past 10 years to better understand how moderate income rents compared to the rents charged at these units.

So at studio apartments, the moderate income rent remained below the median rent until mid-2020.

And since then, the median market rate rent has remained roughly between $2,000 and $2,500, while the moderate income rent has risen steadily to just over $3,000.

Similar to studio apartments for one-bedroom units, we saw a drop in median rent charged in mid-2020, at which point the moderate income rent limit rose above the median market rate rent at those buildings.

And finally, for two bedroom market rate units, we also see a drop in price in mid-2020.

However, the median rent at these units remained above the moderate income rent until mid-2023.

So while we can see that Oakland's market is not as competitive as it was in 2016, this could well change in the near future.

Rents in neighboring cities, including San Francisco, are rising and are already at a higher point than they are in Oakland.

As you can see from this chart, which shows vacancy rates at multifamily units in the city, there's a spike in multifamily unit vacancies from around 2020 to 2021.

This is a period when many of the uh market rate units permitted in the late 2010s, which there's a huge spike at that point, came online, as well as a population flux spurred by the onset of the pandemic in 2020.

The vacancy rate has remained around 7% since then, with a small spike to almost 8% in late 2024.

A healthy vacancy rate is often understood to be somewhere around 5%.

And taken together the rent data that we have from the new market rate buildings and this vacancy rate data suggests that should production remain low while rents in neighboring cities increase, we could see a rise in uh rental prices in Oakland in the coming years as demand grows and vacancy shrinks.

Okay, and then just to get into how we count our moderate income units.

Um the state allows jurisdictions to count non-deed restricted units towards their arena targets based on market studies or other documentation of rents charged.

And based on a review of 2025 APRs, Alameda, Berkeley, Fremont, Oakland, and Pleasanton and Sunnyvale only count deed restricted moderate income units towards their moderate income RENA target.

San Jose does count non-deed restricted units towards its moderate income RENA target based on an analysis of current and projected unit data from CoSTAR.

Um San Jose has reported more than double the progress towards their moderate income unit target compared to Oakland, Fremont or Sunnyvale, as you can see here.

San Jose's approach to reporting non-ded restricted moderate income units does not resolve staff's concern that no protections exist to retain the reported affordability levels of these units should market conditions change.

And further internal discussions between the Department of Planning and Building, Oakland HCD, and the City Administrator's Office would be needed to assess the practicality and benefits and risks of a of adopting uh a reporting strategy similar to San Jose's.

And that is my presentation, so thank you.

Happy to take questions.

Well, thank you.

That was a lot to cover in 31 slides.

So appreciate that.

I will open it up for questions.

I think I know who may have some, but we can who wants to go first.

Commissioner Aaron?

Sure, I can start things off.

Thank you.

Um thanks to staff for putting this together.

I requested this information 11 months ago, and so I'm happy that we have it now today to review finally.

And thank you also for the updates you made since the zoning update committee.

I did notice some new information in the staff report, so thank you for that.

Um, yeah, I do have a number of questions.

I guess I'll just start from the beginning.

So you shared a little bit in the presentation about the how you chose the 12 new buildings that they were fully market rate.

But in the staff report, you shared that there were 12,000 market rate units that opened in the last five years in Oakland.

And so I'm wondering out of those 12,000, how you just chose those 12 buildings more specifically.

Um, sure.

So I chose those by looking, it was based on what data we have access to, and so I was using CoStar, and um we looked at the arena from the previous housing elements cycle, and I identified buildings that came online in the past 10 years that were 100% market rate because we wanted to make sure that we were controlling for any uh deed restricted units that might be in a building, and so I wanted to make sure that we were only counting those buildings that only had market rate units.

I shared a larger list with my colleague who actually has the access to CoSTAR because I don't have that access, and these 12 buildings were the buildings that we were able to find that data on.

And so that that is how it was narrowed down.

So there wasn't information from any other buildings that met the criteria of being fully market rate in those years.

Yes.

Okay.

Can you share a little bit more about the methodology for table One?

Um that's looking at the incomes.

So I read in the report that you use 30% of 110% AMI.

Did this come from TCAC?

Where did the rent numbers come from?

So I looked at um Alameda or sorry.

I have the we use the definition from uh code section 50053B, um, which is one of the methodologies for calculating moderate income rents.

Um and I used the published the HCD published income limits um for a family of four from each year that we looked at, um, and I calculated based on that.

Um, Alameda HCD, Alameda County or California HCD.

Okay.

Um, can you share why you chose to use 30% of 110% AMI when the policy allows up to 120% AMI?

Do you have yeah?

Um this was I believe uh in alignment.

Can you please introduce yourself?

Sorry.

Uh Cable Smith, senior advisor for the city of Oakland's housing community development department.

Um there is the typical standard for government restricted restricted affordable housing is the actual rent charge in moderate income units is 30% of the 110% standard, even though moderate income from an income qualification perspective is up to 120% of area median income.

Um I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the origins of this, you could say quirk in how this is organized.

However, this is a standard statewide practice uh for these units.

Again, we as a city do not directly fund moderate income units.

We only fund units that are restricted to 80% of area median income or lower.

Um, however, this would be in line with uh standard best practices.

And I can also just add I did reach out to state HCD to get confirmation of how moderate income rents are calculated, and this was one of the formulas that they provided me with.

Okay.

I'm yeah, I'm not familiar with that.

I I mean part of the purpose of the study was to evaluate the Oakland policy, which allows up to 120% AMI.

So I was thinking that that would be the top limit that you would use for the rent analysis.

Um, I believe that um any deed-restricted moderate income unit that did exist in Oakland would be um the rents would be calculated based on this formula.

Um so that that is my understanding of how how moderate income rents are calculated.

Yeah, that's not my understanding.

Um, are developers charging rent at the 120% level or is it at the 100?

Are they lowering it to the 110%?

I don't know.

Uh from what we understand, um the typical practice we've seen is that recently the rents in those units have typically been based on market conditions rather than based on the maximum allowable rent.

Um so we don't have necessarily detailed up to the date information on every single unit, because we don't have like monthly reporting requirements or anything at that frequency.

However, our understanding is that uh the typical prevailing market rent as you've seen in the information provided is below the threshold standard.

So typically uh the developers are setting the rents based on what they think is viable and supported by the current market conditions.

Right, that's what we're here to evaluate.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Um, is this a time for comments or just well, I'll see if anyone else has any questions.

Oh, okay.

So let's keep it to questions and then we'll uh switch to comments.

Okay, thanks.

Um so on page eight of the amend um attachment looking at the I think it was in the presentation too.

Um I'm just wondering why the data didn't go all the way back to 2016.

Um, because for the market rate buildings, I think the first available data for the market rate rents in those graphs was like quarter three of 2017.

So that's based on when the buildings came online.

Um, so the way that I I narrowed down the buildings I looked at was anything that was included in our APR um in the fifth cycle, I believe.

Um, however, because our APR is focused on, I wasn't looking at completions, I was looking at permitted units.

And so that graph just shows when units actually came online and were available available to rent.

And I would also would note that many of the buildings actually had higher rental prices projected before they were completed.

And then we see a drop.

So these are the actual uh listed prices, as far as I can tell from the coaster data.

Okay.

So because there was only one building in the 12 that was online in 2017, the rents that are in that graph are just from one building.

Yes, that's okay.

So it's quite a small sample size.

And of course, they're gonna rent at what the market is.

So there's some understanding that you know that rent could be reflective of other buildings, but it's just one building, and then 2018 is like two buildings, and then so um in looking at the rents in the market rate buildings.

Did you account for incentives that developers offered like a number of three months free rent or reduced rent for the first 12 months?

We did not account for that.

Um we did not because there was not a consistent way for us to include that.

Um so we used just the the list price that was provided in CoStar.

Okay, so tenants could be paying lower rent or have had some rents free based on developer incentives for renters, but that's not reflected in the data.

Okay, and then did you consider amenity fees that developers charge tenants who are in non-market rate units?

I guess they were all market rate units.

They were all markets.

Okay, and then um I just have a couple more questions.

Thank you for answering my questions.

Um so um I think you I heard in your presentation that preservation units don't count for RENA, but I thought that they could preservation units do not currently count towards the RENA, no.

In Oak.

But in the future, in the future, they um there are law changes that yes, because AB 670 starting April 1st next year will allow for the preservation units to be counted, and then AB 726 um allows for deed restricted units that undergo major rehab to be able to be counted.

So I'll look for that next year.

Um, but I'm just trying to understand the universe of units that we mark as affordable, and that you know there are some preservation units that in the future will be able to count for that.

And then just confirming, I thought that we are counting ADU units towards RENA, is that correct?

We are counting ADU towards yes.

My I think my point was just that the ADUs included the moderate income ADUs are based on that um association of barrier governments ratio, they are not actually deed restricted and they're not, you know, specifically each unit that we list as moderate income in the APR is not necessarily actually a moderate income unit.

Right.

Yes, I work at MTC, I'm familiar with the methodology for that.

But okay, I just wanted to confirm.

Okay, while I have the mic, let me just skim through my questions.

I think that's it, thank you for for me for my questions.

Of course.

Um, any other questions?

And I do believe we have one speaker, so I'll call for public comment, but any other questions?

Commissioner Lee.

Um so there's been about half a dozen or or more specific plans adopted in the last 10 or 15 years, and they had affordable housing goals associated with them, usually 15%.

Do we have any data on progress towards those goals within those areas?

That's not something we track as part of the annual progress report.

Um, I'm not aware of any, I'm not aware of any tracking of that that um I can speak to.

Okay.

Um so and um, so just to put in perspective, the moderate income, I think it's it's like 135 to 192,000 a year is the is the the category.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

The uh moderate income household is 135, 192,000 a year about thereabouts.

Um I don't have the I unfortunately do not have the uh income in front of me.

That's okay.

Um Yeah, I mean I think uh I think generally the percentage of households who are rent burdened in this category is is pretty low, it's like in the single digits.

Um but there is they have a big obstacle around purchasing the first home.

And so related to that, um, the I was wondering about the housing element rezoning of single to two to four units, um, whether that's resulted uh the rezoning in the housing element of the single family to two to four units, whether that's resulted in more housing production and what type of housing has been produced.

Is that something that has been looked at?

We haven't looked to see where in areas where those rezonings happened, what the new production looks like.

Um yeah, I'm gonna let Laura respond to that.

Um yeah, so I would say it would it would be a little early.

Sorry, Laura Kaminsky, strategic planning manager.

Um I would say it would be a little early to see that because we just passed that those zoning changes.

I think it was I don't know, six or eight months ago, and and they'd had to first go through the permitting entitlement process and then before they would go into the building permit process.

So, but that is something that we can look at and certainly look at, you know, because that is one of the categories that is um counted in the APR is the two to four unit category, and typically we've had very low production in that area, so that is something we can look at and and get back to you and track and see whether we are seeing an increase in that or not.

Okay.

Thanks.

And you know, I have I am very interested uh in this the issue of the moderate income housing.

Um I did look at the the 12 properties that are selected.

I think the criteria that you chose ended up um selecting some pretty high end properties.

They have they all have very um sort of luxurious amenities.

Um I did see that four of them were completed in 2020.

So um I guess that would mean that for the entire time they've existed their the mod they their rent was below the moderate income limit, if I'm understanding that correctly.

And then there's so like like the three that were completed in 2019, they were the rent was above the moderate income limit for one year, maybe and then etc.

The median rent of the buildings that were renting in each year was below the moderate income limit for any buildings, yeah.

So after 2020, yes.

Yeah.

And I saw in a staff report that the average rent increased in Oakland 75 dollars year over year.

So and uh the moderate income limit increased more than that year over year.

So so that would mean that the gap between the moderate income limit and the average rent is that is increasing.

It has increased over the period that I looked at, yes.

Yeah.

And San Francisco rent average rent, I I saw was three thousand.

Um it was actually slightly below the moderate income rent for a studio in Oakland.

So if uh if average Oakland rent were to jump up to San Francisco today, it would actually be still below the the moderate income limit for a studio apartment in Oakland.

Is that my understanding that correctly?

Um I believe so.

I'm sorry I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but um, yes.

Yeah, I think that one thing that w we were trying to look at again is when you're talking about median, but when you're looking at what is being constructed new only, and we didn't look at that analysis in San Francisco, but if you look at the new buildings and what's coming online, I would imagine those rents would be higher than what the median is.

And so I think the concern we have is when we're talking about the annual progress report, you're talking about new buildings that are being constructed now and what are their rents when they they are built and they come online, and typically they are much higher than other rents of existing buildings or older stock.

So you can't really just go by the median when you're talking about what rents are these new units going to be at.

Right.

I mean, these are new buildings that were permitted at the peak of the of the building boom that are 100% market rate and are all very high end.

Is the 12 that you selected?

Yes.

Also, if I may, um a small piece of important context is that uh based on our recent history, there's been very few moderate income units that have been created as part of the affordable housing impact fee on site option.

Um our data suggests there's only 28 units that fits under that category.

Um by far to the extent there are any kind of deed-restricted moderate income units in Oakland, those tend to be a product of density bonus.

Um, so we understand that that is generally controlled by state law.

Um so I think it's important for us to note that when it comes to discussions about impact free compliance and inclusionary options, it's very rare for people to take the moderate income route.

All right, those are my questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Randolph.

Yeah, thank you so much for this this report.

Definitely very helpful.

Um, kind of a snapshot of where we are.

I do have a couple questions and then uh I guess maybe some comments as well.

Um, given that affordable um projects are carrying a disproportionate share of production, uh, what risks does staff or you see if measure you and similar funding um sources are not renewed or replaced in the future.

Sure.

Uh through the chair to Commissioner Randolph, um, that's an excellent question.

Uh we have had a lot of success with Measure U recently.

Um actually later this week, our or potentially next week, our department's planning on putting out our annual impact report.

I think you heard about uh the success in terms of affordable housing completions uh this past year.

We have over a thousand affordable housing units that are under construction or will start construction this year.

So there is a very robust pipeline, including over 600 deeply affordable permit supportive housing units for our unhoused neighbors that are going to be moving forward in the near future.

But after that, there is indeed a potential funding gap once measure you've uh has finally been spent down.

So there's been a lot of discussions about there potentially being a regional housing bond in 2028.

Um at some point there may be some form of infrastructure bond successor.

But we are very mindful that although we've had a lot of success with Measure U, and just earlier this week, we got the data from Alameda County that there's been a 20% drop in the census of uh homelessness in Oakland based on the point-in-time count, which was a mixture of the city's interim investments as well as permanent permanent investments and investments in homelessness prevention.

But to sustain that progress, it will require additional resources to continue to produce uh permanent exits.

So that's a very good point indeed.

Um I guess I can wait for the progress report, but um it would be great maybe to share that with the commission once you have it if possible.

Um how much is um left in Measure U and can be used to drive more production?

When do you think it's gonna be spent?

Hello, Emily Weinstein, Director of Housing and Community Development.

Um so we have spent 248 million dollars of the 350 million dollars of Measure U.

Uh we would have to wait for the third tranche of measure U to be sold, but based on our strategic action plan, which drives the investments that we make, we probably only have about maybe $50 million max that would go towards new construction.

Um we have based on the uh our equity investment framework, a significant portion of the third tranche will go to our preservation or acquisition program, and some would be going to our portfolio rehab.

Of course, portfolio rehab won't end up in the arena, and only a component of our acquisition would.

So we are going to be seeing, you know, we have this robust pipeline.

Uh, like Caleb said, we have about a thousand to six hundred units that will be under construction and then coming online over the next two years or so.

All of measure you will be spent down by 2030.

Um, but we will be seeing a cliff in terms of the number of units produced unless we have another large general obligation bond.

And rehab is important because it keeps people in housing rather than forcing them out of housing because you don't have to close or abandon the units.

Portfolio rehab is important.

We just did a survey of our entire portfolio.

We have about 9,500 units in our portfolio.

None, uh I can't remember the percentages, but almost none of them have done any significant um investment in their major systems.

Some of these projects are, you know, decades old.

Yeah.

And so a lot of the projects will be probably going after we have tax credits in 2027, and we're trying to line those projects up.

We have we'll have a NOFA for about $7 million of Tranch 2 of Measure U in end of summer, hopefully early fall, so that we can line projects up for tax credits in 2027.

Good.

That's great news.

Um the report notes that ADU permits fell below 200 for the first time, this housing element cycle.

Do you see this as a blip tied to interest rates and overall construction costs or is it an early warning that we may need additional ADU focused implementation actions?

Um I think it's most likely due to high construction costs and high interest rates.

Um we don't have you know direct input from ADU owners to back that up, but as far as we can tell it is part of this larger, you know, the larger headwinds uh for construction.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, I know that the commission has talked a lot about AD use um over the last couple meetings and and and cycles.

Um, and I like when items seem to overlap or tie together.

Uh, how do the um ADU volumes in 2025 relate to the ADU related code changes that we are seeing in item three tonight?

And do you anticipate that those changes will help stabilize or grow ADU production of pass, or is it mostly just to clean up in alignment with the state law?

Um yeah, the yeah, the changes that are on the af this afternoon on the for ADU are just really clean up items uh resulting from a letter that we got from the state HCD basically saying that our recent code changes, there was a few things that they said were needed to be tweaked to be what they said alignment with what state law was saying, which is often, as we know, very confusing.

Okay.

Well, it's I think it's been very, very exciting that Oakland has been a regional leader in RENA performance so far, and something that I and the commissioner thing have acknowledged over the years.

Um, but the data that you presented, I do believe could be an early warning sign that structural headwinds like financing construction costs, ADU softening could put that trajectory at risk if the city does not actively respond in one way or another.

Um looking at your report, it looks like completion in 2025 dropped to 1391 units, the lowest since at least 2018, and my calculations 38% below 2024, with an actual 66% decline from 20 from the 2021 peak, um, showing that overall delivery has kind of something almost lost momentum.

Um giving um giving the slowdown in completions and the reliance on subsidized projects with Measure U and others, uh, what specific actions in 2026 do you see a most critical in keeping the city on track for our arena obligations?

Are we heavily reliant on this financial climate on outside financing, or are there other tools that the commission and the city could do?

Um, so I think you know, things we have been doing already is we've been working on trying to streamline as much as possible the approval process.

These are the things that we as a city have the most control over is trying to reduce those costs for developers because ultimately we're talking about cost, you know, if we can make the process faster, the you know, having uh shorter carrying cost for loans and so forth will help reduce those costs.

Um we've also, which we've already done with our impact fees was we change when you pay the impact fees for developers, so it's now at the certificate of occupancy, which also helps reduce the carrying costs for loans um for for developers as well.

And we've also um eliminated the affordable housing impact fee for um the smaller projects of the two to four units in order to try to further incentivize those because the thinking is that um the smaller units don't need the same kind of financing mechanisms that the larger units uh do your larger um apartment buildings do.

And so trying to see if we can get more of those smaller units, you know, some of the success we've had for ADUs to also try to get more of those in these two to four unit projects and a lot of the zoning changes also made that easier be by allowing higher densities of these where we before only allowed a single family home on most properties and now basically almost all uh properties allow two to four units we are looking also with our general plan to further with the land use and transportation to further allow uh more densities on some of these smaller properties so the idea again of trying to allow for some of these more even maybe up to 10 plexus and so forth on some of these smaller lots in order to try to have more infill development and not be relying you know entirely on these much larger multifamily projects that really need this a lot of financing and for them to be approved and also are often affected by the you know especially high rises with the steel construction is is really expensive right now so trying to look at you know other types of you know different um uh levels of of development so not just all higher uh high rise development but lower and mid-rise development as well and you know the state seems like they they are looking at some things I think I can't remember the the one of the new Senate bills is looking at a potential idea of a downtown um sort of like SB 79 in a way before the the downtown regional zone area and what the one of the things they've talked about is pro potentially providing um some loans um lower cost loans I think from the the state government to try to help those um developments actually that are high rise developments and so forth be built in downtowns so that could be a potential way that might be coming from the state to help with the financing aspect.

Would that potentially include conversion from office to housing?

Uh yes that could also thank you so much.

Emily Weinstein Director of housing and community development I just want to add to that I mean I think part of the success that we've seen in Oakland over the last eight years was the huge uh delivery of market rate units and so no matter what there's going to be a time for absorption where you're seeing kind of the rise of other cities now is because they had no construction happening during COVID whereas Oakland maintained that construction so I think we're gonna see a Peter off there's no way to get around that that's just the regular cycles of of construction.

Where you're seeing some other cities also start to perform well in RENA it's because they are subsidizing those moderate income like in San Jose right now they're putting in shallow subsidies for people between 80 to 120 and we made the decision as the housing department that we are only subsidizing the deeply affordable units and our equity investment framework will continue to target those units but that means that then they're very expensive units and that's where we're putting our city resources so it's just a matter of trade-offs but I don't think anybody thinks that we can meet Arena targets those are unfunded mandates and it just is what it is when we're working in the larger housing uh market.

Vice chair do you have any questions?

No okay great so let's go to public comment.

Thank you all so much.

We have one speaker James do you want to come to the front?

And a reminder that all public speaking today will be limited to one minute for the chair.

Thank you.

And please state your full name for the record thank you.

Yes uh James Van with the Oakland uh tenants union um according to the HUD standards uh family of four can make about 130 thousand dollars a year and still be considered uh affordable uh eligible for affordable housing uh I read someplace recently that the income for family of four average income family of four below MacArthur is about 47 thousand a year and uh my question is how does the housing element report and the studies uh reflect on that category of residents, a large share of residents, much below the HUS standards.

How is that reflected in the in the reports?

With the production of housing and with people if we are able to afford uh housing in the categories that don't exceed 30% of their income.

How is that reflected in the report?

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Do we want to go to comments?

I saw I I know you almost you almost made me hit the mic button.

Um okay, who wants to start?

All right, Commissioner Aaron's.

Thank you.

So again, my thanks to the staff um for this information.

Um I so basically for the last six years since 2020, except for the two bedroom apartments, the um moderate income rent, even though it was calculated at 30% of the 110% was higher than the market rate rents, and what I'm hearing from staff is wanting to have this, you know, policy for the long run over the course of ups and downs.

But a lot has changed in the last six years, and the city has updated a lot of its policies and a lot of its um planning code, like we adopted the housing element in 2023 as part of the general plan update, the first phase.

We adopted the downtown Oakland specific plan.

We as a city have made changes to our policies and to our planning code um, you know, over the last six years, and six years, you know, is is a significant um amount of time.

I feel like the what would have helped me in the attachment is just having more information on the methodology, which is why I asked in the um question portion because I just wasn't clear where the numbers were coming from, how the buildings were chosen, um, and it would have been more helpful.

I mean, you explained it now, but while I was reading the report just to know um more about the decisions that you made.

So I think looking at the data over the last six years, what we can say is that moderate income units aren't really serving people right now, and the city's saying, oh, they might in the future, but I really want us to be focusing our policies on home health aids and barbers and folks who need housing now, and we know that those folks need housing now.

And I know the HCD has been focusing on 80% and below, and and that's super rad.

I love that.

You all are kicking butt.

I was happy to see the Oakland site article about the decrease in homelessness and all of the units that are coming online.

I I'm just looking for a little more um consistency, I think, between the planning code and some of the the city's other initiatives.

Um I think the other big thing for me right now is I feel like we're leaving credit on the table.

We're leaving recognition on the table when Oakland is producing so much and has produced so much that we're not actually counting units that we could be counting, and I'll come back to that in a little bit.

But um, like you shared during your comments that it's rare for developers to be taking the moderate income route, and we know that developers are lowering their rent because they can't rent at that high level.

So these are these are things that are still concerning to me, um, even after reading the report.

Um, and as I've shared before, our comparable cities, you know, San Jose, Fremont, Sunnyvale, Berkeley.

They don't have a moderate income only category for their on-site affordable housing.

They do have moderate as part of a combination, which now we have in Oakland as well.

Um, but it is not a good public policy to allow developers to build only moderate units on site and meet their affordable housing credit or requirement.

That is just not a good use of our regulatory capture as a city, and that's why I wanted um to have this analysis.

So a couple other comments or a few other comments about the report.

Thank you for including the full TCAC map.

Um, I know we discussed that during the zoning update committee.

Um, and thank you for putting in the charts about um permitted units in the different resource areas, as well as by council district.

So just noting that there were no deed restricted units in high or high resource areas.

I know that that's because some of the high and high resource areas are restricted because of high being in high fire zones, but there are lots of parcels that could meet that in those areas.

And that 66% of the deed restricted units were in district seven, and 22% were in district three.

So 88% of our deed restricted units were in West Oakland or Deep East Oakland.

And I have a lot of concerns about how we're with that information going to be able to affirmatively further fair housing.

We need to be building deed restricted units in high and highest resource areas in council districts that are close to transit and other amenities.

So yeah, I just want us to be able to prioritize that in some way.

I know that the city is very dependent on what developers bring forward.

You don't necessarily have a pipeline in higher high resource areas, but I would like to see us grow in that area.

I know that you hired an asset manager somewhat recently, so hopefully in the future you'll be able to provide the data on the vacancy and the deed restricted units.

Okay, two more big things.

The San Jose example.

So I felt like your reasoning was a little unsatisfactory, was sort of like we don't like that San Jose is counting non-deed restricted units.

As you've shown in the staff report, San Jose has permitted over 20% of the arena allocation for moderate income units.

This is what I'm talking about when we're leaving credit on the table.

Like if we want to meet or get close to meeting, you know, our RENA goals, we should be counting every unit that we can because Oakland has built so much.

And the city is, you know, moving forward with the ABAG methodology for counting ADUs for RENA, even though those are not deed restricted.

So I'm looking for like some consistency here.

You're counting the non-deed restricted units that are ADUs, even though 55% of the ADUs aren't charging rent based on your survey, but you don't want to pursue a methodology to count non-deed restricted units in market rate buildings like San Jose is doing.

So I feel like there's kind of a little bit of an inconsistency here.

And again, my motivation is trying to get us to take as much credit for the housing that we have, and that we've done a really good job of building in a lot of ways.

So I'd like the staff to look into that a little bit more.

I know in the staff report you said it's going to take coordination with a bunch of different departments, but I'm hoping that we can move forward in that area.

And then, yeah, again on the ADU piece, like I I was concerned that the survey data, I know the sample size was low, but that 55% of the ADUs aren't charging rent, but then we're counting those for RENA based on the A bag methodology.

So again, I just want some consistency there.

The last thing I'll say is Laura had mentioned the changes to the impact fees about deferring payment till certificate of occupancy and eliminating the fees for the two to four units.

When other density changes come back to us for the loot, I would like to see an evaluation of those policies before I can make decisions about doing changes for other densities because the whole point was that that would help to spark development, um reduce barriers for developers, and it would be good to see an evaluation of that, if possible.

I know that sometimes things take time, but um I'm yeah, very focused on on the impact fees and and would like a little bit more information about about how they're going.

So I know that um on this body we can't make changes to how the impact fees work.

Um but again, I I feel like uh we are um there's a little bit of a misalignment in our stated policy goals and some of our other programs and and continuing to allow to have that moderate income only option for developers for on-site units.

They're just not charging um rents at that level, and they shouldn't be getting credit for building affordable units that are chart are being rented at market rate, Commissioner Lee.

Um yeah, thanks to the staff uh for putting this together.

Um and um, you know, I think uh reducing barriers to to developing housing is all well and good.

I think that overall though um, you know, the biggest reason why housing doesn't get built is because it is a commodity and it is dependent on things like financing costs and construction costs and macroeconomic factors that are beyond our control.

So, you know, I think um when we're reducing barriers, we also have to be careful about how it impacts in other areas.

Um, you know, when we make uh make concessions around things like impact fees that affects um the development of affordable housing, which is something that that is successful currently.

And I feel like um, you know, this this data around um median income rent limits uh versus market rate rent, which um is an issue that has been coming up for for over a year now, um, and now we we have data to see, and it's it's it's pretty glaring um that you know average rent has been um below the moderate income limit for over a decade now.

Um, would need to increase by something like 70% in a single year um to for it for the moderate income limit to be meaningful.

Um I mean it's lower for the newly built, you know, high-end fully market rate housing that was um you know uh permitted at the peak of the boom, the gap is something like 40 percent.

Um but you know these gaps are are growing each year because the it the income limit is growing faster than the rent uh currently and um you know in the future uh you know that that market uh rent may exceed the moderate income limit um at some point.

Um but the heart of the issue is that in um in the coming years and um in in the recent years um the moderate income restriction on housing units basically has no public benefit, but there are public concessions available um is in particular impact fee waivers and also density bonuses and some other things.

But I think that this is a a really glaring um glaring data that that we can't ignore.

And you know, at the same time, you know, um this kind of policy change would require city council action, but I think that we could make as a commission um a recommendation that this issue be addressed.

Um I don't know maybe as we could agendize like a resolution or I don't know what the best path is, but I think to fulfill our duties as an oversight body, we we should uh make some kind of um recommendation on on this issue.

Um I would support um some kind of change to the requirement that uh um that constructing only moderate income units um wouldn't be sufficient to qualify for for some of these concessions.

Um we could also pair the moderate income restriction with requirement that you know if the moderate income that if the market rent is below the moderate income limit that they're that there's that the rent still needs to be below market by some percentage.

Um so I'd be curious if other commissioners are or what appetite there is for either of those kinds of recommendations.

Go ahead, Commissioner Aaron's.

Thank you.

Uh yes, I would be interested in making a recommendation.

I I'm just trying to kind of figure out what how what we're doing today sort of fits in with sort of the history of the buildings that we were analyzing, because they these most of these buildings, I don't I don't know the percentage, but I just know offhand that a handful of them were all entitled prior to the affordable housing fee, and that's why they are all market rate.

And I I don't know now that we have since enacted either the impact fees or or more robust um affordable housing rules.

If we would see a building come through now that would be all market rate, and I don't think that I don't think that we would just as a practical matter, right?

Because you're either gonna do you're gonna have a requirement to satisfy the affordable obligation, and or also use state density bonus.

So I just I don't I don't know if we need a new policy because I don't think we're gonna see this kind of situation happen again, having been part of it as a as a uh land use lawyer when it was all happening, and there was a big rush to to get all of these buildings done around the Broadway Beldez uh area and in particular.

Um so I don't know if we're gonna see a boon like that if if ever again.

So that's uh this is my two cents from a practical standpoint.

Yeah, through through the chair, that's helpful.

I think that um what uh Commissioner Lee and I are focusing on is our impact fee schedule that currently exists.

That would apply.

It's not I agree that we're maybe not seeing fully market rate buildings, it's about um the percentage requirements for developers when they're building on-site units um and making a change to to that impact fee schedule that was adopted by the council last summer.

Okay, no, thanks for that.

Commissioner Randall.

Yeah, I would be supportive of figuring out that as well.

We would love to see what that might look like.

Because I think this is just a report, so there's not really any action or recommendation that we can tie to this presentation today, I believe.

So I don't know where that would come up in the future, either through resolution, I don't know if the commission can just do resolutions, but or if there's has to be tied to an additional future change or it would I mean maybe someone at the staff level can correct me, but I mean I think we can maybe provide guidance, but we're not creating policy, um, and if there is a something that's coming forward that we could attach something to a resolution that we adopt, maybe that's the way to do it.

Um I don't know if there's anything sort of in the pipeline that would fit that description, but maybe that's the best way to do it, or you guys just take this under advisement today and we try to figure out the next step.

Thank you.

Yes, through the chair.

I think you know, uh, I've been trying to advise on this for 11 months now, and I'm really you know thankful that we have the report and this is a data informed discussion that I wanted to have.

And so I I think I'm looking for something that is maybe uh a little stronger than advisement because and maybe that's not possible through this body.

Um, but you know, that's why I was curious about when um the impact fees would come to the council again, um, and if that's not scheduled, you know, um maybe trying to figure out figure out a way to continue this conversation because I just want us to be in alignment with our pure cities about the percentages or the combinations that we require for on-site um to better help us you know meet our goals.

Um I mean I would add through the chair is that if we compare ourselves to pure cities, we're way underperforming on moderate compared to our other cities.

So I think they're also there's not necessarily a problem to solve in this situation because we are having so few moderate and a lot of times when we have the moderate, they are actually being paired with other affordability levels when they do happen.

Because what happens is somebody who is providing extremely low or very low housing has to help subsidize that by having some moderate affordable units.

So if you actually look at some of the ways some of the developments have of the moderate that have been produced, they are combined with very low units as well.

And that's actually exactly what the S13 uh does that we did in the planning code.

So it is a requirement that you provide 20% very low and 20% moderate.

And the idea that's a 40% requirement of affordable.

So if a market rate developer is trying to build 40% affordable, they're gonna need to build some of that as moderate.

Otherwise, it's not gonna pencil out for them.

So that so that is a way to try to incentivize moderate, but still providing very low as well.

Um we um and I think also we've heard when we we had our um part of our impact fee analysis discussion that we worked with our with Linda Houseworth with House Reth economics and the analysis that she did, and also working with um meeting with different uh market or developers and some of the developers actually said that the only way they're able to even produce housing in this market right now is by providing some moderate affordable, otherwise the the housing wouldn't even be built at all.

So that is also a concern that if we um that could actually reduce our overall arena even more than it is now because that's actually something that's helping some developers produce housing.

Right.

So what but what I'm saying is not about eliminating moderate income deed restricted units, it's about saying that we will not have that as the only category.

So we have a combination.

I'm happy to hear that there's a 20% and the 20%.

So I'm I'm it sounds like that.

Um I'm not saying to eliminate that as an option.

We do need it to meet our arena goals.

I'm just saying that we should be focusing our um regulatory power as a city on these on the very low income and low income units, and that if we want to count moderate income units towards RENA, then let's explore what San Jose did to count the non-deed restricted units.

Um, you know, I I want us to get credit for the units that we have, and if other cities are counting non-deed restricted units, you know, we're counting non-deed restricted units as ADUs and 55% of those in the survey aren't charging rent.

I mean, there's just not consistency between how we're counting non-deed restricted units.

So I this is you know, I think we just have a difference of opinion here, but I'm sharing as a planning commissioner, supported by some of my colleagues, that I I want us to be getting credit for the units that we have, and I want us to be focusing, um, yeah, the power that we have as a city on making sure that they're we're building units, which we're doing a lot of for people that that really need them.

Um yeah, so I say for the the ADUs is a different, um, as they are different than the actual when you're talking about buildings and apartment buildings, because the ADUs, we actually, when we survey them, we do see what their actual rents are, and even the ones that are coming on new are rented at these rents.

Um, and so I think that is a more of a unique thing than we're talking about in market rate buildings, um so we do see a difference in those, and that's also something that the state has sanctioned where they actually previously did not sanction that we were not able to count ADUs at all as affordable, and that's something that's new, but that's something that they have sanctioned for us.

And I think with um, in addition, when we're looking at the moderate, and you know, I think the concern again that we have is that they're not deed restricted.

Also, when you're talking about going forward, and you're also not even looking at the income level of the people who are living in those units either.

So there's also that concern is that they may be moderate, but the people who are living in them may be making much higher income levels, so so that is another reason for having deed restricted moderate units.

Right, but we the ADUs, we don't know the income of the people that are living in the ADUs either.

That that's just a proxy based on the ABAG methodology for the affordability of the unit.

But someone who's making $200,000 dollars could be living in an ADU paying a thousand dollars saying that that's an affordable unit, is an affordable unit because the rent is low.

But like I'm I'm yeah, I'm trying to point out that there if you're gonna say, oh, we don't know the income of the people in the non-deed restricted units, we don't know the income of the people in the ADUs either.

And so that's why I'm trying to say, like I'd like a little more consistency between those two things.

And if San Jose is doing it, then the state must have said, okay, you can do it based on the methodology they provided using COSTAR data.

So I'd you know I I want us to get credit for the the units that we have.

Um yes.

Thank you.

Uh through the chair to the commissioner, you know, I think there's a lot of complicated issues.

Some of this includes you know modeling questions about forecasting the future of rent trends in Oakland, which is difficult and reasonable analysts can disagree on these things sometimes.

Um, however, I also just want to uh reiterate that since this has become a compliance option for the affordable housing impact fee.

There's only been 28 units that have been restricted under this moderate income category, and as was touched on recently, um the incentives that are available under state density bonus law are so attractive that we anticipate that will continue to be uh a major tool that projects will continue to do, and there is as part of a range of options uh a moderate income option is part of the state density bonus law.

So um the question about whether moderate income units should be part of the affordable housing impact fee schedule is something my department doesn't have a strong opinion regarding, but we do want to just be mindful also of the sense of scale of the question here, because we know that there are a lot of different components that this commission is focusing on.

So, as y'all are thinking about the most impactful area of focus, um, just want to reiterate that context.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, and so you're saying people aren't using it, so let's leave it.

I'm saying people aren't using it, so let's remove it.

You know, as Commissioner Lee said, I uh we I want us to be focusing on the public benefit, and there are ways to for to have deed restricted moderate income units through the density bonus that people are taking advantage of.

Great.

We need that.

I'm not saying that we don't need deed restricted moderate income units, I'm just saying that I don't want it to be its only the only category, and I want us to be counting non-deed restricted units for RENA.

So I don't I I think I've made my point clear, and um I appreciate again staff's work on this topic.

Um, you know, this is an advisory body, and we can make recommendations to city council.

Um, and yeah, I'm looking forward to trying to make some recommendations to city council.

So is there is there a way to uh could we like agendize something under um commission matters to consider a proposal the next meeting or something like that for a recommendation just to have something on paper, like a resolution or so?

I'm gonna speak to what you can add.

What amount of authority you have over staff and staff work products?

I'm not gonna speak to this item specifically, just to be clear, and so the planning commission, you are able to make a motion to state what you would like to see, but that does not commit uh the Bureau of Planning to undertaking your request or undertaking a request at the time when you would like it to happen.

Uh, we do have workload that's dictated by uh the authority over us, which comes from the city administrator and the mayor.

Um, but if you believe it's a way to state your position, you are welcome to do that.

So we cannot make a commitment to um responding affirmatively to your to a motion that uh makes a request for a work product, but you certainly are able to make it if you believe that that will express the position of this commission.

Is that helpful?

Thank you.

Sure.

Can we um actually make a motion on an informational item procedurally?

Uh you well, and I see the attorney's reaching ahead of me.

Um you can make a motion.

Um you uh yes, you can't.

So it's just, and then it would just read comments in the record.

I just don't know what where that goes.

Where does that end up?

Right.

So you've done that before.

You've made motions at times because there have been a range of comments, and in order to both clarify and capture the range, or try to um agree on comments you're going to share with staff.

You've done that in the past.

Not recently, but you have done it in the past.

So even that is acceptable.

Yeah.

Brian Mulrie through the chair.

So what and from the city attorney's office.

What you can do is you would make a motion to memorialize whether that's the commission's perspective.

You can provide individual feedback, but that would be the individual's feedback, not necessarily the commission's feedback.

So you can respond to an informational report.

So if this commission agrees as on a quorum, to make a motion, or a majority I should say, that uh Commissioner Aaron's perspective is correct, then that would be the commission's feedback, or Commissioner Ahrens can state that this is my individual feedback.

And so both will be registered in the minutes.

And also, you have the ability when the informational report is given at council to show up as an individual and exercise your first amendment right.

And I'm I'm going to make one quick correction there.

Our minutes are only action minutes, but we do have the recording of the meeting, which KTOP provides to us and we post on the website.

So that may influence your the the minutes capture motions.

Gotcha.

But not discussion.

Is this report going to the council?

Yes, it is going to rules tomorrow.

Great.

All right.

Well, I'm willing to entertain a motion.

I mean, I I think I think uh we should probably just have this discussion in a different on a different day.

We'll like agendize it so we have a more fuller discussion and ideally have something um prepared that fully articulates you know something our position.

But how does that work mechanically?

So because we wouldn't under commission matters, can we just agendize it?

We're gonna have this discussion at the next meeting and so what would we use policy?

Right, so we we bring items staff brings items to you, right, because we are required under the Oakland Municipal Code or um other authority that applies to um well like CEQA et cetera, to bring items in front of the planning commission.

So I think staff would be very curious to hear what specifically you'd like to bring back.

Of course, under planning commission matters, you can discuss items that are not on the agenda, but you won't have staff here necessarily to support that discussion or respond.

Um so that that gets a little uh problematic because you're really speaking um just.

I shouldn't say it's probably I'm sorry, that was an opinion that it's problematic because it's up to you how you'd like to do that.

But if you discuss items um under planning commission matters that are not agendized, you will not have staff here to uh respond to you to provide any input um or analysis or guidance vis-a-vis the Oakland municipal code application.

But could we just draft a resolution and agendize it and say that we're gonna discuss it related to um well who would draft the resounding?

Could we?

Oh, through the chair.

I think we need to make a motion here.

Yeah.

Because staff place items on the agenda and they would they would be doing the work to bring the item.

So I don't think that we we can request an item to be placed on the agenda, but we aren't doing the we wouldn't put the staff report together for it right or the resolution, yeah.

And if I might repeat myself, which I do frequently, you can make a motion to express what you would like.

I cannot guarantee that we will satisfy your request, but it would be memorialized.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's the best we can do right now.

Commissioner Ahrens.

Alright, through the chair.

I motion to update city policy to remove the income only on site impact fee category and to um count non-deed restricted units for our RENA numbers.

Or would I make a recommendation?

Yeah, may I ask a point of clarification to that motion?

Who is that directed to?

Is it to planning staff to update the policy or would it be a recommendation to the city council to update the policy?

I believe to city council or both.

So I would include maybe rec and recommend to the city council to update that policy.

Yes.

So staff would come up with that, I guess that policy, and then we would recommend the city council.

Well, I don't think there's a guarantee that we we would see a policy from staff.

I mean, I think that's what we're hearing.

But then we would recommend the city council to actually enact it, right?

It's not us that does the policy change is the city council.

If I'm reading between the lines, I'm hearing that we can make a motion today.

If there's a majority, it will it's in the record.

I I don't know where it goes from there, honestly.

Brian, do you was there a question for us as well?

Well, I don't think so.

And I'm sorry, I just missed that comment from the chair because I was just sort of reiterating what the commission secretary has said that we can make a motion today.

If it passes by a majority, there's no guarantee that this is going to council or that we would get a policy back from staff.

It's that we're memorializing this for the record, and um I just I guess I'm thinking I'm saying the same thing that you've said.

Sounds like you did my job for me repeating the third time.

Yeah, that's correct.

And then with regard to like anything impact fee related, it is an OMC title 15.

And so we would have to do some a legal analysis as to the purview of the commission to um comment and provide feedback to the council on that issue.

I'm not prepared here to say whether or not um you are you have that you have the ability to comment, but whether or not that would be like binding or within the purview of the planning commission be something for further analysis.

Okay, I heard some discussion.

Uh I don't know, and I apologize we were talking amongst ourselves regarding how to advise you.

And so if the motion stands, can you repeat the motion if there has been a friendly amendment?

Either way, can you keep us updated on what the motion currently is?

Thank you.

You want to try do that again, Commissioner Ahrens?

Yes, thank you.

I'll try.

Um so I move to recommend to city council to remove the moderate income only on-site impact fee category and to recommend to staff to count non-deed restricted units for RENA.

So there is a motion.

Second, we have a second.

Apologies a second uh the a motion by Commissioner Ahrens and a second by Commissioner Lee.

And can we have a roll call vote on the motion?

I mean, I do have a point of I mean a discussion, I guess now that the motion is on the policy.

Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Randolph.

Um, so since we are recommending something to council, would something come back to us to have a discussion and the debate that we actually have something to recommend to council, or do we just that just that statement is what we recommending to council?

Because I think if staff has to has to come back in the future, maybe maybe not, we would have to look at something and vote on something to pass it along to the council.

Is that is that correct?

Or is we just this we are recommending to the statement to the council immediately?

We are putting it out into the ether, okay.

For council to act on.

Well, there's no guarantee that they will act on it.

There's no there's no guarantee, but that's what we would like to see.

Okay.

Is there an amendment or that okay?

Okay.

So there's a motion with a second, and can we have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Rob is absent.

Commissioner Randolph.

Aye.

Commissioner Lee.

Yes.

Commissioner Aaron's.

Yes.

Vice Chair Sandoval.

Yes.

And Chair Rink.

No.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

And thank you so much to staff.

Really appreciate the work.

All right.

So we are continuing on with our commission business.

Any guests we've got, I think we have a couple committee reports.

We have at least one from the RAC.

Which, and I apologize.

The chair of the RAC is here.

So, yeah.

The ZUC has met since the Planning Commission last month.

I apologize.

I thought it was only the RAC.

The RAC and the ZUC.

I do know that Commissioner Randolph is prepared to summarize the RAC outcome.

Yes, see, despite the Oakland side article, we do our meeting.

We have meetings and our meeting and have robust conversations.

Thank you to everyone here to listening to us.

I hope it's a good Wednesday afternoon entertainment.

We do have a committee report because we actually did meet on April 15th, the residential appear appeal committee.

Uh the uh committee denied appeal and upheld the staff determination that a revision to an approval for 1901 Asylamar Street is considered minor.

We had a robust conversation at that committee meeting.

Was good.

Okay, thank you.

Chair Ahrens.

Thank you.

The zoning update committee met on April 22nd to discuss the annual progress report, which we just discussed as a full commission, and we provided some comments, which staff took into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Um I think we're good to go.

Uh city attorney's report.

No city attorney's report.

Okay, all right.

So that brings us to open forum.

Um at this time, members of the public may speak on any item of interest that is not on the agenda within the commission's jurisdiction.

And as we mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, everyone will have one minute to speak today.

So I will let's what?

Okay, so I'll let staff read the cards.

All right, we have 11 speakers for open forum, and each of you will get one minute to speak.

Um, I'll call you in groups of three.

We have Leela, Robin, and Lynn.

And please state your full name for the record.

Thank you.

So I've cut this.

I'm Layla Goff.

I've lived on Auburn Avenue for 26 years, and I'm here regarding 6230 Claremont.

We support housing.

We recognize this property is a valuable asset to Oakland and needs to be developed.

We keep coming before you.

We have 1,580 signatures on a petition.

We have 150 neighbors who every Saturday get an email about what's happening with this project.

We want to ensure that the developer stays within the guidelines of the upzoned 55-foot high building with appropriate setbacks and stepbacks.

The developer has filed an application under zoning number PLN to 6025.

They're consulting with city staff.

With this project eventually comes before you for a decision.

We urge you'll look at it with a critical eye towards public health and safety and zoning integrity.

Today we're going to talk to you about things that are concerning to us, traffic and safety, the relocation of garbage facilities, shadow and solar access to the Safeway Plaza, and the accurate base density and mixed use calculation per the Oakland zoning code.

Thank you.

Hello there.

I'm Robin Mays, a longtime resident of Rockridge for almost 50 years.

I want we want this project to succeed, and for it to truly succeed, it must take public safety into consideration.

Right now, the city of Oakland has rightfully named traffic fatalities and speeding as a top priority.

We need to see that priority reflected in how we plan this development.

To put things in perspective, we've already seen 52 crashes and two tragic fatalities in this immediate area, and the city and developers should be doing more to prevent these numbers from climbing.

Our focus must be on designing for the safe and efficient flow of movement through the site and surrounding neighborhood.

We need to carefully evaluate the data and ensure that driveway placements, curb space, and circulation patterns are thoughtfully and meticulously planned.

Most importantly, we must guarantee that emergency vehicles, our fire trucks, ambulances, and fresh responders always have adequate space to maneuver safely, turn efficiently, respond quickly during a crisis.

The current proposal raises serious concerns.

The developers do not appear to have had prior experience designing or building a senior housing facility, and based on their plans presented, it is evident that sufficient due diligence has not been undertaken regarding the safety and operational needs of our neighborhood, our future residents, staff, and the emergency responders associated with this project.

Thank you.

Someone going to tell me when to go.

Oh, yeah, you can speak.

Just make sure you say your full name for the record.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Lynn Harlan.

I'm a 30-year resident of Auburn Street, bordering the complex at 6230 Claremont.

I want to speak briefly about garbage and recycling truck truck access for the proposed senior housing project.

I have personally witnessed countless situations where large vehicles struggled to navigate the streets in my neighborhood.

Garbage truck drivers already have had to back up, stop traffic, or ask residents to move park cars just to complete collection.

These are not isolated incidents.

They are signs that the street network was never intended for frequent commercial scale vehicle traffic.

I'm asking the planning department and the developer to reconsider the current garbage routing plan and move waste collection access to Claremont instead of Florio Street.

I also strongly urge the city to require a professional traffic and circulation study as part of discretionary review.

This is not about opposing housing.

It's about ensuring that new development respects the realities of the existing neighborhood infrastructure and protects the safety of everyone who lives there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next three, we have Jack, Leslie, and Jerome.

I'm Jack Gerson.

I'm speaking on 6230 Claremont, where the developers have claimed calculations claiming 71% more units than uh they would be compliant with code.

They're entitled to only 20% more with the state bonus.

How do they get to 71%?

First, they rely on a full zoning premise, which gives them 32% additional, claiming that they qualify for neighborhood center mixed use densities.

They don't.

They're not commercial, they have no ground floor retail, they're not pedestrian-oriented.

Those are the requirements for mixed use in the neighborhood center.

That's number one.

Number two, they misinterpret the zoning code bulletin and misapply the calculations for another 8% compounded with the 32%.

On top of that is the 20% bonus.

That leads to 71% overestimate.

Oh, 71% additional units where they're entitled to 20% more.

Without the neighborhood center mixed use, they would be entitled to 25 to 30 units fewer than what they claim.

They ask for 203.

They claim that they qualify for about 250 and are asking for 203.

They only qualify for about 175.

Because they don't qualify for the full 203, you must deny the density-based waivers on height, on stepbacks, on setbacks, etc.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Leslie Osterwell.

I've been a resident of Rockridge for 43 years.

I wholeheartedly support the development of new housing in the community.

However, I have serious concerns about the proposed project's sheer mass and excessive height and about the shadow it would cast throughout the adjacent neighborhood, especially during the winter months.

More specifically, the applicant's supplemental material fails to address the shadow impacts on the Safeway Plaza.

Based on our analysis, the Safeway Plaza will be shrouded in shade for most of the day throughout the winter months.

When the current Safeway Building was in development in the development phase, my neighbors fought long and hard for this sunny plaza to be included in the project plans.

By casting the Safeway Plaza in shadow, the design of the Claremont project threatens to destroy the usefulness of that important community gathering space.

It's my understanding that the applicants have failed to provide a solar access study that addresses and quantifies the specific loss of sunshine to this valued and scarce community asset.

I respectfully request that you require them to do so.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jerome Butterck.

I'm a practicing architect and a mere 35-year resident in Rockridge relative to some of these other people.

I live a block and a half from the uh 6230 Claremont site.

While I believe cities need to grow, successful urban growth requires adherence to local zoning codes and design sympathetic to the attributes of place.

6230 Claremont fails both these tests by misapplying the city's zoning code on maximum allowable base density for the site.

The developers propose a project that is well over the uh the allowed um area and unit count relative to the uh CN1 zoning regulations.

Unsurprisingly, the result here is a building that is simply uh bulkier than it should be.

Well, I'm pro-growth proposing a building with vertical street wall that's 150% taller than 55% maximum of CM1 zoning rules, makes a mockery of adopted zoning by creating a street wall that is unconscious, unconscionably out of scale for the neighborhood.

And uh at the very least, the commission should require setbacks to protect the light and air and scale of the street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

For the next speakers, we have Alexis, Jennifer, and Paul.

Do we have Alexis?

Alexis last name starts with a W.

Okay, maybe they left, so we'll we can come back just in case.

My name is Jennifer McElrath.

I've been a resident of Rockridge for 25 years, and I'm here primarily to speak having to do with the TJ site on College Avenue.

The developers are proposing market rate luxury buildings at heights that are multiples of the newer zoning heights, making for heights way out of scale in proportion to their environment.

Oakland has three and a half thousand market rate empty units, and several newer buildings are in receivership.

Berkeley has 17 empty housing building sites waiting that are waiting for approved projects to start, creating dead zones.

And sooner, with mid-ray mid-rise, lower cost buildings.

Studies show that more diversity leads to more vibrant communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Thanks in advance for your time.

I live on Ross Circle a couple blocks from 6230 Claremont.

I've been in Rockridge for over 40 years and a few blocks from the site for over 20.

I raised teenage girls in this neighborhood, and I'm now a very active grandfather of a two-year-old walking this neighborhood every day.

And I'm telling you, you heard this, it's treacherous already.

You know, I will not cross when it says walk without constantly looking back and forth and back and forth.

And this will make it far, far worse.

I'm pro-housing.

You heard that from everybody.

Um I first heard about this.

I told all my friends and family, this is fantastic.

I might live there someday.

Um but the details as they have come out, um have raised increasing concern about mass and bulk impact on neighborhood health and safety and other serious site-specific issues.

So what I would ask is rigorous, rigorous review by all concerned in the city, especially the claim bonus that you heard about of all aspects, and they should the developer should be held to the letter of the law, and I understand the state laws that the city is now operating under.

So there's no overreaching, no shortcuts, no breaks, and I would hope a win-win can come out of this process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we have three more speakers.

Um, I'm not sure if I've called this speaker already, Robin, Alison, and Judy.

I'm Alison Tiemann.

I'm a 44-year resident of the block of Auburn Avenue between Florio and Claremont.

One of our major concerns is the proposal to have access to the building on Florio.

Florio is an extremely narrow, almost one-way street.

The proposal was to have garbage and recycling collected there.

This is already a huge problem in the area.

Garbage trucks cannot negotiate the tough turns.

They have to get residents to move cars that are parked legally, or they have to back up considerable distances.

So the intersection of Florio and Auburn is very tight.

We would ask that you please mandate that all garbage access, commercial deliveries, and service activity be restricted to the much more suitable Claremont Avenue frontage.

Please, we do not want trucks on Florio.

Okay, thank you.

Hello, thank you.

I'm Rabbi Judy Shanks.

I'm a 41-year resident of Rockridge.

Every day of the week, Safeway Plaza on College and Claremont is filled with people enjoying each other's company, working outside, eating meals, and meeting in small social groups.

This is the only public space in Rockridge that receives direct sunlight, making it a favorite with locals, shoppers, and spirited visitors like my adorable grandchildren, like Mr.

Friedman's.

The proposal for 6230 Claremont makes no mention of the shadow impacts to Safeway Plaza.

This building will shadow the plaza during winter mornings just when people need a sunny gathering spot that makes the plaza so inviting and usable.

Take away the sun and you destroy a vital community center.

The applicant has failed to provide a solar access study that quantifies this specific loss.

I respectfully ask that you require the application to be amended with the addition of a solar access study and to mandate design mitigations, such as reduced height or increased setbacks to preserve the sunlight for our residents and to make the project compatible with its surroundings.

I thank you.

Thank you.

Is Alexis here?

Okay.

So we have no more speakers.

Okay, great.

Um, oh, all right, come on up.

Um, I uh I wish I had spoken while you were discussing the please state your full name for the record.

Thank you.

Uh I wish I had been here when you were discussing the problem with moderate income housing.

Um I looked at the most recent uh um element dashboard, and in my mind it looked like 70% of permits as of the time the chart was made were issued to market rate, and only uh and uh there was about 25% something like that left for market rate and low income.

The others are all very low income.

And um I'm wondering why developers are coming into Rock Ridge and uh building senior housing, which is market rate, when clearly more medium income and uh moderate income and lower income housing is what's needed there, and that was the legislative intent in passing the housing crisis law was to provide more affordable housing.

Um so uh I'm actually objecting to the Trader Joe's development, but it's the same as with 6230 Claremont that it seems to me that granting their uh requests for a permit is contrary to legislative intent, and I think you have the power under the constitution to um say that this is not consistent with our uh plans and zoning ordinances, it's uh higher than 95 feet, and so I'm asking uh asking you to uh reject or somehow defer their requests so that more affordable housing can come into Rockridge.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so that does it for open forum.

Um Catherine, do we have any updates on the sort of where the Claremont project is?

Yes, we do.

So the I believe the last time that uh planning commission met, you asked me the same question at the time that case was considered incomplete, meaning they had not provided all the documents required for staff to start conducting review and analysis of the proposal against the planning code and under CEQA.

At this time, we are conducting our zoning analysis.

It is a complete application.

They've provided everything that we require through our basic application for development review.

We are conducting zoning review and CEQA analysis.

I can't tell you exactly how long it will take to do that.

Uh an estimate is three to four months, uh, but it could be longer than that.

Thank you.

Did um did the applicant um request AB 130 for CEQA?

I don't know off the top of my head.

Okay.

Um I and I'm no longer the manager for that division.

I can ask the uh manager for additional information.

Am I still yeah, uh for additional information, uh, but I don't think we'll have complete answers until we're ready when we've completed our analysis, but I will ask.

Great, thanks so much.

Oh, Commissioner Randolph.

Yeah, and that same token, I'm I know I asked that question before and you weren't able to answer it because there was no active application at the time.

So we do you don't want to speculate here, but now that there is an application.

Uh I know that I'm getting requests and we heard it in public comment uh for the commission to intervene and influence or the application.

There's no role for us at this point, right?

Until there's an actual item before the commission.

Is that correct?

That that's correct.

And again, because I no longer manage the division, I can't even predict at this point.

I don't know enough about this case.

Uh whether or not it's ministerial or if it is uh going to be discretionary, I just don't know.

So I'll ask the manager about that.

It is under review, and I know you know I can speak for managers generally for these cases.

A lot can happen during the zoning review at the CEQA analysis.

So uh I suspect the manager will say we'll know more once we get closer to completing our analysis about what type of decision process uh will occur here.

Yeah.

So while all this is extremely helpful um information and feedback from the public, I as a commission can't do anything currently.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

In addition, the public can monitor, and I know many of you sitting here today, and those of you in uh T V world are monitoring the project, and you can monitor progress of our review on Xela or ACA as it is familiarly known by the public, uh through the city's website.

So if you want to see the status of the project and the documents that have been submitted by the applicant, you can see that on our website through ACA.

That's the name of our permit processing program.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

I think it would be really helpful if we could um really get an update on the Sequo process.

I'll bring that back at the next meeting.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, sure.

I think we're gonna do a bio break.

Let's do five minutes.

Thank you, everyone.

We'll be right back.

Five-minute recess.

Thank you.

Five to five.

Okay, no problem.

Oh, yeah.

Hi.

Hi.

So he's a lot of this five.

Yeah, I think it's a little bit of a little bit.

No.

I mean, you know, I I know generally, this is L.

And this is a good one.

Well, I'm trying to talk about it.

It's interesting, isn't it?

These projects are going to be a good one.

I suppose you could have you before they have the category, right?

So, I think it's like a five question.

All right, so thank you for coming.

If you want to speak, let us know.

Okay, that I can have to do it.

If I can get you in the end, you have to do that.

I mean, I draw it down.

I don't know if they can't very big, so I it's using to meet they think they're gonna work in this big urban house for those.

I was talking to the waste management guy.

I said you know they're gonna put 200 residents there for garbage.

He goes, they can't do that.

The string is the weight the guy can also do the work.

Is this okay if we leave?

Okay, I think it's talking about the general.

I think I need the little digital.

I might say a little bit more.

Okay, are you going on?

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

No, it is.

Okay, so I think that's what we have to do.

So we have a lot of people who are going to do this.

So, oh, quickly, we can't make it all the time.

Is the next thing on the agenda the general?

I believe it's a prediction.

Okay.

And then I believe that we should have a screen code update.

And they're gonna talk about confirming activities.

Okay.

Yeah.

I thought we'd also interest in those things.

I'm gonna post the recording tomorrow so you can watch it.

I thought you would take a copy of the agenda.

I don't know if that would help.

Or the staff report.

I thought the uh general plan thing is the maybe that's what you were talking about at the beginning of the order.

That's what that was.

Okay, okay.

Good.

Then then I don't need to stay.

Super duper.

I can go hauling.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's reconvene.

The May twentieth planning commission meeting.

It is four fifty-five.

Um I'm the chair, so I should know what's next.

Um, no consent calendar, and so that will bring us to our public hearings, and um, we'll go straight to item number two.

Right, and item number two on your agenda.

I'm gonna scroll down there as well.

This is a review of the draft twenty twenty six to twenty thirty one.

Oakland local hazard mitigation plan.

And you are being asked to make a recommendation to city council on adoption of the plan as an appendix to the safety element of the general plan.

And I don't know the person who's presenting.

I will introduce myself.

Thank you.

Yes, and I also need the presentation, please.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Veronica Cole.

I'm an emergency planning coordinator with the fire department.

I've been working with a large interpartmental group, the community stakeholders on developing our 2026 local hazard mitigation plan, and I'm here to present it to you today.

To reduce risk and increase resilience equitably, the mission of the City of Oakland local hazard mitigation plan is to establish and promote a comprehensive mitigation strategy and efforts to protect the whole community and environment from identified natural and human causes.

That's our guiding mission statement for the plan.

And it's a plan that guides what the city of Oakland does prior to disaster occurring.

It's been developed in collaboration with city staff from multiple departments, neighboring jurisdictions, community members, and other stakeholders.

In the plan, you'll find profiles of hazards that are likely to impact Oakland.

And it also includes a mitigation strategy with 75 mitigation actions to be completed by city departments in the Port of Oakland.

And you should know that an updated plan is required to access certain types of pre and post-disaster funding.

And a little bit more about that.

So we're looking for AB 2140 compliance, which requires that the general plan safety element adopt the LHMP.

If we are compliant, then we get these benefits.

May be available, not guaranteed, but it puts us in eligibility.

A typical local cost share after a disaster is 25%.

Through the California Disaster Assistance Act, CDAA, the state has reduced that amount to them paying for the 18.75% of the cost share.

And then if we're compliant, potentially we'll get the remaining balance paid for and then result in a 0% cost share for the city.

So we're seeking your approval on this and your recommendation to forward it to City Council.

So new in the plan, this time around, we've revised our mission goals and objectives and actions with a stronger focus on equity.

We've updated our hazard profiles and capabilities analysis with new equity analysis content.

Climate change considerations have been incorporated into each hazard profile instead of having a standalone.

So every profile where it's relevant now has climate change considerations.

And we've also updated the risk ranking methodology to account for additional factors such as resident displacement, impacts to the economy, environment, and transportation.

So using this risk ranking methodology, we've ranked the following risk in the following ways.

At a high risk, we have earthquake, severe weather, and fire.

Those are a three top.

Medium risk is drought, flood, landslide, and sea level rise.

And at a low risk, we have dam failure and tsunami seich.

And in case you're wondering, a size is the sloshing of a body of water that's enclosed, such as Lake Merritt or the San Francisco Bay.

Here you'll see a map of Oakland that shows our equity priority communities and zones of liquefaction susceptibility.

We've actually utilized the same mapping, the same definitions of the environmental justice communities and the general plan to inform our equity priority communities.

And we've done this mapping work in the current version where you can see an overlay of hazards and where the equity priority communities, also known as the environmental justice communities overlap.

So we have that cross-referencing in addition to a data analysis in the plan.

Our community and stakeholder outreach is I think fairly robust.

We were able to do more work this time around than the last time because the 2021 26 plan was, you know, pretty close to the start of the pandemic, so in person was a little trickier.

We've reached about 300 individuals with LHMP presentations and forums for a public comment.

We held multilingual in-person public meetings at trusted locations and equity priority communities.

This included West Oakland, Chinatown Downtown, Fruitville, and East Oakland.

And we conducted a multilingual public survey that received 131 responses.

And we maintained a website and email interest list to provide a forum for online engagement.

So our next steps for the plan.

We also completed their review and on May 1st, they submitted it to FEMA.

We're anticipating getting that back from them in no less than 45 days.

Pending is their approval of the plan.

We're here today because we want to expedite being compliant with AB 2140.

And by approving the plan, adopting the plan at this point, we'll be in a better position once it's approved.

We have a public safety committee coming up on May 26th.

And on an ongoing basis, we're going to be implementing those mitigation actions and conducting an annual plan maintenance, which will be an annual update and progress report, which will start in the spring summer 2027 and will occur every year from then until we have a new plan.

And if you'd like to know more, there's our website here.

You can go to www.oaklandca.gov/oakland hazard plan, or you can Google Oakland Hazard Plan.

It will put you on the local hazard mitigation plan website.

And this concludes my presentation.

Great.

Thank you so much for that.

Are there any commissioner questions?

Nothing?

Nope.

Oh, Commissioner Ahrens.

Thank you.

More uh curiosity about sort of the human-made disasters and the like from hazardous materials or public health incidents or civil unrest.

Um how were those types of things evaluated?

And maybe it's that in the plan and I and I and I missed it, but I'm curious about those.

Yes, FEMA has um a series kind of a list of potential hazards that you can incorporate in the plan that sets you up to be eligible for certain types of funding.

But we also felt like there were additional um so the focus is on what they call natural hazards, and something like a down failure is a natural hazard according to FEMA, even though it's a you know technological thing that will happen.

Um but we do mention those other hazards of interest with a small short narrative uh just because we recognize that they're important for the city of Oakland.

Uh, but the focus of the plan really is on the natural hazards and not those other hazards that are profiled.

Um, I believe those may be handled in other ways in the city.

Thank you.

Commissioner Randolph?

Yeah, this is a quick question.

So I know that you have to update it to receive potential FEMA funding with everything going on on FEMA.

Um, have we received any past funding?

Like when we had the fires, was it based on on the plan that we had in place or like how how would you like how do how do we perform with FEMA in regards to our Olga?

Do you have any answer for that?

Good afternoon.

My name is Olga Crow and I'm the assistant emergency manager for the city of Oakland out of fire department.

Um, so to answer your question, yes.

Um, in most recent years, um, we have received FEMA funding for 2022-2023.

Winter storms, if you may remember, we got ton of ton of rain.

Many buildings in Oakland have flooded as well as roads, the zoo, and so forth.

So we did, I cannot say that we received all of FEMA reimbursement, but the reimbursement has become, oh, has been coming, slowly trickling.

Uh, the challenge is that it's a long process from the disaster to the money.

But unless we have an active LHMP that is not expired, there is no trickle at all.

There's no funding, there's no chance for funding.

So this opens us up if something happens between now and say June 15th when FEMA approves it, we'll be covered.

Um, and yeah, I'll stop you.

Have we ever received funding or applied for funding based on human created or human-based?

COVID, yes.

COVID, okay.

It's it wasn't specifically just FEMA, but it's a government assistance.

So all of that money is coming from homeland security funding.

And so through that, COVID was included.

And we have also begun receiving some reimbursements for FEMA.

I'm not in a finance department, so I don't know, they don't necessarily make the those announcements, but yes, we do receive and in the past, I've been with the city for a little over six years, so I can speak for since I've been here.

But I know that there have been other disasters in the past that have qualified for FEMA reimbursement.

And in fact, the fact that we have the money to do or did receive the money to do the LHMP itself, is related to us having disasters and having a current LHMP at all times.

So what I know that living in West Oakland ideal or the community deals with a lot of human-made disasters that we would consider disastrous, like the the fires that are happening, you know, the industrial fires at the what is the middle middle recycling um side to, you know, port operations sometimes uh and air quality, you know, challenges or issues.

Um I mean those are probably a little harder to receive funding for to address, right?

Then because they don't necessarily would FEMA have to declare them a disaster or would it be local local declaration?

So all disasters are local, they they're all local, they start local.

So the incidents you are naming, they're certainly disasters for the area, but they're not necessarily qualified as disasters.

In emergency management lingo, there is emergency, and it could be devastating, right?

But it's an emergency, and then there's a disaster.

So tsunami would be a disaster.

Um a localized flood because the drain was blocked, that would be an emergency, right?

So there's tiny what about an oil spill?

Depends on the size, depends on where I can't precise I mean, I can't speak hypothetically like that.

It depends.

So when an emergency occurs in the city of Oakland, be that emergency or disaster or an unplanned event that is causing havoc in the city, somebody mentioned civil unrest, so that happens.

The city can proclaim an emergency, that opens up some doors to releasing some of the red and yellow tape in city operations to expedite things like purchasing, for instance, or um deploying more staff in different um in different vocations, and we call it disaster service workers, DSW.

So we all are DSWs.

Well, we are, but we will stay in our positions, but some of our city staff will not have their position in place at the time of emergency or declaration, whatever.

So they may be reassigned to help us or to do something else.

So if the disaster overwhelms the city of Oakland, then the county can proclaim a disaster, and that allows more resources from the county.

Then if the county gets overwhelmed, the state, then the state, the federal.

Does that make sense?

So however terrible some of the emergencies are in San Fran in um in Oakland that'll kind of localize, they sometimes don't make it to the level of the local declaration.

Okay.

And sometimes they do.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Nope.

Okay.

Do we have any cards?

No speakers.

No speakers.

Okay.

So um I will bring it back and see if anyone has any comments.

Commissioner Aaron's.

Thank you.

Um just wanted to say thank you for your work on this.

Uh this was new for me to review.

Um, and so I feel like I learned a lot.

Um I was working at the city of Emoryville in their public works department during the last atmospheric rivers, and um dealt with a lot of the paperwork to get FEMA reimbursement.

So I understand how burdensome and bothersome it is, but I'm, you know, happy to support moving this forward so that the city can be eligible to receive funding for disasters.

I'll also just add, um, which I think I've shared before with city staff that I appreciate the city's um continual commitment to equity and to using that word boldly and to centering it in our plans um and and in our work.

I know it is um some governments have uh stepped away from using that word um and focusing on uh racial equity in particular, so I'm glad to see that that is still a part of this and that there was a greater emphasis on that this plan uh as opposed to last time.

And I was at the City of Oakland um and Oak Dot and helped create the geographic equity toolbox in 2019-2020.

So I'm uh very happy to see how that work has expanded to other departments.

I think it um fed into the map in in this report.

Um, and when we first created it, it was just sort of to or it was for the paving plan, but also to respond to service requests about sidewalk cracks and curb ramps and that kind of thing.

So it's uh very cool to see how the city has incorporated that as a mapping tool across so many departments.

So yeah, happy to support this and move it forward.

Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Well, let's see.

I didn't know if anyone else wanted to say anything.

Okay.

Yeah, I I would just echo uh what Commissioner Aaron said, and thank you for the hard work.

I had some experience with FEMA in my past life too as a congressional staffer and um helped people with their individual claims and got deployed down to Northridge back after the quake and all that kind of stuff.

So didn't done sort of the boots on the ground thing, which is in which is always interesting, and so appreciate all this work for for our city.

So if we have a motion.

Um you're getting all the heat today.

I know.

Some of it self-inflicted.

Um so I will just read it from the staff report.

Um, so I move.

Oh wait, sorry.

How should I it's just um and perhaps staff could help the commission craft a motion if it wasn't entirely clear in the staff report.

I can actually ask Brian Mulrie.

We can do that in his rule.

Maybe it's just I think it's just we make a recommendation to the city.

Okay.

Yeah, move to make a recommendation to city council.

Oh, go ahead.

Um okay, I motion to make a recommendation to city council to adopt the plan as an appendix to the safety element of the Oakland General Plan.

Second.

All right, we got a second.

Uh before we take a vote, we have a motion by Commissioner Aaron's and a second by Randolph, but I just want to be clear because we record these meetings to adopt the local hazard mitigation plan.

Just to be clear about that.

I I've just said it, so it's fine.

You don't need to repeat yourself.

I see you nodding yes to that.

And so now can you call a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Rob is absent.

Commissioner Randolph.

I.

Commissioner Lee.

Yes.

Commissioner Aaron.

Yes.

Vice Chair Sandoval.

Yes.

And Chair Rink.

Yes.

Motion passes and your recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council.

Great.

Thank you so much.

All right, that takes us to item number three.

Item number three, our proposed planning code amendments to update accessory dwelling unit regulations for consistency with state law and provide written findings pursuant to government code 66326B to revise.

I won't read it all because the planner is here to further present the item to you, and that would be Ruslan Philippau.

I hope I said your last name correctly.

To make a presentation on this item to the planning commission.

Thank you.

Thanks, Rusalon.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, K-Top.

Um I'm here on behalf of the uh planning bureau to uh to present the summary of the proposed planning code amendments.

So I'll begin with the proposed ADU related amendments, followed by other substantive uh non-ADU code changes, and then highlight some of the key conforming and clerical revisions and conclude with the staff recommendation and the next steps.

So um a brief background uh of the ADU portion of the amendments.

The city's ADU ordinance has evolved over time to remain consistent with state law.

The original ordinance was adopted in January 2022 and then updated in both 2024 and 2025.

Um most recently in December 2025, the city received a findings letter from state HCD that is included with the staff report as an attachment.

In response, planning staff outlined the changes necessary to maintain full compliance with the state law, and I'll go over these um three areas.

Um so here are the three recommended changes.

Um first one is rather uh clerical update to update statute numbering to reflect the current uh statute, um, and the next two are um to increase objectivity of the existing um uh design standards uh in the planning code.

First is to remove subjective visibility criteria um and uh eliminate uh uh staff consultation uh uh requirement that uh currently exists.

And then the second change is to remove um subjective term predominant and replace it with uh visually similar, I'm sorry, and replace visually similar with more objective visually matching term.

So those are the three.

Um we also have um two HCD findings for which staff does not recommend any changes.

Um first one uh state HCD claims that um ADU regulations in the S9 zone, which are the uh zone in the hills in the uh very high fire hazard severity zone, that these regulations are inconsistent with the state law and gives the city two options.

Option number one is to amend the ordinance to comply with uh state law, and um option number two is to adopt the ordinance with findings uh supporting the city's determination that regulations comply with the state law.

Um staff recommends um because the city has already satisfied the second option by adopting findings uh supporting its ADU regulations in the S9 combining zone.

Um these findings were adopted uh with the original ADU ordinance in uh January 2022 and then reaffirmed um in ordinance uh adopted in June 2024.

So uh the therefore the city uh has complied with state law with option number two, and no further action is necessary.

Um staff also met with um HCD staff and pointed at uh existing findings and HG staff has acknowledged the existence of the findings.

Um state HCD claims that creating a preference for ADU location, other than in the front setback first, as specified in the planning code, uh conflicts with the state law uh because it precludes the ADU of at least 800 square feet.

Um, however, uh in the meeting with HCD on April 20th, 2026, planning staff clarified that the state HCD and state HD has acknowledged that um while the ordinance establishes prefer uh preferred ADU locations, it does not prohibit um front yard ADUs when no other feasible locations uh exist.

Um, cities also making findings in the proposed ordinance uh to establish that ADUs are not prohibited in the front setback, and therefore again uh uh the city is in full compliance with state law and no further action is necessary.

Um next, um I'll summarize uh the proposed substantive non-ADU related changes.

Um here are the um a few of them and uh first is revise discontinuous standards for non-confirming activities, eliminate ambiguous purposeful abandonment uh standard, um, and establish a clear 60-day time frame for cessation of operations.

Next change is to clarify that only objective standards apply to ministerial design review um in S10 zone.

Uh, however, the discretionary criteria specified in this uh section will remain and apply to regular design review projects.

Um next um for Wood Street zone um uh to allow recreational assembly activities, such as plazas, community gardens, and so on, uh in DWS9 zone without a CUP that is currently required.

Um next, it's for the caliseum zone uh staff proposes to provide a consistent 10-foot uh front setback along the Hagenberger uh road.

Currently, all other zones have a 10-foot setback, and only the calceum zone does not, so um it's for consistency of development in that important gateway to Oakland.

Um next, uh proposal to remove uh a review deadline for development agreements that does not align with uh the DA approval process.

Um, and finally um to enforce and to clarify uh undergrounding and screening of electrical transformers in key uh areas of the city.

Um, so finally um there are a few examples of uh uh clerical and conforming uh changes.

Um I'll highlight a few of them.

Um in downtown zones um it was an error before in the table for uh in DDT height area five and six.

Um so we're proposing to revise maximum residential density in uh in that table, and also to update maximum height in DDT height area nine to be consistent with um uh with other height zones.

Um, next for uh S15 zone in height limit zone 250, revise the number of stories from 24 to 25 to coordinate with existing height limit.

Um we usually use uh 10 feet per story, so this would just uh make the math correct.

Um next change uh is regarding the Wood Street um uh proposal to revise uh load area requirements for rooming units to be half of those required for regular dwelling units.

Again, it's done for consistency with other zones, and um this was already um adopted as part of the recent uh land use uh element um update.

Um finally um uh we propose to reintroduce economically feasible definition in definition section of the planning code uh solely to maintain um uh existing cross-reference that exists uh in Title 15 of Oakland municipal code.

Um, next uh just clarifying that subdivisions are not approved through development agreement process, and finally um uh uh replacing dwelling unit with living unit in uh uh some instances throughout the planning code because uh living unit uh term is more inclusive.

Um so that brings me um to the end of the presentation, and here's the stuff recommendation.

Uh I can come back to it later.

Um, and just um uh this this item is going, this package is going to rules uh committee tomorrow to be uh scheduled for CED meeting on June 9th and the city council first hearing on June 16th and the final adoption of June 30th.

Um thank you very much and uh we're happy to take questions.

Great, thank you for that.

Um does anyone oh, Commissioner Randolph?

First of all, a way to bury the lead, because I'm very excited about the um the truck intensive use changes in this item.

Um I know it's technically supposed to be all ADU and other stuff, but I have I have some questions about the truck intensive um use changes, and uh as Catherine mentioned earlier, I know we sometimes make a lot of requests for things to see several of these coming back to us today is is very exciting because I know it takes a lot of effort.

So before I begin, I just wanted to say thank you to staff and the team for bringing forward this amendment to the non-conforming truck intensive use standard.

Um this is something this commission raised in the prior hearing.

We had like what two hour conversation about it.

Um, and I think a lot of us felt a little icky um, you know, having to interpret the the policy before this potential amendment.

Um so I really appreciate that that you took that feedback and the commission um reflected that the code language was needed, and to see that actually coming back to us so quickly is is I think very exciting and something almost missed uh reading reading um the item.

Uh so the question I have um how will this new standard change the way that we handle complaints from residents in the environmental justice communities who are dealing with long dormant but technically non-conforming truck operations.

Well, um it is first of all, thank you for your question.

And um we are proposing this change that is uh fully consistent with the environmental justice element that um was recently adopted.

Um this, in our opinion, and again, we also uh communicated this change um uh to um Department of Race and Equity and discuss this thoroughly.

Um we also rely on the uh READ that was done for uh EJ element for this item.

Um again the the intent here is to really make um uh applicants to not come back and challenge um essentially what what happened with uh the recent um appeal case by removing the standard that was challenged and including a clear uh 60-day timeline um before it was a z zero days and that was also problematic.

Um before the EJ element though, we had a 90 day standard, so overall this standard um uh 60 day standard is less than what we had um originally in the planning code.

Um, so and I'll let uh Laura Kaminsky to uh maybe answer the rest of the question for.

Um yeah, so I think what we're trying to do here, and this was the goal of the emergency justice element was that when you have non-conforming uses when they close down, is to try to limit as much as possible the potential for a new um you know business to open up in its place because you know that is no longer an allowed use in that zone, and especially you already have conflicts with residential.

So yeah, as to Ruslan's point, we now have uh proposing a 60 day uh requirement, but it also does not allow them, which some of the other nonconforming standards in our chapter allow you to still even potentially if it's more than six, or then and sometimes it's 90 days more than a year in other instances, you can still even um apply for conditional use permit to potentially reinstate.

So that is not allowed in this instance.

So once those 60 days is up, then you're not longer no longer allowed to um redo that you know same use.

Um other things that are in our environmental justice element and also I believe in the housing element our action item was looking at um potential for amortization of some nonconforming uses and that are you know hazardous um that are in residential areas so that is something also that is being looked at by staff as um you know potential uh another way of dealing with nonconforming uses because you still have some uses that are grandfathered in that might just never leave um so that is another potential tool as well oh yeah that that was my question so there's no grandfathering loophole under under this so the the clock starts ticking once city council adopts this change for any current property in Oakland or are there well?

Yeah so once this goes into effect I have to look at what date we will have for the effect date of this ordinance but once it goes into effect then yes the 60 days.

Okay good all right thank you.

Oh go um go ahead vice chair thank you um thank you for your presentation I just have a clarifying question about how far we can go in restricting ADUs in high fire risk areas while um before conflicting with state housing law I know that I saw some back and forth there in the letters if you could just clarify did you meet with HCD to confirm that the data provided makes it all good.

So what we did in and Brian could always expand upon this as a city attorney but we what the way that state law is written is that the we submit our ADU ordinance to the state for review state HCD they review it they send us a letter back with comments of things that they think you know are saying that we are not meeting state law we as a city can then disagree with the state and actually make findings as to why we disagree and think we are meeting state law and bring those findings to city council and have them adopted and that is what we have done in this instance and so we do believe we are actually meeting state law requirements and one of the main things is um when we we talk about um the ADU law talks about issues of um transportation and traffic and being able to you know there's issues with evacuation we've done analysis through our safety element and this is actually something that the state required in our safety element to look at areas where you only have one means of egress to get out and that is you know considered a problem and a safety issue and we have quite a few of those in the very high fire hazard severity zone.

And again we also looked at specifically you know we did not limit ADUs or the number of we still allow um the one ADU but we did not where we have the limitation it's not in all the very high fire hazard severity zone it's in the areas that also have a narrow road width of I think it's 26 feet or less and also have a dead end of over 300 feet and only one way out.

So there's a number of of factors here that are causing and it's not even it's not also just for fire reasons it's also for emergency access because we have had instances in talking with our fire department where there's been you know emergency and 911 call and someone parked on a street that they were not supposed to park and actually the you know emergency could not get to them in time and the person actually passed away because the road was blocked.

And so the concern is again if you're having more there's a couple of issues that were brought up because they also talk about that we can can't require parking off street parking and we said in these areas you need to have off street parking because you cannot actually park on the street and if you do park in the street, then you're blocking emergency vehicles as well as access to get out if people need to flee in a wildfire.

Thank you.

Makes total sense.

I live on one of those streets, so like absolutely understand um I guess my question is just if is it in your experience is HCD amenable to these kinds of proposals and what happens if they're like actually no that doesn't comply with state law what then.

What then?

Can I add on to that real quick?

So we I know we went through this a number of years ago.

I think right when I was joining the commission, so there was a big tension between the city's findings and the state, and so there were some mapping changes.

Has anything changed now with respect to sort of where we landed back then, or would do we have the same maps?

Have we overcome sort of the conflict?

Yeah, so we have not um since what's been adopted, nothing has changed at this point, which is why um when we got this comment, uh we did say because they say you can either make changes or make findings, and so we just reiterated to them that we have already made the findings and did provide those findings again to them as a reminder.

Okay, and I'm sorry, I hijacked your question, so I don't know if we needed a different.

Yeah, I'll also just add to that um when we received the letter in December and responded in January.

Um we there was a question, you know, as to whether our pro housing designation application can move forward.

And once we submitted our letter and kind of clarified that we made findings and we'll make findings again through this round, um, our pro housing designation application move forward and we were accepted as a pro housing designated city.

So I think HCD has acknowledged that we're compliant with state law by making the findings, great.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, doesn't look like we have any cards.

Okay, no speakers.

Um so I will bring it back for uh discussion, or if anyone wants to make a motion, I guess I can make the motion of the I should have picked the previous motion because this one is a long one.

This is a long one.

And do we have to read all of it or do we what's your preference?

I would appreciate you reading the entire motion.

I was trying, it was worth a try.

It's your 15 minutes of fame.

Okay.

I I think I I we I am way past that 50 minutes for today, but uh here we go.

Uh I make a motion to um recommend that the city council approve the proposed planning code amendments to one update assess redwelling unit regulations for consistency with state law and provide written findings pursuant to government code 66326B.

Um two revise discontinuance standards for nonconforming activities, three remove applicability of S10 scenic route combining zone discretionary standards to ministerial design review for permit recreational assembly activities in the Wood Street DWS 9 zone 5.

Revise minimum front setback in the DCO 2 zone six, remove the review deadline from development agreement procedures in section 17.138.030 seven revise utility screening standards in section 17.124.045 and eight incorporate various conforming and clerical revisions.

My most exciting section uh and affirm staff's environmental determination.

Motion by Commissioner Randolph, second, and a second by Commissioner Sandoval.

Vice Chair Sandoval, apologies.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Rob is absent, Commissioner Randolph.

Aye.

Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Commissioner Aaron.

Yes.

Vice Chair Sandoval?

Yes.

And Chair Rink.

Yes.

Motion passes, and your recommendation will be forwarded to the city council.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Um, so no appeals today.

Um, let's go to the approval of minutes from April 1st, 2026.

Can I get a motion?

Motion to approve minutes from the April first um uh 2026 meeting.

Second.

Thank you.

A motion by Vice Chair Sandoval and a second by Commissioner Ahrens.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Rob is absent.

Commissioner Randolph?

Aye.

Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Commissioner Aaron?

Yes.

Vice Chair Sandoval?

Yes, and Chair Rank?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Minutes will be posted to the website as approved.

Great, thank you.

Um, do we have any correspondence?

Not through the Secretary.

No.

And any city council actions.

Apologies, it's been a little while, so nothing within the last couple of weeks.

Um I will confirm at the next meeting if there have been any since your April, early April, April first meeting, but I believe uh no actions based on recommendations from Planning Commission or actions from Planning Commission.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

So we'll go ahead and adjourn at five thirty six.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you all.

Yeah, yeah.

But for chair?