Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I would like to call the January 21st, 2026 planning commission meeting to order. I want to welcome everyone and I have this is my 1st hearing back since last year. I got reappointed towards the end of 2025 so. I'm back and just wanted to, I guess, extend my thanks to Mayor Lee and her staff and the City Council for entrusting this role with me again for another term. So with that, we'll do a roll call.

Commissioner Alex Randolph is absent today. Commissioner Owen Lee?

Here.

Commissioner Maurice Robb is expected to be here, so he's a little tired. He's expected to be here today. Commissioner Josie Ahrens? Here. Vice Chair Natalie Sandoval? Here. Vice Chair Jennifer Rank?

Here. You have a quorum, and we will note when Commissioner Robb joins us as well. Thank you. Okay, great. On to Commission Business. Do we have any agenda discussion? Actually, we do. Apologies. I don't see Director Gilchrist in the crowd for the Director's Report, so you are welcome to take items out of order. We do have speakers signed up for open forums. If you wish to take open forum first, you can announce that now.

Okay. So we are expecting a director's report.

We are expecting a director's report today.

Okay. Well, we'll go through the rest and then we can, we can go from there. Um, do we have an informational report?

No informational reports today.

Any committee reports? Have you, has anyone met? No committee report. Okay.

Uh, any commission matters. And again, this is for the commission. If you have any items to raise through your chair.

Okay, great. City Attorney's report.

This is Deputy City Attorney Michael Branson. I do not have a report today.

Okay, great. So seeing that the director is not here, why don't we go to open forum?

All right, so we have five speakers. I would name three at a time. You may come up to the podium to speak as I call your name. Allison Hightower. Ekinke Go. Javier Arizmendi.

And folks will have two minutes.

You have two minutes, and please state your full name for the record. Two minutes each.

Good afternoon. My name is Allison Hightower.

Can you please speak into the mic? Thank you very much.

That would help. OK. Again, my name is Allison Hightower. I'm here to speak about the project that's proposed by the Ellis developers. I believe the address is, I could have it, not exactly right, 6230, 6230, 40 Claremont. It's where the Red Cross building has been for many years. I have lived in the Rockridge area for over 30 years and in Oakland for over 40 years. And my home is about two and a half or so blocks away from the Red Cross building. I drive around the neighborhood and I walk around the neighborhood pretty much every day, so I know it well. I've seen a lot of changes in the time that I've lived in the area. I supported reconstruction of the Safeway. Claremont and College which was a large project and there was a lot of neighborhood Concern and opposition to it, but I supported it I also supported the construction of the dryers building longer ago on College Avenue And this is the first time I've come to a Planning Commission hearing. I appreciate the work that Ellis has done to prepare and modify its proposal to address some of our concerns and And I also want to note, I recognize we have a need for more housing in Oakland, including more housing for seniors. And as a volunteer counselor for legal assistance for the elderly or for seniors, I frequently talk with seniors who are really struggling to pay their bills, including their housing costs. I want to address briefly some concerns about traffic and parking congestion that the project has currently proposed could impact the neighborhood adversely. particularly in terms of public safety. Many of my neighbors walk around the neighborhood, including to run errands, go to BART, go out to eat, shop, and just to get fresh air and exercise, including many of my neighbors.

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

Okay. We would like the commission to consider requiring a traffic study in order to see what the impact would be of the very large building that is being proposed and whether it should be reduced in order to allow for better safety in the neighborhood and less adverse impacts on pedestrians. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Kerry Goff. I live on Auburn Avenue. I've lived there for 25 years and have owned property in the Rockridge area since like 1977, the same house on Auburn Avenue. I appreciate the city and the developers' work to address community impact. I think everyone here supports the addition of housing and that the Red Cross site is a good place for it. I, for one, support the project moving forward and look forward to being a good neighbor and am hopeful that the building itself will be a good neighbor. But for that to be accomplished, I believe certain reasonable adjustments to the design are necessary. For example, how does a building as proposed affect the access to sunlight and air? That question brings to mind California public policy and law that encourages and in some cases requires unfettered access to sunlight and air. For example, the California solar panel mandate requires most new residential and commercial buildings to include solar systems although that mandate only applies to buildings of three stories or less it clearly expresses public policy in favor of clean energy and access to sunlight and air Further, the California Solar Rights Act and the government code mandate the protection of solar energy systems and discourages unreasonable obstacles to their use. And there will be obstacles to existing solar panels on Auburn Avenue once this building starts casting its shadows. In addition, Public policy forbids construction and obstructions that interfere with comfortable enjoyment of life and property. Obstructions that interfere with sunlight and air or neighbors and neighborhoods will constitute what the law calls nuisances, the designation of the deprivation of sunlight for which the law provides remedies. I encourage the developers to examine the shadow studies which are available. Shadow projections of the tower reveal that existing solar panels on Auburn and Florio streets will significantly be denied sunlight, especially in the winter months such as now. This impact will discourage residents on Florio and Auburn from installing solar panels.

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

Okay, then I'm going to move on to a concern that just arose to me. This project is designed to to meet the need for additional housing and the need for protection of resident rights selling there. Although the project is promoted as senior housing, that designation is incomplete. The units will rent for $10,000 to $12,000 per month or $120,000 to $140,000 per year. The median income for Oakland households headed by a senior is approximately $60,000. To afford a rent of $10,000 to $12,000 per month requires an annual income of over $400,000. The percentage of all Oakland residents who can afford rents of $10,000 to $12,000 per month is well under 5%. But if we examine the affordability for the 65,000 Oakland senior residents who can afford those rents, it's likely less than 1%. So we're going to need to wrap it up. For about 600 seniors. Bottom line, the truthful name for this project is is not senior housing, it's wealthy seniors housing. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Javier Arizmendi. I'm an architect. I'm a fellow of the American Institute of Architects. I'm an urbanist. I've actually been engaged in many projects on the design side, designing higher density cities and projects. I'm going to be very direct. What lens to bring to this project? I support densification, as I've said before. As an architect, we're charged with protecting public health, safety, and welfare. On the safety side, I urge you to look at fire. The height of this building as it's measured, and I think that they're going for a low-rise building, is not measured, in my opinion and other architects, properly to 75 feet to the lowest point where a fire truck can access the building. So this needs to be addressed. In addition, the setbacks are quite small, which limits the amount of openings, the type of construction. The facades don't seem to address that either. My other concern is that the biggest and longest property line is 300 feet, which is a long neighboring residential units. I suspect that that is also going to be addressed by the fire department in terms of having more standpipes or more hydrants or even the access of a fire truck along that property line. Let's make sure that the fire marshal can address these issues before it's too late. Health, how is that defined? Designing spaces that improve physical, emotional, social well-being, considering factors like natural light, air quality, and non-toxic materials. So some of the speakers have already addressed light access by neighbors. I'm going to address light access by the future residents. The open space requirement is there to ensure precisely the access to light, ventilation, and views. In this case, the open space has been reduced to a light well. You can see across to other units. And the open space is really now a little space with a skylight in the middle, so I don't know what people would do there except go around in circles. So I'm concerned about the quality of those spaces that are actually being designed now. Third, welfare, promoting the general well-being through equitable access. So we talked about access. I don't think that this promotes equitable access. Fostering social interaction.

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

Where does it foster social interaction with the neighbors? Wouldn't it be great if they could have a bigger setback and propose a vegetable garden for the residents and maybe even for the neighbors, or a bocce ball court, or other uses that really promotes community? At the moment, they've turned all of Florio into a garbage, potential garbage dump, and a mechanical yard. And they've turned Claremont with more and more traffic into just a front that has all curb cuts. Let me tell you, I designed a building that is twice as dense with one curb cut. There's no reason why they should have all of those curb cuts.

Thank you.

Oh yeah.

All right, so we have at the moment two more speakers. We have Andrew Delmato and Robin Mays. Please state your name for the record and you have two minutes.

All right. Well, thank you very much for your attention. My name is Andrew DelMotto. I live in the Rockridge area, just a few blocks from the proposed building. I mean, to be fair, I think everybody here supports more housing, more senior housing. Great idea. You know, as long as it's within the current code, effectively, the 55-feet current code. You know, when you live in Rockridge, it's an amazing area, right? It's part of a, you know, Oakland has a unique vibe, and Rockridge has a unique vibe. It's important that we keep the character of that, you know, to the people who live there, and I think to the people who come there. I think the businesses, the people, as well as the safety of the neighborhood. Again, the code, the 55-foot code was built with safety and services and infrastructure, emergency services and infrastructure in mind. And when you look at Rockridge and you think about the vibe, or the flow, the feel of the area. It's known for smaller homes, where most of the homes and apartments are either two to four stories. And they transition gradually from street to street. It's not a verticalized neighborhood, as you might see in a downtown area or even like Manhattan. It's just not like that. It doesn't have that feel at all. It's important to note that the access, the support, the emergency services, they were all constructed with the 55 feet current code in mind. Adding to the density just creates more risk. And when I thought about it, what struck me was the Oakland fire was like, what, half a mile, a mile away. 25 people died. 150 people were injured. Almost 400 structures were lost. That Claremont corridor, Berkeley has declared that whole Claremont Street, from like Eaton to Ashby and Claremont, a dangerous traffic area, and they're actually trying to address it. We're going to add more people at 100-plus units there. That's a six-way intersection when you look at Florio, Claremont. College and 62nd Street. It's already dangerous. There was a fatality there this summer. And just adding to the risk there, and if there were ever a fire emergency, I think we'd have one heck of a hazard. One of the interesting things somebody pointed out to me earlier, I guess there was a fire yesterday or recently at 19th Street in downtown Oakland or something like that. Imagine if that were there. with the current infrastructure. It's just not there to support it. And again, we're supportive of it. But again, I think the builders, we should put it on them to support the infrastructure or build the infrastructure necessary to even support the added density for just the 55 street building. So again- I'm sorry, your time is up.

You may complete your last statement.

All right, so my point here is, look, we're already oversubscribed on the services, very supportive of a structure with the height limit of 55 feet, the current code, but also put it on the builder to add the necessary infrastructure to complete that intersection, such that it's safe, that Claremont College Avenue infrastructure for earthquakes, emergency services. These are older people there. they're going to require a lot of services in an emergency. And I respectfully ask that the assignments to the project be made to work within the current 55-feet code and that we ask the builder to fund those projects. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Robin Mays. I am also a neighbor. I grew up on Manoa Street. I currently live on Mystic Street. I live there for almost 50 years. I am absolutely supportive of more housing. I'm actually a realtor in the area. It's my specialty. I'm 100% supportive of us providing housing for our community and for those who are going to be aging. We'd all love to stay in our community. That's a huge priority. However, it must be appropriate and realistic, and it must address real concerns like parking and traffic safety. It's imperative that we keep our traffic moving smoothly and make the streets safe for our children, for our elder neighbors, and that we're able to safely navigate that neighborhood. And the amount of traffic that's coming through there is already a hazard. There are numerous accidents on Claremont Avenue by cars hitting pedestrians and our citizens. We strongly recommend that the builder relocate the door to the south side of the building to help minimize the additional traffic on Claremont Avenue. They need to understand that our streets are narrow and the traffic study must account for the cumulative chaos in addition to their building and Safeways with the vendor trucks combined with a constant stream of medical waste and laundry services that this building will require. We cannot allow our emergency access to be choked by commercial congestion. We ask that you prioritize our health, our privacy, and the vitality of our existing community over the profit margins of this builder. Thank you.

All right, so we have one more speaker, Adam Browning. Please state your full name for the record, and you have two minutes.

Thank you much. My name is Adam Browning, and I too am a resident of this neighborhood. After 12 years of renting in the neighborhood, my wife and I took all the money we had in the world and invested in a house nearby. Why? Because this is a community that respects each other and cares for each other. When COVID hit, We set up a pod school. We had numerous neighbors that offered their garages for either play space or for school space. We wash each other's solar panels. I can't tell you how many trees we've all collectively helped neighbors put in. So I, too, am asking that we build on this site. We have other sites nearby on that corner that we would also like to see more housing put in on. But we would like to see a site that respects the neighborhood, that is an asset to the community. I think my neighbor Javier stated it. You know, Paris is one of the most livable cities in the world, and I would like to see Paris-style buildings. four stories, five stories, a bocce court, assets to the community, something that actually we can be proud of that people want to actually live there. So again, I just want to come forward with support for building, but building that actually respects the character of the neighborhood. And that is something that we all collectively feel adds to the nature of the neighborhood. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

He's our final speaker.

Thanks, Geneva. Secretary Payne, can you give us an update on the status of the Claremont project?

Yes. So the project that the community is referring to is a proposal that has been submitted for a land use entitlement consideration. The proposal has not become an application yet with fees paid and staff analysis underway. So the proposal is moving through our intake process right now. I don't know when it will successfully meet all of the requirements. of our basic application for development review, which includes a list of items that need to be submitted for consideration.

Did they do a prelim for SB 330, or is it just a pre-app under the city's process?

They did submit an SB 330 pre-app. What we do for those is for the benefit of the public, is that SB 330 is a state act, and the state requires the city to consider, I'm going to try to hugely summarize this, vesting for projects that successfully submit a pre-application and meet the qualifications of that state act. We don't review that pre-application until we have an application successfully submitted. That's when we confirm if the application is consistent with the pre-app and compliant with that state act SB 330. I didn't hear the question.

Did you want to repeat a plan? So for an SB 330 pre-app, you just have to satisfy a checklist. And if it's complete, then the application is deemed complete and the project is vested with the current rules. And then an applicant has 180 days after that date to file a formal application. So it sounds like we're somewhere... within that 180 days i don't know where but then the other point that catherine was making is that there's also the process of the city reviewing the application under the city's checklist process and it sounds like that's happening too which i think in short means that this is it seems like early days in terms of where this project is process wise

That is correct. Staff is not yet conducting any analysis of this proposal.

OK. Thank you. And thank you all for coming. I will now go back to the director's report and call up the director to give a presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, commission. and to the chair, I do want to first express my gratitude for being invited back again for the purpose of doing a director's report. And when I first arrived, the schedule for the planning commission meetings was later into the evening. One of the challenges that I've had in terms of being able to come here on a regular basis is that this is the same time that's concurrent with our department head meetings. So I do have that covered and wanted to be here particularly for this opportunity. And because my chances to come before the group have been so rare, What I was planning on doing, and this is with the complete support of staff, is to provide a report fundamentally looking at what we have accomplished over the past year and what we have leaning forward. Now, I'm also mindful of time. I'm not exactly sure how much I'm being given for this purpose. And I know you do have some other business ahead of you. So I do want to be respectful of that. There's always an opportunity. for me to return and for me to have someone else who will be able to cover for me at the department meeting. But I do think it is good practice for the director to be before this body on a regular basis. I think not only for the work that you have in front of you, but because by the nature of what you do, it's also context sensitive. So where we have other laws, other adoptions, regulations, be they state or be they of our own generation, it's important for you all to know what's going on with transit and transportation, what's going on with public works, what our capital program is looking like before they become projects that you have to review. So we'd like to really establish more of an ongoing interface with you all to help set those parameters. So looking at what we have done over the past two years, The Bureau of Planning, which is one of our units within the Planning and Building Department, the one that supports this commission, has delivered significant streamlining approaches to support residential development, which again is a big priority for us, both mandated by the state, but also out of our own local interest. SO IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS A FOCUS, PLANNING HAS LOOKED TO RELAX PERMITTING FOR BAR AND ENTERTAINMENT USES IN THE DOWNTOWN AND HAS REMOVED THE MAJOR C.U.P. REQUIREMENTS FOR ALCOHOL ASSOCIATED WITH ENTERTAINMENT USES, AND NOW IT'S PROCESSED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRAL DISTRICT ENTERTAINMENT VENUE PERMIT. ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE REDUCED DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. PROJECTS WITHIN 1 TO 30 DWELLING UNITS ARE NOW SUBJECT TO STREAMLINED MINISTERIAL REVIEW. We've adopted objective design standards also in alignment with the state to support streamlined ministerial review and provide increased certainty for applicants. Citi has now adopted ODS, the objective design standards for one to four unit projects and one to three story projects and four to eight story projects. We have reduced affordable housing impact fees in certain scenarios to support the missing middle housing development, which has always been one of the most challenging areas when we come forward with our annual progress reports on complying with the housing element and the targets under ARENA for our city. We have amended zoning regulations to eliminate single-family zoning in most Oakland neighborhoods, where up to four units now are permitted in most zones by right, up to two units on any residential parcels, except in the Hillsdale residential zones. And this is an accomplishment that some of our neighboring jurisdictions make regular PRESS HEADLINES OUT OF BUT WE TEND NOT TO BE QUITE AS VOCAL WITH OUR WORK PROGRESS WHICH IS SOMETHING WE MAY NEED TO WORK ON LET FOLKS KNOW THAT WE'RE OUT HERE DOING IT SOMETIMES YEARS IN ADVANCE OF WHEN THEIR HEADLINES HIT THE STREETS FOR LARGER DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMITS OR PUDS THE LAST ENTITLEMENT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WENT FROM DISCRETIONARY TO MINISTERIAL REVIEW And this has saved months on future PUDs. We've got many projects that are benefiting from that now, and it will be beneficial for projects like our Oak Knoll and for the adopted BART transit villages. So this, by the time we get to this point in a project, we're pretty well assured what's being built. So there's really, No need to take them through another iteration of a discretionary review at that point. In the strategic planning unit for 2026 for this year, we are in the midst, as you all know, on phase two of our general plan update. And strategic plan is currently working with the community to draft the new general plan elements. to guide Oakland's development for the next 30 years. And I really do want to commend the staff for the work they did in phase one of the general plan update, which was recognized by the American Planning Association, the California chapter, the largest in the state and one of the largest in the nation, for the work that the staff did, particularly on outreach and community engagement. There's so much that we do here that results in physical form. But the way to get the greatest assurance that we're doing the right thing is to talk to the community and the stakeholders who are involved early and often. And the staff really took that seriously in the phase one of the general plan update and are following it through in this phase. We have our ADU updates will be coming in the second quarter of this year, and that is response to state HCD comments on our regulations. We are constantly engaged with our friends at HCD at the state level, and they're looking both to see how our housing element prescriptions in particular are being implemented and how they're meeting goals. And also we need to make sure that we're staying abreast of new legislation as it comes out of Sacramento. We're looking at the SB 79, which is a newly adopted state law that allows for increased development density and building heights surrounding BART and bus rapid transit nodes. I think often when I first arrived with my travels up and down International Boulevard and being very curious about what the land use implications were, what had been done in tandem with that transit investment, And I know many, many, many years ago when I was very heavily involved with the U.S. Department of Transportation legislative initiatives under various programs, you really did want to illustrate what the land use opportunities were going to be for any fixed transportation investment that they were supporting with DOT dollars. So the city is planning on adopting exclusions for certain parcels that meet criteria outlined in state law. And the purpose there is to really recognize the unique character, the sense of place that Oakland has. And it, again, is a fantastic city in many regards, one of which is that there is great character here. When I moved here from New Orleans and people were asking me generally what my impressions were of the city, I said, well, sometimes I don't really feel like I left Oakland. New Orleans, and there are other times I know I'm in a different city. But what really strikes me most, and I think this is an aspect of many great places, is that if you want to be somewhere else than where you are, here you just have to walk a few blocks, you know, walk 20 minutes. And it is really a patchwork of many different historic, contemporary, and natural settings, which is one of its, I think, greatest assets it has as a place. We will be looking with the general plan update, the next milestone will be publication of the draft land use framework in early March of this year. The framework will be brought to the Planning Commission towards the end of March and early April. That will be with the benefit of the feedback that we've gotten from community who have had a chance to review this. We have at this meeting on agenda, which is one of the reasons I'm gonna pick up the pace, the S-14 zoning amendments where staff is proposing to amend these regulations. S-14 zone regulates housing densities throughout Oakland to comply with our housing element that was adopted and to deliver our fair share under the RHNA, which I mentioned earlier is a target that we're held accountable towards by the state. And the proposed amendments revise the definition of development and allow for non-residential uses on housing element sites via the conditional use process. What we have found is that, and staff will get into this with the presentation, but where we really applied much of the S-14 There are non-residential uses or opportunities for non-residential uses that still have benefit for community development. There may be employment-based or commercial, and we want to provide a means of allowing some of those for consideration, particularly through conditional use. where any concerns may be mitigated. On our short-term rentals in late January, early February this year, strategic planning will publish the background report for short-term rentals and initiate stakeholder meetings. We'll be taking that through. We're hoping to be able to get determination for the proposal, the ordinance we bring forward and be able to get with council before their summer recess. But we do know this will be a fairly complicated issue to take up. There are many different aspects and objectives that are needing to be addressed with short-term rentals. And one has only to look at cities across the nation to see what that process is like. Did I mention New Orleans? Yes, okay. All right. And the annual progress report, coming again back to our accomplishment of our arena goals, will be brought back to this planning commission. in May of 2026. Now, I have a few more updates I can give, but I want to be mindful of the time. Should we just do this on another cycle, or what would you like? I mean, I can carry on, or...

I'll leave that to the chair. I think we're okay.

Okay, good. All right, good, good, good, good enough. It's good to have you here, so let's go. Thank you. I feel very welcome, very glad to be here. All right, with zoning, zoning division handles land use entitlements, as you know, for projects that are not considered by right or over the counter. And the division has experienced a decrease in incoming cases as well as staffing. There's been some fortuitous correlation there. in 2026 the zoning division will look to manage existing and incoming cases within timelines posted on the city's website you know working around our constraints and um we also uh within the zoning division we have cases that are subject to your review uh and certainly the city council uh if if those are appealed or have elements uh administratively that the city council has to attach to the um title 17 or the land use considerations that you all advise uh and um we'll be bringing cases of that nature forward uh determination appeal to the planning commission in february 2026 the zoning division will bring an appeal of a determination uh for the planning commission's decision uh this appeal to the planning commission of the zoning manager's determination relates to an existing business uh it's in mimosa 2 is what i'm being told here and it was appropriately classified as a full service restaurant There's an appeal to council for March 26th, and this is an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a major variance to allow the further expansion of an existing storage activity that the Planning Commission heard on October 5th, 2025. For development planning, the Development Planning Division processes large and complex land use entitlements, which you all are very familiar with. In 2026, we have some cases under consideration. The Claremont Blood Bank site, the city has received a proposal to redevelop the former blood bank with, well, as we're talking, with the 203 units of senior housing. The community is already reaching out to staff on the proposal, as we know. THE TRAIN STATION, AND THIS IS OVER AT WOOD STREET, THE CITY IS PROCESSING A HOUSING PROPOSAL ON THE SITE OF THE HISTORIC 16TH STREET TRAIN STATION AT 16TH AND WOOD, AND COMMUNITY, OF COURSE, HAS ONGOING INTEREST IN HOW THE HOUSING IS BEING DEVELOPED AND WHAT IS THE DISPOSITION ON THE STATION. And Brooklyn Basin parcel N, proposed amendment to the Brooklyn Basin plan unit development, the PUD, an estuary park master plan to construct residential development has a significant amount of community interest, and we would expect will be brought before this body in this coming year. We have some nearer term objectives as well, which I'll save for us to talk about a little later. ON THE PROJECTS THAT ARE POST-ENTITLEMENT, WE HAVE ENTITLEMENTS IN THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT ARE UNDER REVIEW AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION, OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION THIS YEAR. THE WEST OAKLAND BART MANDELA STATION, WHICH HAS BEEN MAKING SOME NEWS, AND I'VE BEEN RUNNING TO A FEW OF THE PRODUCT SPONSORS THERE, VERY EXCITED. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR 240 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, FIRST PHASE OF THIS TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. Ellen Bart, the phase one affordable housing is 97. UNITS AND IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION FIRST PHASE OF THIS TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT THE BROOKLYN BASIN PARCEL H PHASE ONE DEVELOPER HAS SUBMITTED BUILDING PERMITS FOR 83 MARKET RATE HOUSING UNITS AND THAT IS ALSO PLANNED FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS YEAR AND OF COURSE OUR EVER-PRESENT OAK NOLE BUILDING PERMITS AND FTB'S TO BE SUBMITTED IN 2026 THIS YEAR FOR THE FIRST MARKET RATE HOUSING UNITS IN THAT PROJECT We have, as part of our daily encounter, as you know, on the second floor, our counter operations, and the planning permit counter process is about 90% of all planning applications at the staff level. The zoning clearances to help businesses open, ADUs, the new residential units and existing structures, additions to buildings, tenant improvements, in-kind replacements, some of the things that sometimes inappropriately may be considered not that glamorous, but are certainly glamorous to the people who are trying to get them done. and often add a lot of what is the grit and character of the communities too, that there's reinvestment in buildings that have history and presence in our neighborhoods and in our commercial districts within neighborhoods. In 2025, the division expanded the planning permit counter, adding four planners. And we have a total of six planners now and administrative support also. In December, we expanded our counter services to the public in terms of access. So our walk-in services are Monday through Thursday instead of just Mondays and Wednesdays. And we have the hours posted on the web and also at 250 at the entrance. The walk-ins principally in the morning hours until early noon or midday and then by appointments in the afternoon. We introduce in-person appointments Monday through Thursday, again, as I was mentioning. And we have expanded virtual appointments Monday through Friday. instead of just Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. So that's also in tandem with the appointment windows and opportunities. So over the next 60 days, we are looking to improve many of our application processes. As an example, for the DRX, applicants will be able to apply directly for design of your exemptions via our online application portal instead of having to submit a zoning worksheet. And I think you're going to see the pace really pick up in terms of our virtual interface for applicants. And with the portent of AI and how that's going to be insinuating itself more into these processes, we imagine that that rate of change is going to be nothing but increase. And it's fascinating just to see what jurisdictions across the country are doing and how they're integrating AI and particularly in tandem with design firms that are using AI as well, just to see the dialogue of those projects and how they're being reviewed. We also are looking to constantly update our web pages, both between the rules and ordinances that we adopt, many of which are first determined and recommended out of this body to council, and also mandates that come from the state that we have to align with, that we have to keep our public face current It is a very, very dynamic system of regulations that we have in the state of California in general and in Oakland in particular. We are working with our Acela team, and I'm sure you all know in the context of other discussions that this is a software platform we use to process applications. So we're looking both to use that as a better source for data so we can use our management approaches in response to what the data are indicating. And also want to mention that the staff has done a wonderful job over the last several years of putting together dashboards that we can then use for management as well. So we are getting to see volume of work. We're getting to see where we have certain trends that also tell us how to adapt in terms of serving them. And we also are associating, of course, timelines with the portfolio of cases. Now, one thing that's really interesting for me is that often performance is related by averages. Somebody will tell you on average, it takes you so many months or so many weeks to get something done. But what we have found is much more instructive is to get the median, is to get that point, that duration where 50% of your cases are less than 50% or more. Because sometimes the average... What we're finding more often than not is that the average data really... Overstates the time that the majority of the cases are actually coming through at much less time than the average with state at the meeting. The 50 50 distribution is less. So that's also very instructive for us. So we know where we need to focus our attention. In order to really get to our improvements. And then with the improved application processes, we will have direct application of DRX as mentioned and currently have improved access for EDUs. We will see whether applicants submit more complete submittals that will lead to a reduction in the overall processing time. So to the extent that we can be a lot clearer upfront about what is needed, then these rounds of incomplete letters and so forth can really cut down. So one of the big pushes we have is to be as complete as we can with what it is we need in order to support. And again, being mindful that for the majority of folks who are coming through our system, they're not going to be the professional developers or contractors or architects who know exactly where to go to get something done or know what to complain about is not getting done in very articulate words that we understand. But there may be somebody who's only going to do a porch addition one time in their whole life. And having a system that is friendly and accommodating, especially for people who might find this whole thing intimidating, is something that we really are stressing as a priority with our software interfaces and also with our training. I will say within the department, and we're doing this across the board, but the building bureau has also been leaning in very heavily with this through their chief building official, is to get staff trained to be trained you know, very, very customer friendly and interface more with customers to really find out what it is they need and how we can best address that need and requirement. So that's a lot of stuff. I don't know how much time I took, but anyway, I'm very glad to be here. And I certainly would expect that these are opportunities, I'm probably saying something I don't even need to, for these to be interactive. And I really do want to express appreciation for all of you who do your service. I have been in this role in many cities across the country. And what has struck me probably right after the elected positions of city council and, of course, of the mayors, that the appointed body's planning commission probably has – the significant role in really determining what the city ends up being physically. That there's a policy position obviously under the leadership of the mayor, under the leadership of the council, but in terms of what they often receive in terms of advice and recommendation and deliberation is from bodies like this.

so um i know you will bring a lot of commitment and compassion to this work along with your expertise and uh on behalf of the city of oakland and certainly the staff who supports you i want to thank you for your time thank you director gilchrist you're always welcome here um and it's really informative and i'm really exciting to hear sort of what the city's doing to streamline and make things more user friendly for folks who you know aren't to your point sort of the the professional developers so i think that's really important um

Does anyone have any questions?

I'll come back. Good. We know where to find you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Um, okay. So I don't believe we have anything on the consent calendar. That is correct. So that'll take us to our public hearing. And we're, it looks like we are, we don't have the number one that that's gotten moved. So we'll go right to number two.

Right. So the item is number two, just for the public's benefit. Item number one was deleted from the agenda a few days ago. And this is a citywide item. And it will actually be Laura Kaminski presenting this. These are the proposed changes or proposed, sorry, proposed amendments to the S-14, HBX, DCE, CIX, IG, IO, and DDT zoning districts. And Laura will describe them fully since we've just mentioned a number of different districts and be available after providing a report to respond to your questions. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners and the public. Yeah, KTOP, thank you for the presentation. So I am Laura Kaminski, Strategic Planning Manager for the City of Oakland, and I'm going to be speaking on the Planning Code Amendments for the S-14 zone and also our work-live and live-work regulations. Okay, so starting with the S-14 zone. So Oakland adopted the S-14 housing sites combining zone regulations as part of the 2023-2031 housing element applying to all sites in the housing sites inventory. While the S-14 zone streamlines review, concerns have emerged that it may contain, constrain activation of vacant and underutilized sites. So staff committed to review and update this chapter based on the results of its implementation. So in the definition section for the S-14 zoning includes a definition of what constitutes a development project. So an amendment would clarify the development project definition enable limited expansion for businesses within existing buildings. The proposed project types are now clearly defined to not be included in the definition of a development project. So a development project does not include the making of improvements, renovations, or updates to an existing building. And then what's been newly added is also adding floor area to an existing building that is occupied by a business established in that building on or before January 1st of 2026, or the placement of temporary structures. And the following project types are clearly defined to be a development project. And so that includes adding floor area to an existing building that is occupied by a business established in that building after January 21, 2026, where the square footage of the building is increased by 50% or more than 30,000 square feet, whichever is less. We also have additional non-residential expansion which could be allowed, but that would be via the proposed conditional use permit process. So in addition to this amendment, we are also looking at amendment which is of the required majority residential use requirement in the S-14 zone. So currently all development on S-14 sites must be majority residential or meet one of four exemptions. Existing regulations limit non-residential development, constraining activation of vacant or underutilized sites. So a proposed amendment would add a conditional use permit exemption for non-housing development. A CUP would be granted only if the project meets general conditional use permit criteria and also meets the following. it provides a substantial community or economic benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city's remaining share of its regional housing need for the 2023-2031 housing element cycle this finding shall be consistent with the no net loss findings in the california government code section 65863 and the findings shall also include no net loss at each income level And we did staff actually met with the state HCD staff before we brought this amendment to the commission to make sure that this was that the state HCD staff would consider this to be in alignment with our housing element and not contradictory to it. And they did say that this, with the no debt loss finding, that that is consistent with our housing element. They actually put that in writing to an email to us. So we do have that in writing from the state that what we're proposing is not essentially contradicting our housing element. Okay, so then the next set of amendments is related to our work-live units and live-work units in Oakland. And essentially, the proposed plan code amendment for the work-live and live-work is to align with and not contradict recent updates to the Oakland Building Code regulations and the California Building Code standards. So with recent changes to the building code, it currently does not allow for work-live or live work to be more than 50% non-residential. So we made amendments across the planning code to our work-live and live work development standards to lower the maximum non-residential unit area for work, live, and live work where needed to allow no more than 50% non-residential square footage per unit. So there's actually some areas in our code where we required or only allowed like 25% example of residential, which then would mean you'd have to have 75% non-residential, which would have contradicted the building code, which is a problem. So that's why we made those changes. And so then the ten of dates of the council meeting, if this is moved forward by the Planning Commission today, would be February 24th to go to the Community Economic Development, or CED, subcommittee of council, and then March 3rd to go to the first reading of full city council. so the staff recommendation is staff requests that the planning commission recommend the city council conduct a public hearing and upon complete conclusion adopt an ordinance amending title 17 of the oakland municipal code to amend chapter 17.96 s14 housing sites combining zone to update the definition of development project and to include a conditional use permit procedure for non-housing developments and update work-live and live-work residential to non-residential unit area as referenced throughout Title 17 to correspond with revisions to the California Building Code and Oakland building regulations and making appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Laura. I will open it up for questions. No?

OK, go ahead, Vice Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Just a question. The standard requires a finding that remaining sites will still meet RHNA goals. And I'm just wondering how and who makes that determination based on what data?

Right. So we already have in process, it's actually our staff who works on the annual progress report, who is looking regularly, calculating all the housing units that are being approved, looking at whether those were on sites that were housing element sites or on sites that were not housing element sites, as well as even sometimes maybe a housing element site either produced more housing than was anticipated by what we had in the housing element or less housing. So they're keeping a running total of that as well as looking at, you know, we already had a surplus as well of sites in the housing, in our housing element that was required by state law. So we're also taking into account that surplus. And so they're constantly looking at whether we still have a surplus or not with what is being approved. WHAT IS MAYBE NOT MEETING WHAT WAS EXPECTED. SO THE IDEA IS THAT IF WE ARE TAKING A SITE AWAY THAT WAS MAYBE GOING TO BE SIX HOUSING UNITS, DO WE STILL HAVE THAT SURPLUS BASED ON ALL THE UNITS TOTAL? THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT IS INCLUDED IN STAFF REPORTS. and in approval letters, which is part of the no net loss findings requirement of the state. So we actually are stating whether we're still in that surplus or not. And if at some point we were to lose that surplus, then the requirement of the housing element is that we have to then designate either some additional sites as housing element sites or even potentially maybe do some rezoning in order to have more increased capacity to add more sites.

Okay, that's helpful. And that kind of analysis is looked at holistically once a year, would you say? Or is it going to be looked at? I guess it'll be reviewed every time one of these potential sites?

I think it's definitely more than once a year, but it's not like every day. Sure, yeah. But I think it's maybe every once a month or every couple of months that those calculations are being made and being updated, and that's being updated as we do our staff reports. And right now we have a pretty good surplus. So it's not a concern that if we aren't updating it every day that we're going to be at a potential negative because we actually still have a very good surplus right now.

Okay wonderful and I have one other question and that's really around when considering sites for non-residential uses and deciding whether they'll add substantial community benefit is I believe what the language is just like that's what will be the threshold or metrics to determine what

provide substantial community benefit? Well, it's community or economic benefit. So I think part of the analysis would basically be looking at how many housing units were proposed on that site compared to what is the development that's being proposed to that site doing, right? So an example, like there's a project right now that actually, this is why this came to our attention, that is a community center. They want to actually expand the community center, but the way the regulations were written was because it's a non-residential use, they were not able to expand that. And so in that instance, there are six housing units planned for that site, which is relatively small compared to what we think the amount of benefit that's being provided to the community, you know, could be hundreds of community members that are being, can be benefited from that. So those are the types of analysis that would essentially be done. We're talking about is this substantial or not. So, another example could be if something was going to provide 300 housing units and maybe you're going to build a very small fast food restaurant, then maybe that's really not substantial compared to the amount of housing units you're losing for that particular site.

Understood. I think I would just love to see a little bit more clarity around Like how that is determined just so across the board, there's some consistency. Um, I don't know necessarily how to do that, but that's just something that I could see there being a lot of like subjectivity there that might not be fair longterm.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll follow up on that. You asked all my questions. Yeah, I mean, that's the one thing that jumped out at me. It was the subjectivity of the benefits and sort of how, and your examples seem pretty clear, but the examples aren't always going to be clear, and it's going to be interesting to think about how we hold applicants' feet to the fire, because when you're making findings under a CUP, those are fairly objective. And so if we add on this subjective layer, what does that mean? what does that look like and how would we enforce if it needed to be a condition of approval or is it just this balancing of the new use versus what we anticipated? So I don't know if we need to bake in like a list of, you know, such a, you know, including but not limited to. And I think we had something like that maybe in the downtown plan. And so maybe so that there's at least some examples, obviously it's not going to be, you know, cover everything, but that might just be something that we can add in somewhere, even if it's just into something like an application process. I think that could become a problem, I guess, is my concern, is how we actually make a finding like that. And I also had a follow-up. I mean, what do we think is the order of magnitude in terms of the loss of units? I mean, I know it sounded like we've gotten some feedback from people out in the community who think that these sites are being underutilized or could be better utilized if we got to do something non-residential. I mean, are we thinking... In terms of our surplus, are we thinking hundreds of units? I mean, do we have any kind of sense of what this change could open us up to from a no net loss standpoint?

Well, I think what we've gotten requests for so far, I think, has not been that many. But I think the concern has been, though, like the example of the community center, where it's something that this is something we want. This is good for the community. But because of this other regulation, it's restricting this from expanding and helping the community more. And so we haven't had too many so far that I think would be looking at doing that. But I think there's always this concern of, especially right now, housing is not being built as much, and if there are some opportunities for some commercial uses that could help activate an area, bring economic return to the city or benefits to the community. Do we want that or do we want the site to remain vacant for another whatever, you know, five, ten years and nothing is happening on that site? So that's what we're looking at. And in the past housing elements cycle, we haven't had these same kind of very strict requirements. I mean, if you wanted to build something on it, you could. Right. Right. And I think, you know, in this instance, we do have a lot of surplus. And because we were required to have so much of a surplus, there's a lot more sites, which means there's a lot more sites that are then potentially, if residential is not being built, they're just going to remain vacant and nothing happening on them for maybe a substantial amount of time. So that is, I think, what we're trying to balance here. And we feel that there's still really enough sites out there. And even there's sites that we didn't even say as sites that still allow residential to happen because, you know, pretty much in most of Oakland, except for industrial areas, we allow for residential and we allow for pretty high densities in a lot of our city sites. I think the other thing that Director Gilchrist mentioned earlier, this idea of trying to allow more missing middle housing as an example. Right now, as maybe bigger developments are not penciling out, the hope is maybe some of these smaller type of projects can fill in that gap in the meantime of additional housing. because it's something that is more affordable and doesn't require as much financing and can be done all over the city instead of just maybe certain sites that you expect really big developments and trying to sprinkle this you know added density throughout the whole area of Oakland and by doing that you not only help maybe businesses in those areas because now you have more people that can serve those businesses and go to those businesses and But you also maybe help get more transit because obviously, you know, transit and buses rely on added density to expand and create new bus routes. So if in these neighborhoods that have been more exclusively single family can actually have some higher density, maybe we can get more transit going to those neighborhoods.

Ed Manassi, Deputy Director of Planning. One thing I was thinking about hearing your questions, which I think are very on point, it'd be hard to capture that kind of objective criteria in the finding itself, but what we could offer is administrative guidelines that could be created to create that kind of a more structured analysis process of how we could kind of come to a more objective decision on what is considered substantial economic or community benefit. And I think that if we could do that while keeping the amendments themselves kind of on track, because there's a couple of projects that are waiting for this process to resolve itself. But I think that we could come back to the Commission, too, to get your feedback on those administrative guidelines.

Yeah, I think that's a great idea.

Yeah, and no, it is, absolutely. And two things struck me in listening to the conversation. One is certainly with the other benefits we have with the general plan phase two coming up the loot and looking at where there may be certain islands or deserts of need within residential communities where this overlay may be in place, but someone comes with a certain proposal and it is meeting a service of demand. There's some clear indication of a demand driver that this community would love to see this here. And then that might give us also some baseline, and that could be adduced in the administrative guidelines also that would bring that kind of lens to the consideration. The other is, and Chair, your point is spot on, on the on understanding the opportunity cost to housing in terms of moving this direction. I've got you. I think what we also want to be mindful is keeping a running tally over time because that margin is going to change for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that as we add more parcels to the non-residential use for valid reasons, and we see where we have some surpluses, now as demands change, we probably need to do a little run of analytics on that too. So maybe when we do the housing element update, if there's other legislation that comes along that might affect it, it's something that we want to keep up with in terms of where we feel those opportunity costs may lie by giving this use consideration instead of the housing. I don't think it's a one shot, like one photograph and we're done. And that's the benchmark we use forever. I think it's something that's going to have to be updated on some regular cycle.

Yeah, I think that's, it doesn't feel like a floodgate moment, but that would be the concern, right? But there are, yeah, okay.

Yeah, to add to what Director Gilchrist was saying is that the housing element actually requires us at the midway point to reevaluate our housing sites inventory and look at if there's any changes that need to be done. And so that midpoint is actually next year, 2027. just around the corner. So that is something that is also on staff's agenda to do. And so that is something that we will be looking at and we'll bring that to the planning commission. Oh, great. Thank you for that.

Yep.

Chair Sandoval, vice chair.

Just a follow-up question. And I don't know if you have this at your fingertips. So if you don't, that's okay. What is the surplus and what was required by HCD? Do you know?

Mike, do you want to?

These are rough numbers. I recall that our arena was about 26,000 units of housing, and I believe the state recommended that jurisdictions adopt a 10% to 15% buffer. I believe that we adopted an inventory that included all of the 15% buffer. It may have actually been more, but I can't recall exactly.

Any other questions?

Thank you. Quick question just for my understanding on when the conditional use permit is required. So for project types that are not considered a development project, so ones that are making changes for a business that existed on or before the first of this year, those projects don't need a CUP? Correct. OK. And then projects that are clearly defined as a development project would need a CUP?

Correct. OK. I just wanted to make sure that I was following that. That's my question.

I do have a comment, but I don't know if we need to take public comment. Thank you. Any other questions?

OK, we'll open up public comment. Do we have any cards? No, we do not. OK, so then we'll close it and bring it back up for discussion. Go ahead. Commissioner Arons.

Well, I'll just add my comment to echo my colleague's questions. I'm supportive of creating administrative guidelines that just more clearly map out some objective standards for what constitutes substantial community or economic benefit. I think staff have done a great job trying to minimize discretion and create objective standards in so many parts of our planning code. And so I'd like to see that reflected here. And it seems like we're wading into new territory and we want to be responsive to community needs. And I think building in this flexibility overall is good. But just wanted to lend my support to creating some of those guidelines to minimize any sort of confusion or... Yeah, just to make sure that we have sort of some objective standards. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

I don't have anything substantive to add, but I just wanted to also lend my support along with my colleagues towards the creation of the administrative guidelines.

Thank you, Commissioner. I have, I guess, maybe just a quick procedural question before I ask for a motion. Is this something that would just be reflected in the record as of now, or should we pass along a recommendation as part of our motion to the City Council about the administrative guidelines?

It depends. And I'm looking to Laura to determine if this is something that you are prepared to incorporate into the proposal moving to city council or if you need some runway and would prefer to come back to the planning commission after city council consideration to bring back those administrative guidelines.

well I think maybe Mike Branson could speak to this as well but I believe we have other regulations that we say that there's in the regulations we speak to administrative regulations in the code so Oh, sorry, in the adoptable. Okay. Mike, do you want to?

I'm kind of thinking about this live. We do include, the Planning Commission does not see the ordinances that go to the City Council. We include the text amendments to the Planning Code. Often the ordinance itself includes a clause that says that Staff is empowered to make clerical edits to the ordinance before it's published. And we can also add something that says authorized to adopt administrative guidelines to support the regulations. So. That could be one way that the Planning Commission approaches. This is a recommendation that the ordinance include Include both the authority to adopt administrative regulations, but also direction to do so Okay, great, thank you so much does anyone want to make a motion I

Do you want me to make a motion?

If it helps, I will be drafting the ordinance. So you can't mess up the direction too badly. I understand what the Planning Commission's desire is. So as long as you include something in this motion that says along the lines of what's in the staff report with the ordinance including authorization and direction to adopt administrative guidelines, that would be sufficient.

All right, Vice Chair Sandoval, you're on.

OK. Make a motion to amend Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the Planning Code, to amend Charter 17.96 S-14 Housing Sites Combining Zone to update the definition of development project and to include a conditional use permit procedure for non-housing development. and update work-live and live-work residential to non-residential unit area as referenced throughout Title 17 to correspond with revisions to the California Building Code and Oakland building regulations, and making appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings, and providing authorization and direction to include administrative guidelines as well.

Motion by Sandoval. Second. And a second by Commissioner Ahrens. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Lee. Yes. Commissioner Robb. Yes. Commissioner Ahrens. Yes. Vice Chair Sandoval. Yes. E-Chair Rank.

Yes. Motion passes, and your recommendation will be moved forward to the City Council. Thank you so much.

Okay, so we don't have any appeals. So let's go to the approval of minutes for November 19 2025.

Right, just to be clear, we had a correction on there last week. And so it is the draft minutes for November 19 2025.

Okay, do I have a motion?

Motion to approve minutes for the November 19th, 2025 meeting.

Motion by vice chair Sandoval.

Second.

And a second by commissioner Rob.

All right. So commissioner Lee. Yes. Commissioner Rob. Yes. Commissioner Aaron's. Yes. Vice chair Sandoval. Yes. Each year rank. Abstain.

Motion passes four votes, one abstention, and the minutes will be posted to the website. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any correspondence? No correspondence to the secretary.

Any city council actions to report on?

You know, I'll confess my errors. I looked back toward the last planning commission meeting and there were no council actions, but with the, sorry, the last scheduled planning commission meeting, but I did not look back as far as November 19th. So out loud, I will look to the attorney who's typically aware of items, but I don't believe there have been any final actions by city council on planning commission recommendations since November.

I can think of one, which was there was a conditional use permit package, legislative package to simplify some ground floor commercial uses, kind of using some changes that were part of the Broadway Valdez package as a model. So that was, you know, that may have been actually enacted a little while ago, but it went effective this past week.

Okay, great. Thank you for that.

Two heads are always better than one. Thank you, city attorney.

All right. Well, with that, I will adjourn today's meeting at 412. Thanks, everyone.