Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Two presentations? Is it the same? I don't know, I know whatever I sent today, it was only one item, one presentation.

That's it, okay. It's all my fault, sorry. Thank you. Amen.

Good afternoon. This will be the February 4th Planning Commission. We're going to give it a few more minutes waiting for, we do have a quorum, but we have one commissioner who we're still expecting to show up. Meanwhile, if you would like to speak on any item, please grab a speaker card from the front here and fill it out and return it so that we can include you in the public hearings or open forum, list the item you intend to speak on. And if you parked at the garage off of 16th, we call it the Dalziel Garage. We do have promoted parking. It's a little bit complicated. A few people here have become experts. The rule now is you select the promotion number, which we have up here, before you start your parking in order to get the promotion. And again, some of your neighbors can explain that to you once the meeting started if you're still working on it. It'll be another minute or two before we get started. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting for February 4th, 2026. I'd like to welcome everyone today. We'll go ahead and start with roll call.

Commissioner Alex Randolph. Commissioner Alan Lee. Commissioner Maurice Robb. Commissioner Josie Ahrens. Vice Chair Natalie Sandoval. E-Chair Jennifer Reink.

Here. You have a quorum. Thank you, Hanifa. All right, we'll go into commission business. And I do believe we have a topic to discuss for the agenda discussion.

Yes, so it has come to the attention of the secretary that for item number two, which is an appeal regarding 3320 Grand Avenue, the appellant communicated with the staff team today that they cannot be available due to a family emergency. And they are asking for a continuance. And it is up to the Planning Commission to decide if you would like to grant that continuance. You may host the public hearing and consider the appeal without the appellant present, since they've been invited and were made aware of this meeting in a timely fashion. But you may consider a continuance as well. The staff team is here to answer any questions you might have about that. And I believe that the applicant, the owner of the business against which the appeal is filed, is here as well. And I'm seeing a nod from the audience.

Okay. Would the applicant like to come up?

Hello. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Is that better? Yes. Okay.

Can you please state your full name for the record, please? Thank you.

James Christopher Rochelle. Anything else?

Well, I didn't know if you had an opinion about continuing the hearing today, but given that there's an emergency, I would be inclined to consider a continuance, but wanted to call you up and see if you had anything that you wanted to communicate.

I don't really want to continue it. This has been going on since 2022. And I really just wanted to be over. I went through 18 months of... the city going through their due diligence to find what they needed to find to find out if I were in compliance or not, and they found that I was, and I really just want this thing to be over and put to rest. I talked to the city, they said they don't have, they haven't had any other complaints, so I would really like to just put this thing to rest today if I can, if we can.

Okay, understood. Would staff like to come up?

And I see Robert Merkamp, zoning manager, coming too. The front to answer any questions? Sure.

I'll just say thank you. Completely understand the desire to put this behind you given the sort of emergency nature of this I would be inclined to consider a continuance perhaps to a date certain so that you have a you know that there's a sort of an end date in mind so maybe staff can let us know what that might look like from a staffing standpoint in terms of a date that we might talk about.

Thank you, commissioners. Robert Merkamp, zoning administrator. Well, I believe your next meeting is the 18th of February, but when we were looking at this this morning after we got the request, we realized we have some staffing difficulties on our end being able to staff that meeting. That agenda's already out, so we had already scheduled everything for that meeting. We're looking that March 4th from our perspective if the meeting if the items continued would work better from the staff perspective so March Fourth I believe it's March 4th the first whatever the first first meeting in March. Okay. All right.

Thank you Does anyone want to weigh in and we I would assume we have to do a motion for this I

I think a motion to continue would be appropriate. Okay. Otherwise, you hear the item today, yes.

Yes, okay. Anyone? Commissioner Robb?

I actually have a question. So, given the fact that we're talking about potentially continuing this to March 4th, is... You talked about the urgency to move this forward. Does March 4th seem suitable for you? Or if not, please, I would love to hear why it's not a suitable date for you.

March 4th is suitable. I've just been wrapping my brain around getting this whole thing put to bed. And like I said, it's been going on. This will be the fourth year. So with this pending for four years with... with my business and jobs and livelihood in question. I made this a priority to be here. So, I mean, I understand that emergencies happen, but it seems kind of convenient that emergency happened today. And I'm not saying that it is not true or that it is true. But it's been four years, and I just really would like to get this thing over with and put behind me and be able to, you know, we celebrated when I got the decision from the city, and then comes the appeal. And I want it resolved, if I can. You know, if it has to be the fourth, then so be it. That's why.

Understood. Thank you.

What's our consensus here? Mr. Randolph?

I mean, I understand the emergency basis, and it's unfortunate that it happened, but I do feel like I'm ready to rule on it today, but I understand that it's important to give the other party time to present their case to feel their own end of closure. So, you know, I'm torn, but I can go either way. But I feel, I know you're willing and waiting to get this over. The four years is a very long time to have this hanging over you and your business. But I feel it's important for the other party to get one more opportunity to plead their case no matter what the outcome may be so that they have closure or feel that they have closure hopefully after the commission makes the decision whatever that may be um so i think for for the uh benefit of both parties to move forward i think it would be good for have to have at least one hearing or one one more continuance

Yeah, and the date certain part makes sure that if for some reason the appellant can't be here again, we move forward and you get a decision. Do we have a motion?

I motion to continue to the March 4th meeting.

So just to be really clear about this, you're moving to continue item number two to the March 4th Planning Commission agenda. Motion by Commissioner Randolph.

Second.

And a second by Commissioner Rob. Roll call vote, please.

All right, Commissioner Lee? Yes. Commissioner Robb? Yes. Commissioner Aarons? Yes. Commissioner Randolph? Yes. Vice Chair Sandoval? Yes. Vice Chair Rank? Yes.

Motion passes. This item will be moved to a date certain of March 4th, so it will not be re-noticed. I don't believe we have any speakers on this item, but now would be an appropriate time to hear any speakers who'd like to speak. And so I will just note to the audience that we do not have any speakers on item number two. If you believe you are here to speak on the item number two that's being continued, please let us know so you can fill out a speaker card and we can consider your comments. I'm seeing no hands raised, so there are no comments on this continuance. Okay. Thank you.

We'll see you in a month. Thank you. Um, is there a director's report? We just had one. So yeah. Um, informational report.

No information reports today.

I don't think any committees met. That is correct. Um, any commission matters anyone? And this is for the commission to discuss. Nope. Okay. Uh, city attorney's report.

No city attorney's report.

All right. Well that's, there we go. So we'll go to open forum. I understand we have some cards. So I'll open that up.

Yeah, and I think Hanifa is going through them. We have a few seeds, so bear with us.

So again, we are going to be doing two minutes. And I'd like people to really pay attention to the clock. So thank you for that.

All right, so we have eight speakers. And I'll be calling you all up three at a time. So as I call your name, please come up to the mic and speak. We have Anne Simone, Lynn Harlan, and Susan Shaw. Please state your full name. And you have two minutes. Thank you.

So if one of you could please come to the mic and start your comment now. Thank you.

Sorry. OK. Hello, I'm Anne DelSimone. I'm almost a 40-year resident of Florio Street, and I'm here to voice my strong concerns over the proposed senior housing facility at 6230 Claremont Avenue. Largely, my concerns fall into two categories. First and foremost is safety. the current scale of the project cannot mean anything other than that there will be a significant increase in large vehicle traffic as i understand it trucks providing services are intended to enter and exit the new building via florio street as a narrow one-way residential street In the block up to Auburn, Florio is not and never was intended to be used as a main thoroughfare for large delivery and moving trucks, not to mention emergency vehicles. I and my neighbors, particularly those families with small children, walk on Florio daily to shop, to exercise our pets, and to walk children to and from elementary school. To turn what is a calm residential street into an often used thoroughfare is a dangerous prospect. My next major concern is that the scale of the proposed project is out of keeping with the existing neighborhood. While I have absolutely no objection to creating more affordable housing for seniors in my neighborhood, at seven stories plus, this project is simply too big. The quality of life for everyone, all of the residents, must be considered as the Planning Commission reviews this proposal. As an Oakland taxpayer and a longtime resident, i urge the committee to consider and address the safety density traffic and quality of life issues before this project is approved thank you ready

Good afternoon, members of the commission. My name is Lynn Harlan. I'm a resident 30 year resident of Auburn Street, which is one of the streets adjacent to where the building will be built. I am here to express serious concerns regarding the proposed senior housing for the ultra wealthy seniors. at 6230 claremont avenue our community has a long memory regarding development promises in the past large corporations like safeway promised to keep heavy trucks off our narrow residential streets that promise was broken they promised regular trash maintenance yet today overflowing bins are a constant site on the claremont sidewalk we cannot afford a repeat of these failures with a project of this scale the current proposed plans plans to place a service entrance on florio street this is a narrow partially one-way residential street that is fundamentally unsuited for industrial activity under this plan florio would become the staging ground for garbage and recycling collection turning our sidewalks into a permanent staging area for dumpsters Specifically, the intersection of Florio and Auburn is so tight that large vehicles already struggle to pass. Waste management trucks frequently must honk until residents come out to move their cars just so the truck can navigate the turn. Only one car can go down at a time on both streets of Auburn. And if one car is coming down, the other car has to go to the side or get into a driveway in order for cars to pass. It's really, really narrow. Adding more commercial-scale vehicle traffic to this bottleneck is a recipe for gridlock and a significant safety risk to pedestrians and cyclists. The developer's own legal counsel has acknowledged Florio's constraints, requesting setback waivers due to essential service functions. They argue that Florio's neighborhood character makes a Claremont drop-off necessary, yet they simultaneously propose burdening that same narrow street with heavy loading operations.

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

We urge the commission to reject the use of Florio for these high impact service functions. Our neighborhood depends on thoughtful planning that prioritizes safety and livability over developer convenience. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Susan Shaw. I moved to Rockridge 30 years ago, and I live one block north and west of college in Claremont. I'm looking to move into a senior community like this is being proposed at 6230 Claremont, where I can be my independent self and live where there is assistance if I need it later or become demented. i think i'm probably what the developer is looking for when addressing this project i prefer a more intimate-looking building ninety-three feet tall is just too big and too institutional looking for a residential area like this i like the current red cross building height which is four to five stories high it's more appealing and in scale with the neighborhood the florio and auburn sides of the building should be terraced step back at the property lines we also need to include a lot of mature landscaping as a buffer to the small homes adjacent to the project i wonder how many people will occupy and prop the proposed 203 units maybe up to 300 more residents can our current infrastructure handle these uh this increase in population how will it uh will the necessary senior services vehicles be accommodated how about emergency vehicles being routed where will the nursing and support staff park the major concerns are traffic and safety florio is a one-way very narrow street heading east from college and then Auburn is a one-way street heading from Florio to Claremont. All the traffic must be mitigated and concentrated to remain on Claremont, which is heavily trafficked. So I think this project, even though it's needed, is just too out of scale. It needs to be way brought back. Thank you.

All right, so we have eight speakers left. We have Kerry Goff, Robin Mays, and Ben Hamburg. Please state your full name for the record, and you have two minutes. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name's Kerry Goff. Two weeks ago, I spoke to you about public policies in favor of access to sunlight and solar energy, as expressed in the California Solar Panel Mandate and the California Solar Rights Act. The 6230 Claremont Tower will conflict with these policies by casting shadows over neighboring homes and their solar panels and make it unpractical for anybody else to put in solar panels. These laws, however, are just policies and are not mandates. SB 330, however, mandates that the city get some housing built. Let's look at the key factors cited in the law that led to its passage.

I'm taking this right out of the law.

The absence of meaningful reforms that significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians is a key factor in the housing crisis. Next. The crisis is so acute that supply, demand, and affordability... Fundamentals result in protracted unaffordability. Next point. California is experiencing rapid year-over-year rent growth.

Next factor.

The housing crisis exacerbates the need for affordable homes at prices below market rates. The law mentions affordability and economic factors 16 times in its first three pages. Getting affordable housing built was a major motivation for passage of SB 330,

Unfortunately, and strangely, and maybe due to political factors and lobbying, the law does not require affordability.

The project is promoted as senior housing. The median income for Oakland seniors age 45 to 64 is $101,000. For age 65 and up, $60,000. The units will rent for $10,000 to $12,000 a month. Now, that includes food, so you put in something for that. An income of at least $400,000 per year, and this is based on economic analyses, is required to afford a unit in the building. That's more than 99% of Oakland seniors can afford. Bottom line, the project takes advantage of SB 330, but does not offer affordable housing to Oakland residents. Thank you.

Hello and good afternoon. I'm Robin Mays, a local resident on Mystic Street, and I'm a local realtor. I've lived in the Rockridge neighborhood for the majority of my 50 years, and I live two and a half blocks from this proposed project at 6230 Claremont. One area where this project really needs some extra attention is the neighborhood safety, especially ensuring clear and reliable access for our emergency vehicles. And to this point, just on February 1st, we had another vehicular incident. pedestrian fatality a block and a half from where this is really the streets are not being maintained in a way that's safe for us to even walk around so if we're going to add seniors to the area we need to ensure that they're going to be safe to walk by Florio Street also is narrow and has regular pedestrian activity. I have myself, I have my young children, and my parents all living in this neighborhood, and we already avoid Claremont, and we walk on Florio to access many of these shops and restaurants. And if that street becomes just as unsafe as Claremont, we're going to be severely limited in where we can safely walk with our children and our seniors. Please ensure that it's imperative for fire trucks and ambulances and other emergency vehicles that they can navigate the streets safely we see Please prioritize building access loading and service activities on Claremont Avenue reduce the need for large vehicles on Florio Street, and design curb space and driveway placement with emergency turning access and clearance in mind. Please make sure that they have to do a traffic study to ensure that we are safe in our use of our citizens in this area. We believe that thoughtful planning can ease any traffic flow and create safer conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and first responders alike. We welcome the new residents of a building like this, and we want to support this project, but please make sure that we do that safely.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Ben Hamburg. I live two blocks from the proposed project. I've been an earthquake preparedness instructor for the city for 20 years. The Hayward Fault is described by the USGS as a tectonic time bomb. A 6.7 earthquake on the fault will be at least 10 times greater than the 1989 quake. A large quake has occurred on this fault every 120 to 140 years. It has now been 157 years since the last one. The proposed project sits almost atop the Hayward Fault. A 93-foot high structure with over 200 units presents a concentrated life safety risk inconsistent with Oakland's safety element. In a major seismic event, elevators will be inoperable. 400 individuals, many with mobility challenges, will need to navigate numerous flights of stairs in the dark amidst debris, smoke, and aftershocks. Evacuation time increases exponentially with height. The likelihood of loss of life exponentially increases from 55 feet to 93 feet. Our current outdated infrastructure in Rockridge will not support the immediate large-scale emergency power and specialized medical evacuation required for a high rise of this density. Our streets are narrow, often congested. And the collapse of a 93-foot building, even a soft-story damage, would not only trap hundreds of senior citizens, but likely would physically block the primary ingress and egress routes for the entire Rockridge neighborhood, threatening the lives of all residents in the neighborhood. Rockridge's water and gas lines are aging. A massive new structure increases the load on these systems, which are already prone to rupture during ground shaking. Adding up to 400 additional residents and staff will substantially increase the likelihood of a massive loss of life. A 55-foot building is a rescue challenge. A 93-foot building for seniors, many with mobility challenges, on the Hayward Fault is a rescue disaster. To save lives, I urge the Commission to require a comprehensive seismic risk and evacuation impact study and limit the height and size of the project. Thank you.

All right, so we have five speakers left. We have Victoria Griffith, Jack Gearson, and Paul McDonald. So Victoria Griffith passed for speaking. You have two minutes. Please state your full name for the record. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jack Gerson. I'm a retired Oakland teacher. I also did risk analysis at one time for the State Department of Public Health. For the past 29 years, I've lived on Auburn Avenue, 6230 Claremont is right over our backyard fence. I'd welcome a reasonably sized senior care facility, especially one with affordable units. But I'm concerned about this project, its massive size, its impact on public safety and public health, and it's providing zero affordable units. I'm concerned that state legislation meant to encourage affordable housing rewards luxury senior care facilities with no affordable units. This makes inequality worse. The state is effectively deregulating luxury senior housing, and deregulation, as we all know, leads to increased inequality. It does nothing for the overwhelming majority of seniors who can't afford rents of $120,000 or more a year. Where will they go? The developers demand density-related waivers of many local zoning regulations whose purpose is to safeguard public health and safety, among them height, footprint and square footage, setbacks, stepbacks, and open space. Because the state has limited your ability to regulate density, commissioners, it's more critical than ever that you exercise your local authority to protect our health and safety. To ensure there's adequate room for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to maneuver on the property, take a look at the schematics and tell me how they're going to back out of there. To ensure emergency vehicles will be able to respond in a timely manner on the narrow neighborhood streets. The bigger the facility, the more congested will be those narrow streets. The bigger the footprint of the building, the less room for emergency vehicles to get in and out and maneuver on the property. The higher the building, the more sunlight it will block, adversely impacting public health. Separately, I will write to you analyzing the shade and sunlight study they presented, which is wholly inadequate. Please ensure that detailed studies of fire safety, seismic safety, emergency vehicle access, traffic, and shadow sunlight are done carefully and completely. When you do, I believe you will find that the proposed facility is just too big.

Thank you. Is there a running clock that I can see, or am I just relying on the beep?

Okay.

Okay. All right. Ready, set, go. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Paul McDonald. I live on Auburn Avenue, one house down from the south side of the proposed 6230 Claremont project. Please note that while I am a current board member of the Rockridge Community Planning Council, I am appearing here today in my personal capacity. I should also mention that my perspective is informed by my many years as a senior county executive. So one might ask, why are we here today at such an early point in the review process? I can tell you I'm not here to express opposition to the project or comment on specific aspects. You've already heard. from others in that regard. I'm here to talk about expectations for the review process. Yes, there is a new regime in the state regarding housing development. Cities have had their discretion limited. But the process is not merely to rubber stamp development proposals. All parties have a role to play. The community to express concerns. the developer to make a good-faith effort to mitigate the mitigatable, and the staff to conduct a transparent and thorough review to assure compliance with state and local ordinance. And that includes a careful review of any density bonus and waivers requested from the city. Approval and denial of such waivers should be reviewed carefully to assess health and safety concerns, apparently the deciding factor. Finally, the Planning Commission's consideration should take into account all the factors when it reviews the project and make a reasoned decision, as I hope is your normal practice. Thank you for your time today.

All right, we have two speakers left, but I'm not sure which one y'all are speaking on. So it's Raul Maldonado and Tanya Smith. I'm not sure if y'all are speaking on open form or which item is it? Okay, so you are, okay, you can come on up, Tanya Smith. You have two minutes, and please, please state your full name for the record. Also, Raul Maldonado, which item are you speaking on? Okay, item number one. Okay, thank you. So we just have one speaker left. Go ahead.

Tanya Smith. And I also live on Auburn Avenue next to the 6230 project. And I forgot my glasses. So the American Red Cross Blood Bank's plan for 6230 Claremont to have Ellis Partners build this massive high-end senior residence covering far more of the 1.06-acre lot than current city zoning permits and going up 85 feet, no stepbacks, Also violating current city code creates many public health and safety issues, as you've heard. The developer's attorney's cover letter expresses the belief that seniors don't require much outdoor space. Clearly, this project puts dollars above people. No affordable housing here, just one giant heat island soaking up solar heat on hot summer days and radiating it back on neighboring homes and streets at night. The vegetation and trees on the perimeter of the property will have been destroyed. and their cooling impacts gone. In the fall and winter, the giant building would cast a huge shadow over the neighborhood, extending across Claremont Avenue to the public space in front of Safeway. The neighbors fought for this public space during the redevelopment of the new Safeway, and it's unacceptable that it now be covered in shade for when people use it. Finally, the street and traffic safety during construction of such a huge project, I think that's been covered. They're very narrow streets. I don't see how it could be safe. With this many more people in the area, 203 new units, workers, how will the safety of current neighbors, shoppers, visitors from other areas, as well as that of the residents of this new project be assured? I hope, as appointed representatives of Oakland, that you will thoroughly investigate these things, as my neighbors have been asking. Thank you very much.

And she's our final speaker.

thank you um thanks everyone for joining um i will for those that weren't here a couple weeks ago i just want to remind everyone that this is very early days for this project i don't even know if it's been given a case number and i certainly haven't even seen any documents um so this is this will be you know fully vetted through the public process so you're welcome here anytime but just wanted to let you know that this is going to be little bit more of a marathon than a sprint so but thank you all and we will move on to consent calendar which I don't believe we have no consent calendar so we've got public hearings and then we'll that'll bring us up to number one

Right, item number one, and I am going to read, usually I summarize the proposal, but I'm going to read the whole thing today because it's a little bit nuanced. Item number one is a city-wide proposal, planning code and zoning map amendments designating areas eligible and ineligible for Senate Bill SB 79, height and density standards within transit-oriented development zones. And designating site exclusions consistent with government code section 65912.161B1A. Sites meeting 50% of SB 79 standards. B1B2 sites and predominantly low resource areas with 40% aggregate SB 79 density and B1F local register properties. and it looks like Laura Kaminski the strategic planning manager will be making the presentation and K top can you please bring up the presentation?

Thank you so much Good afternoon commissioners and the public. My name is Laura Kaminski strategic planning manager for the city of Oakland and I'm going to be presenting on proposed planning code amendments for SB 79 or a Senate bill 79 and So just some background is that state law, Senate Bill 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, was signed by the governor on October 10th of 2025, and it goes into effect on July 1st, 2026. Areas within half mile of each of Oakland's designated transit stops will be designated as a transit oriented development zone and any parcels within the TOD zones could vest for development using higher density standards for housing. Oakland currently has eight BART stations and 38 bus rapid transit or BRT stops that are along International Boulevard that qualify as SB 79 TOD zones In addition, there's also one additional BART station, which is the Ashby one that is outside of Oakland, but has a half mile radius that goes into the city of Oakland, as well as a BRT stop that also is outside of Oakland, but has a half mile radius that goes into Oakland. So that is a total of 48 TOD zones that are within the Oakland boundaries. And the transit stops are categorized as Tier 1, and that includes essentially the BART stations in Oakland, and then Tier 2, which is their BRT tempo line along International Boulevard. So just for some reference here, the density standards, or I guess a little bit more background. For SB 79, essentially what it requires is that areas within these Tier 1 and Tier 2, that cities have to allow higher heights and higher density allowances than what the existing zoning may allow within the city. So for Oakland, in the Tier 1 areas, which are the BART stations, that ranges anywhere from 95 feet and 160 dwellings per acre if you're very close to 100 feet within the transit stop. with a quarter mile at 75 feet, 120 dwelling units per acre, a half mile, 65 feet, or 120 dwelling units per acre. For the tier two, which are the AC Transit Tempo Line, closest is 85 feet, 140 dwelling units per acre, quarter mile is 65 feet, and then half mile is 55 feet with 80 dwelling units per acre. So essentially with what happens with the state law is that the state law will kick in on July 1st of this year. And so if the city does nothing, then those are the regulations, those densities will take effect. There are options that are in the state law that allow cities to exclude some parcels from SB 79 requirements or develop an alternative plan. An exclusion would suspend implementation of SB 79 and allow substitution of existing Oakland zoning until an alternative plan is developed. And exclusions will expire in 2032 and SB 79 densities will take effect if no alternative plan has been adopted by that time. The alternative plan would need to accommodate the overall required density of SB 79 within the TOD zone, but could replace default density and height increases and allow a more tailored density and height based on local land use conditions, such as historic districts and lower density neighborhoods. So the rationale for adopting these exclusions would be there is insufficient time right now for city staff to prepare and review an alternative plan prior to the SB 79 effective date of July 1st. It's a very complicated process and there's just not enough time to do all the analysis. Exclusions may be adopted prior to the SB 79 effective date as an interim step to allow time for the city to develop an alternative plan. And this is really something that the state law INTENTION, THE REASON WHY THEY ALLOWED THESE EXCLUSIONS WAS JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE, TO ALLOW, THERE WAS CONCERN THAT CITIES WOULD NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO WORK ON THE ALTERNATIVE PLAN, SO THIS GIVES CITIES THE TIME TO DO SO. The city is already engaged in the general plan update currently of phase two that includes the update of land use and transportation element with adoption anticipated in late spring of 2027. City staff wants to develop its alternative plan in a comprehensive manner as part of the general plan update process and not as a separate standalone process. Exclusions will give the city time during this GPU to analyze which areas within the TOD zones have potential for more density and which areas do not, as well as receive community input. In addition, when looking at our environmental justice element, there's policy EJ 8.1. It talks about meaningful, relevant engagement. Design and implement public engagement processes and events that emphasize participation from low-income communities and communities of color that are driven by resident priorities. SO ALMOST ALL OF OAKLAND'S TOD ZONES ARE IN LOW RESOURCE AREAS, AND SO THIS IS ANOTHER REASON REALLY WHY WE WANT TO HAVE MORE TIME TO GET THE COMMUNITY INPUT AND LOOK AT WHAT AREAS WE HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT UPZONING AND WHAT AREAS MAYBE STAY THE SAME AND WHAT DEGREE OF UPZONING OCCURS WITHIN THOSE AREAS. So the alternative plan would allow more fine grain analysis and have that community involvement resulting in aggregate density equivalent to the SB 79 requirements. Existing zoning densities already in a lot of areas exceed the SB 79 standards and many of the designated TODs as a result of prior up zoning. So, you know, the city, as we all know, recently adopted our housing element in 2023, and we up some quite a few areas that are within these zones during that time. In addition, the downtown civic plan was also adopted recently in 2024 that updated core areas. And over, you know, the past, you know, number of years, we've adopted quite a few specific plans, such as the Central Estuary Plan, the Braille Valdez District Specific Plan, West Oakland Coliseum Area Specific Plan, Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, and all of these increased density around the Tier 1 and the Tier 2 TOD zones. And so the city is already actually pretty well ahead of the game in this manner. And I think compared to other cities, we have actually already done a lot of these upzoning along our transit areas. And the SB 79 standards are really, they're a blanket increase in density, and that could actually override some of the prior planning and input that we've gotten from the community. So an example of that in the downtown specific plan that we adopted recently, that area way exceeds, it's like I think over 300%. So it's about 300% of what the, you know, the SB 79 densities would require. And, but we have areas such as Old Oakland, which is a historic district that we have as lower heights and lower densities. And then we have other areas like the Broadway spine that are much higher than SB 79 densities. So we really looked at that fine grain approach. And if SB 79 were to kick in right now, then that would just say all those areas we already wanted as lower density would then be, could be higher density and in addition to what we've already designated as higher density, which actually would equate to even higher than what we already have, which is already more than what SB 79 would require. So what we are looking at in our proposal are the allowed exclusions that the state has granted cities to adopt. So exclusion one allows exclusion of sites that are when existing zoning allows density and residential floor areas at no less than 50% of the standards on any individual parcel. So essentially, in Oakland, most of our, almost all of our commercial zones and some of our higher residential zones actually meet that standard. For exclusion two, this allows exclusion of sites in a TOD zone that is in a primary low resource area. And the aggregate density within that whole area of the TOD zone shows that at least it allows 40% of the aggregate density required of SB 79 standards. And then exclusion three allows exclusion of sites in a TOD zone where the parcel includes a historic resource. So I'm going to start with exclusion two, mainly because that is the exclusion that actually excludes most of the areas within Oakland. So again, this is the areas that are in a primary low resource zone. So in Oakland, of our sites that we have, of the 48 sites, essentially there's only three of those that are not in a low resource area. And that is the Rockridge BART station, as well as the MacArthur BART station, and also the areas of the Ashby BART station that fall within Oakland. So again, in order to qualify for an exclusion in a low-resource area, at least 40% of the aggregate density allowed by SB 79 has to be met. And we did find through our analysis that all of the ones that are in low resource areas in Oakland exceed that 40%, and some actually exceed it by a lot. And so this qualification allows exclusions of all the parcels that are within the entire TOD zone. So an example of that, here's a map. This is the analysis that we went through. We did this for every TOD stop that is within Okinawa 48. And as you can see, the area in the very center is the area that's within the 200 feet of the stop. The areas in yellow are the areas within the quarter mile boundary. And then the areas that are blue parcels are in the half mile boundary. So these show all the parcels that could be eligible for SB 79. But we aggregated what the density was. We looked at every single parcel to see what could actually be allowed, how many units could be produced on those parcels compared to that to what SB 79 would allow. And we showed in this particular area, it actually provides 307% of the SB 79 aggregate density. And so this whole TOD zone can be excluded and that is what we are proposing to exclude all the parcels within this TOD zone. AND THEN HERE IS THE AREA OF THE ZONE OF ROCKRIDGE BART STATION AND THIS IS NOT IN A LOW RESOURCE AREA SO WE WERE NOT ABLE TO APPLY THAT SAME EXCLUSION. SO ALL THE PARCELS SHOWN HERE ARE ELIGIBLE BUT AS I WILL GO FORWARD IN A LITTLE BIT TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER EXCLUSIONS. There are some parcels that can be excluded in this TOD zone, but not all of them because it cannot take advantage of the low resource exclusion. So just to kind of summarize here, so you can actually see where we're at for these, some examples of the percentages. So you can see for the 19th Street BART, we're at 287% of the density for SB 79. Lake Merritt is 254%. Coliseum BART is 190%. And then West Oakland BART is a little bit lower at 70% and Fruitvale BART at 72%. But we are still, I think, very high percentages in comparison to what the SB 79 standards would be. And I'm not going to go through all these, but these are showing for the Tier 2 TODs in low resource areas. You can see, again, there's a lot that are even at 380% or 400% or 100-some percent or even 90 percentile. Some of them go down to about as low as maybe 46%. And those are areas really getting out to far east Oakland and closer to the border of San Leandro where we have lower densities in those areas. So for exclusion one, which is 50% of zone density and FAR, again, so these are areas if any individual parcel itself where the zone density allows for at least 50% of the SB 79 density standards can then be excluded. And these also can be excluded even if they're in a high resource area or a low resource area. So parcels that are in Oakland with zoning that exceeds 50% of the density in FER are shown for the ASHB TOD parcels in Oakland and Rockridge and MacArthur. And these are the only parcels, as I mentioned earlier, that do not qualify for the exclusion of the low resource areas. So here is the map of MacArthur BART area. And you can see the areas that are pink are the ones that are proposed to be excluded. And those, as you can see, are along the more the major quarters and they have the higher densities. Again, those are pretty much usually your commercial zone properties or some of your urban residential higher density properties. But all the areas that are in white, which are. More your single family zones or single family zones and also parcels with single family homes do not have a high enough density to meet that 50% threshold. So we cannot exclude those areas. And then similarly here, this also shows the Ashby BART area on the left and then the Rockridge BART area. So along Rockridge, it's mainly the area along College Avenue that is shown in pink that also would be excluded. But again, there's large areas that you can see that are white that are mainly, as you can tell by the pattern, more single-family homes that, again, don't meet the 50% density, so cannot be excluded. And then just showing some examples of areas that overlap where they already met the low resource exclusion, but we also are just being triple prepared, I guess, when we're going to the state, that we want to have every area show every exclusion that could be possible. So here you can see, especially like the 12th Street and 19th Street TOD areas, that the zoning that we've already done, almost all of the zoning in those areas are pink, which shows they're already above 50% or higher standards to meet SB 79 densities. So the last exclusion is historic resources. So this exclusion three, which applies to all the local register properties that have been designated by January 1st of 2025 and located in any TOD zone. So again, these don't, it does not matter if it's in a low resource or high resource area, we can exclude local register properties, which is what we are proposing. So again, just to show in these high resource areas of the Ashby TOD on the left and the Rockridge TOD on the right, the areas, the parcels that are in purple are the ones that are local registered properties. So those individual parcels can also be excluded as part of this exclusion that the state allows. And then here are the areas within the MacArthur BART station. And then here are some examples, again, in some of the other areas that also already qualify for the exclusion to in the low resource areas. You can see West Oakland actually has a lot of local register properties and same with the 12th Street and 19th Street TODs. So in addition to these mapping exclusions, what we also are doing, we're proposing an S8 combining zone. That would be a new chapter in the planning code. And this includes all the parcels of land that are within one half mile of tier one and tier two transit-oriented development zones, regardless of their zoning designation. It will define what are eligible sites under SB 79 as a site, which is a site that's zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development. It defines ineligible sites. That is a site that does not meet the above criteria, such as sites that are zoned for industrial or open space activity, or they're within a right of way. It also defines what is a covered site as a site that's eligible under SB 79, but it's not been excluded as part of the exclusions. And then it applies the exclusions to certain sites that would otherwise be eligible for SB 79 but qualify for exclusion as described in the government code section. So we will list, again, all these exclusions that I just went through into this S8 zone. It also amends the zoning map to show which sites are eligible and which are ineligible and which sites are also excluded or covered. And then it also clarifies that excluded parcels are regulated by the underlying zoning. And also these exclusions shall be applied comprehensively. So a site shall be mapped as excluded if it is designated as excluded under any of the exclusions that I went through of exclusions one, two, or three. So tentative dates of the council meetings for this moving forward would be February 24th to the CED committee and March 3rd for the city council first reading. So staff's recommendation is that staff request that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion, adopt an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code to add Chapter 17.86S8, Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit, Senate Bill 79, combining zone regulations and identifying sites eligible and ineligible or excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards, making related Oakland zoning map amendments to designate parcels within the S8 combining zone, and to identify whether such designated parcels are eligible for or excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards, and making appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings. And that is the end of my presentation, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Laura. I will open up for questions. Who wants to start? It's a raucous group today.

OK, vice chair, go ahead.

Thank you, Laura, and thank you to the planning department. I know this is a lot of work to dive into something that is really new, and there are still a lot of unknowns from what I understand. I just want to understand a little bit more about I guess I have a two-part question. One is, you know, one of the reasons for the Exclusion 2 is Because we're in the midst of the general plan, we're going to be doing all of this outreach in certain neighborhoods in particular. Can you speak to, which I think is important and should be a part of a planning process, particularly in under-resourced areas, like a blanket zoning could be really detrimental, displacement, gentrification, all kinds of things. So I do think that's really important. But can you speak a little bit more to what would be covered, what is being covered in general plan update part two, that is also part of this exclusion and what is not. So for example, like the downtown specific plan is already done. So that would not be part of general plan update two. We've already got that community input in that plan. So could you just speak to like how it would be interrelated, that kind of development of their alternative plan?

Yeah, so, I mean, even with the alternative plan, we will have to present to the state and even things we've already done, we would have to show and prove, like the downtown, as an example, actually meets the qualifications of the alternative plan. And we will still have to do that analysis. What we are doing with the general plan update phase two is we are already looking at proposing Different areas that we will be up zoning and we've already started to get some of that community feedback You know, there's been interest in a San Antonio BART station and that is already along International Boulevard So that would be one of the areas we are definitely looking at already up zoning that would help increase that area for an alternative to meet an alternative plan requirement and we are looking at a number of new different neighborhood centers. We are also looking at part of areas along major transit and boulevards of upzoning those areas, and we've gotten feedback so far, initial feedback, and that was from the options report. Right now, the stage we're in is we're developing the draft land use framework that will be a result of the input we've heard so far from the options report and that is set to come out on March 9th of this year or around that time frame to get another 45 days of community input on that proposal. Then we will still have the process of developing the elements even in more detail in the fall which will be going out for more community input at that point. And the hope is the goal is we're trying to get this all updated as well as new zoning that would go along with these general plan changes in around late spring of May of 2027. And our intention is to be as part of we're looking at trying to look at areas that we can up zone in all of these zones to try to achieve what would be an alternative plan. Um, and. You know, I can't say that we will have everything ready to be adopted for that alternative plan by. at that same time. But we are setting the stage and the groundwork, and it may be a very short implementation action after the adoption to then go through the formal process of actually showing all the work of how we conform with the alternative plan, any additional upzonings that are needed that haven't been done to do that process, and then submit that to the state. But we also, I think there's a concern right now that even What we've heard recently is they're already looking at amendments to SB 79. And so if we start that process too early, there may be different requirements. And so we want to be able to have the time to be able to do that. And if that happens in October of this year, that when some maybe additional amendments happen, we want to be able to have the time to be able to make sure we're meeting those requirements.

And there is a spot bill. It's SB 908 that's been filed in January to kind of deal with these cleanups. But it's just a placeholder now.

So clear that there's a lot of unknowns. But would it be fair to say that the city is planning to create an alternative plan as opposed to waiting for the exclusions to expire in 2032?

Yes, we are going to do, the intent is to do an alternative plan. Because actually, I mean, if you see right now, what's happening actually is the areas that we can't exclude in Rockridge, there's a large amount of areas we cannot exclude. So the only way to actually look at areas that maybe we want to have higher density as opposed to lower density is to do the alternative plan because in the meantime there's large areas of the of these low density parcels that cannot be excluded and I think we would like to go through the same, you know planning process and get input from the community and also look at from a planning perspective, okay, what areas can maybe really realistically accommodate these higher densities, how those are distributed, maybe somewhere more mid-level across the board in potential as opposed to like all really high in some areas and really low in other areas. So We want to do that analysis, and we really need to look at a fine-grained approach as to what is actually on the ground, and that is, you know, something the state has not done, right? They've actually just applied a very, you're within a certain distance, then this is the density you get.

Anything else?

Okay.

Anyone else? Mr. Randolph.

Yeah, thank you so much for all this work to you and others. Thank you for the briefing you gave, which was very detailed and helpful to wrap my head around the 1,200 plus pages of data and analysis and additional documents. It is good to see that Oakland is kind of at the forefront when compared to some other cities who are trying to catch up or not going to be able to meet the July deadline because they don't even have the data analysis done that you've done already, or even the mapping capabilities of even trying to figure out what areas of the city potentially qualify for some of these exclusions that other cities like San Jose or even San Francisco are not able to do before July. I do have a couple of questions. And I know you had a question about the general plan update phase two and coming together with an alternative plan to make sure we don't let the exclusions expire and then having to deal with SB 79. And I asked that question yesterday, and I thought you gave a good answer. So I wanted to do a couple of these in the public sphere. But if the general plan update phase two is delayed past 2027, what is the city's fallback plan to avoid approaching the 2032 deadline without a replacement framework.

Yeah, so we do have a number of things pushing us to get the general plan update phase two done next year. And one of those is with our priority development areas. There's a requirement by MTC to create plans, more detailed plans for areas in our priority development areas that do not have specific plans. And so there are a number of areas that are in priority development areas in Oakland that do not have specific plans. And so that is what General Plan Update Phase 2 is looking at. We actually have a priority development area grant from MTC for that very purpose. That is for helping pay for the General Plan Update Phase 2. So that is a reason that, you know, It can always be a couple months here or there that it might be, but definitely the intention is 2027 to accomplish that. And then again, I think either as much as we can concurrently, if not, maybe very shortly after to do the alternative plan is the intent and the timeline.

And knowing that, looking at your maps, West Oakland has a fair number of proposed exclusion zones, and knowing that the West Oakland specific plan is pretty old since it was updated, are you planning on either starting a new West Oakland-specific plan, or will it be part of the alternative plan to look at upzoning or making some changes to West Oakland, or would it also still be a part of the phase two plan?

Yeah, so West Oakland, we actually, as part of the general plan phase two, are looking at a number of changes in West Oakland. That's one of the areas we're looking at creating like an R&D area in West Oakland and some other areas as well as some more new neighborhood center areas. So there are, you know, we're already looking at proposals of zoning in that and doing updates of the West Oakland specific plan for the very reason that you said it is quite a bit, you know, a long time ago that we did that. Very long time ago. Yes.

Appreciate that. I know we mentioned the community hub potentially being located in West Oakland as well as part of the potential community hubs that you were identifying around the city as part of the Phase 2 presentation. Another question, I know that in the staff report and other presentations you said that, you know, Oakland's capacity remains pretty high for achieving additional housing units or meeting our future and current RENA goals, and are we doing a really good job compared to other cities yet again? But given that many of these TOD zones already exceed SB 79 density requirements, how do you expect housing production to continue in the new year term under existing zoning or potentially under the alternative plan?

Yeah, so I would say with our housing element, we actually had like a 15% buffer of even additional housing units beyond what the minimum was required for the state, as well as we have done a lot of upzoning. So as you can see, if you look at the zoning maps of the ones that are 50% or higher of what SB 79 density requires, as well as just these amounts that are already shown in a lot of the AREAS THAT WERE IN THE LOW RESOURCE AREAS ARE ALREADY BEING HIGHER THAN WHAT SB 79 REQUIRES. SO WE ALREADY, I THINK THE CITY HAS A LOT OF AREAS THAT PEOPLE CAN DEVELOP HOUSING AND I THINK THE ISSUE MORE RIGHT NOW IS JUST BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY AND THE DOWN TURN THAT WE AREN'T GETTING AS MUCH DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S JUST HARD TO FINANCIALLY RIGHT NOW TO MAKE PROJECTS PENCIL. So I think that's really the biggest constraint. It's not that our zoning is restraining that from happening. It's just the economy and to get financing. And actually what's happening right now is we're actually getting a lot more affordable housing projects that are being built and actually more affordable than market rate projects because we passed Measure U and other sources are still available for affordable housing funds to help those being built. And that's often what actually happens. That happened the last time in Oakland when we had a recession. It was a very similar situation where we were having more affordable housing being built than market rate housing. And it seems like it kind of goes in those flows because in the times when the economy is not doing well, there's often still subsidized money that is available for affordable housing.

Okay. And then I know that I received a couple of emails and I know there were some concerns around adopting some of these exclusions. Are there areas where adopting exclusions could materialize low housing protection compared to SP-79 defaults? And if so, are there any ideas to mitigating those risks?

Well, again, I think what we're looking at this is a temporary thing. It's an interim measure to try to get us so we can actually have the time to do the alternative plan, make sure if there's any changes that happen in state law that we can then be conforming to those changes and that we do get the community input that we feel is necessary. And in the meantime, as I think we can see, already so many of these areas are already zoned very high density allowance and we are not during this time really seeing we have a very much also a downturn in just applications being applied for housing even it's it's i think one of the lowest we've had in a long time of how many applications are even coming in so i think to me this is sort of the perfect time you know um to do this kind of planning is when the economy is slow and we can have a little bit of time to actually plan in a comprehensive manner and look, you know, get community input and then, you know, get to the point where hopefully by the time we've done that, then the economy is turning around and we're prepared and we can take advantage. OF THAT WHEN THAT HAPPENS. I SAY THE BIG PLAN WAS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT. WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THAT PLAN, WE WERE IN A RECESSION. WE STARTED IN 2012 AND IT WAS ADOPTED IN 2016. WHEN I WAS WORKING ON THAT PLAN, WE HAD QUITE A FEW PEOPLE SAY, SOME FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING WITH THIS PLAN? NOTHING IS EVER GOING TO GET BUILT HERE. THIS IS A WASTE OF YOUR TIME. And then the economy turned around, and that plan was built out in like five years. That was supposed to be a 20-year plan. And by having the plan in place, we got to get what we wanted there, as opposed to just whatever haphazard development. It was planned in a way comprehensively. We had community input of what was wanted there. And it really shows that these plans do work. And yeah, so that would be my response.

Yeah, thank you. I know that kind of looking at the map for the Bay Area and the East Bay specifically, that Oakland has a large number, probably the largest number of low-resource TOD zones that are impacted by SB 79. And I know through the Planning Commission's role and the role of just the goals of the city in general, I know we are really focused on environmental justice and equity in all of our development and zoning decisions. I know staff puts a lot of time and energy into making all the decisions and zoning decisions based on equity and environmental justice now. What metrics or outcome will you use to evaluate whether SP79 implementation advances or undermines equity goals in low-resource areas? Which I know part of your goal is doing these inclusions and having public meetings and really putting a lot of intentions into... our alternative plan and phase two, so that might mitigate some of the issues. But I know Oakland specifically, I share and a lot of people share concerns that state bills that are kind of doing a cookie cutter approach across the state, where Oakland is very unique in the density, but also the demographic differences of who lives in Oakland and who makes Oakland Oakland. is a little unique and different than other parts of the state. So how do you kind of apply those metrics or ensure that our equity goals are still met?

Yeah, I think part of that is looking at the areas when we're looking at upzoning. I mean, it's a combination of we're wanting – it's good to have affordable housing near transit, but you want to make sure that there is some affordable housing that's happening as part of these areas and part of the upzone areas. And then also looking at – there's separate regulations that we have with renter protections and other types of policies, and all those will – And we've already passed a lot of those with the housing element, but we can look at additional ones of those as we're doing the land use and transportation element. So it's not, when you're looking at an update of an element, it's not just, you know, like this is the density that's allowed. You're looking at the different policies and other things that can be put into place and different types of things that could be put in the planning code that can try to help ensure protections of existing residents that are there. because we want to allow for new residents, but we also want to protect and keep the residents that we have there now as well.

Perfect. Thank you so much.

I have a quick follow up on that, sort of in the spirit of equity. So the legislature did SB 79 for a reason, right? So you have these concentric circles around TOD zones. So if you're a property owner, you know if you Last summer, if you were within half a mile or a quarter mile of different kinds of transit stops, you would get this benefit if you checked all the boxes. We are proposing some exceptions to that, and it makes a lot of sense in all the areas where we've done the good work, right, with all the upzoning and all the density. But I worry about what we do to the property owners in the lower density areas who will be excluded, who otherwise would have been able to possibly take advantage of SB 79 and now can't. And while this may be kind of a placeholder, it's a pretty significant placeholder while we do an alternative plan. But that alternative plan could also sort of set that example back in terms of their ultimate ability to get this kind of height and density. So I guess that's a long-winded way of saying, what about the little guys who are going to be out sort of beyond the higher density zones but are still captured here who wouldn't be able to take advantage of this now.

Yeah, I mean, there are going to be areas that they, you know, they will not be able to take advantage. I think as we have looked at, again, most of the areas that are very closest, you know, along the quarters are higher density. And so, and actually some of the areas we're looking at, the density really isn't much different than what we already allow. And you can apply density bonus projects to our site. So even if maybe the height isn't as high as SB 79 allows, you can apply a density bonus to actually get to that height or potentially even higher through the density bonus project, as I think we've already seen happen. discussion we've had earlier of wanting to go to, I think it's 85 or 95 feet, which is in a 55 foot height limit is that example, and they're using a density bonus to exceed that. So those are still options that we have on, and we also have our S14 overlay zone that we did for the housing element, so any housing element sites that also can take advantage of streamlined zoning and higher density allowances. FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE DO HAVE S13 WHERE WE ALLOW ACTUALLY UNLIMITED DENSITIES WITH TWO EXTRA STORIES OF HEIGHT WITHIN THOSE, WITHIN ALL OF OAKLAND ESSENTIALLY THAT ALLOWS HOUSING. And, you know, the areas that are still left, you know, again, the idea is that it's, you know, we're talking, looking at next year that those changes would take effect. And right now, as I mentioned, we're not really seeing much development that's occurring currently at this time, especially we're not receiving very many applications. Right. So, again, I feel like this is the time to do the planning and this makes sense to do this in a comprehensive manner. We are going through all the effort of doing a general plan update phase two to get all this community input. And, you know, if people see that we didn't actually. take advantage of these exclusions in order to allow for that planning process i think a lot of people may be upset that we didn't take advantage of being able to do that process that the state has allowed us um and again i think the state did this really you know for a reason like they knew You know The amount of work needed that that was just not enough time for cities to actually do an alternative plan so that's why they gave us this option to Have these exclusions on a temporary basis to do the proper planning Okay, thank you anyone else before I open up the public hearing Commissioner Rob

Thanks for your presentation. I guess I'm going to kind of piggyback off of the questions that's been asked. The one thing that I'm a little concerned about is, like, I understand this is just for you. You have to, we have to plan accordingly and do the proper work. And I understand that this is an alternative. But I guess my concern is, when, how long are we gonna take to work this out? That's the thing I'm not clearly understanding. Maybe I missed it, but I just wanna have an understanding that we're gonna try to come up with the proper alternative for Oakland, right? But how long does this, will that process go?

Again, I think the intent is for us to do as much as we can as part of the general plan update phase two and get that community input. I'm thinking the actual adoption, we may not be able to get that done at the exact same time as the general plan update phase two. I think that would be our goal to try to strive for that. But I just want to be able to, I'm trying to be realistic in looking at, again, especially if there are changes that happen in October to the state law, of being able to have the time to be nimble and look at those changes. But yeah, very much the intent is trying to do this as soon as we can. And next year would be the commitment.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Ahrens?

Thank you, thank you for your work. This is a Herculean task and I don't envy you, so thank you. And for the other planning staff, thank you as well. I do have a number of questions, so I'll just start at the top with what I have. And some of these I asked when we met earlier this week, thank you. And I just want to reiterate them at the meeting for the sake of it being public. But my first question is about ministerial review. So for the stations that are proposed to be excluded, that would take away access to ministerial review under SB 79. Is that correct, is my understanding?

I'll let Mike Branson answer that, City Attorney.

Sure. I think I know what you're alluding to. During the SB 79 process, there was a lot of discussion about the ability for applicants to also use the streamlining that exists in SB 35, different Scott Wiener bill that's available for mixed income projects. SB 79 itself does not include any ministerial processes. So it doesn't include a CEQA exemption. It doesn't include ministerial review. But it's quite clear that it allows Enables applicants to use the existing landscape so you can still do an SP 79 project and proposed density bonus you can do an SP 79 project and use an infill exemption that was just adopted as part of the Budget trailer bill last year all those tools are available, but there's no Separate streamlining process for SP 79 projects. In fact, it actually goes I'd say out of its way to specify that, for example, if a city has a demolition control, then SB 79 projects would still need to comply with those demolition controls.

It does specifically reference SB 35 though, so you can stack that and get ministerial review if you check all the boxes. Agree. Okay.

Thank you. That was helpful. Yeah, so I'm still thinking about streamlining as well. I guess maybe you answered the question. I'm just thinking about is it easier to access streamlining through SB 79 or through our current code? And it seems like current state law and current code still exists. And applicants would be able to take advantage of that. Sorry, it's like a question, but I'm also piecing it together out loud. I just want to make sure I'm understanding.

We may want to partner on this answer because I will say in Oakland currently, the types of projects that we see using SB 35 is largely affordable housing projects, 100 percent affordable housing projects. The reason for that is because last housing element cycle the city of oakland met our market rate goals and so the threshold for a developer to use sp35 is i believe it's 50 affordable and there just aren't projects on the market that are doing 50 affordable 50 market rate so in other jurisdictions that did not meet their market rate arena that threshold is lower i believe it's 20 i think you can do a density bonus project to get to that 20%. So it's a lot more accessible. We have separate streamlining provisions. We just adopted the ministerial design review process. Those obviously have different criteria and different limitations to them. But those are tools that are available locally.

Yeah, and we also, our S14 zone, as I mentioned earlier, so any site that's a housing element site, if it has a certain affordability level, which would be more, I think, what Mike is talking about, can also do a ministerial approval process.

Okay, thank you. My next question is about some of the requirements that SB 79 lays out around inclusionary and demolition and labor standards. And I know that those specifics were not included in the draft update to Chapter 17. Specifically, they're just sort of broadly saying we must comply with what is in the California government code section, which I understand since it sounds like they're probably amendments coming and other things and you don't want to build in hard numbers into the code. But I'm trying to understand in places that are excluded, am I understanding correctly that those inclusionary requirements under SB 79 then would not apply? For instance, they say that 7% of the units need to be extremely low income, 10 are very low, and 12 are low income. So I just want to make sure I'm understanding. And if we're excluding most, except for three of the stops, those inclusionary requirements from the state will not apply there.

Well, so essentially, those requirements are only if they're doing the SB 79 project. So if SB 79 was in place and they didn't do an SB 79 project, those would not be required. But the city of Oakland does have our impact fee requirements. And so we have you either pay the impact fee or you provide a certain percentage of affordable on-site. So we have really equivalent requirements of onsite requirements if you do not pay the affordable housing impact fee. So right now, I believe it's I think 10 percent very low affordable is required and 12 percent low and 15 percent moderate. So those still would apply if a developer wanted to do a density bonus project in the city and not pay the affordable housing impact fees or they would have to pay the affordable housing impact fees.

OK, thank you. And my last clarifying question is around the displacement provisions. So I did ask this on Monday, but I'm hoping that you can just share a little bit about what the city provisions are around demolition and anti-displacement for rent-controlled units.

Sure, I'll take this one. So we'll start with what's in SB 79. So it first references the replacement unit requirements that are in a different Senate bill, Senate Bill 330, Housing Crisis Act that essentially requires that if you are demolishing what's called a protected unit, rent controlled unit or a low income rented unit, that the new project needs to replace those through deed restricted housing. So that's the first step is an SB 79 project must comply with that. But More restrictive, there is a provision in SB 79 that says that a project that is using SB 79 cannot also propose the demolition of two or more rent-controlled units that were occupied by a tenant within the last seven years. So it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to use SB 79 to, for example, demolish a rent-controlled fourplex to build a larger building. Our rent control, rent adjustment program is quite broad. We are prohibited by state law from applying our rent control program to single family homes. That is written into the Costa-Hawkins Act. So single family homes generally are not rent controlled regardless of the age of the building. An exception to that is if... A single family home has an accessory dwelling unit on the property. That is two units on one property. It does not fall into the cost of Hawkins exemption. And so the single family home could also be rent controlled. And so if there was a proposal to demo two single family homes that meet that circumstance, you would not be able to use SB 79. More generally with Oakland's requirements. It is not just cause for eviction to Construction of a new building is not just cause for eviction. So Tenants should not and cannot receive notices that say we want to build a new building you therefore must move That said, there are other mechanisms available to developers, and they are used on occasion. One, of course, is that a developer can enter into a move-out agreement with tenants. We have a move-out agreement ordinance that outlines a process to make sure that tenants are going into that kind of a negotiation with their eyes wide open, that they have an understanding that they have a right to have a conversation with an attorney before entering into a move out agreement that they're not compelled to do so. That's typically, I think, a tool that developers would use to try to vacate units before proposing projects. We also are not able to exempt Oakland from the Ellis Act, which does allow property owners to get out of the rental business and that remains a tool that can be used. I think typically a developer would look to a move out agreement first, but Ellis Act is a tool that developers can and do use to advance projects. We also have an Ellis Act ordinance that requires specific provisions be met before you may proceed with an Ellis Act eviction, and that does include relocation payments. So there's a tapestry of requirements in place. That is not to say that there aren't still mechanisms to navigate all those to remove rented units from the market and build new construction.

Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you. Commissioner Leap?

Yeah, I just had a couple of clarifying sort of confirmation questions. So in the alternative plan, to the degree that density can be redistributed, the redistribution has to happen within the same TOD zone. Like, you couldn't redistribute density from one zone to another. Is that correct?

I'm kind of expecting this question too, so I may read a little bit on this one. The local alternative plan is really a whole different animal. It has a different set of requirements that are pretty detailed. It requires the city to look at the existing built environment, how many housing units exist within our TOD areas, How much housing could be built under and look at the difference between that that kind of becomes a target in the same way that, like, arena number becomes a target. So we then have to develop an alternative plan that. Has the same capacity for development as that. City wide target. um we then uh any city cannot allocate all that target into one tod zone they are required to maintain kind of a baseline i believe it's you can't decrease any tod zone below 50 of what sp79 would have already allowed so there's some room to to shift between tod zones but you can't kind of fully up zone one tod zone one transit station and Down zone other ones, there's also kind of across the zone requirements. So. The state legislature also did not want to see. Specific parcels get really up zoned to accommodate. all of the SB 79 capacity and maintain lower zoning. The threshold is that every parcel that's within a TOD zone needs to meet at least 50% of what is provided in SB 79, which again, that will depend on whether you're a tier one, a BART station, tier two, tempo line, depends on whether you're within a half mile or a quarter mile. So we have to balance all of those elements Um, when doing the alternative plan, there are exceptions to that as well, particularly around that 50% zoning requirements. So. Sites that have a historic resource can once again be excluded from that requirement that it meet at least 50% of 79. um there is a cap on how many um historic resources can be within any given tod zone so there's some work that would have to be done on that as well and then there is an additional um exclusion from that 50% requirement in our low resource areas that are adjacent to Tier 2 stops that do allow for a lower density of 30 dwelling units per acre with a residential FAR of 1.0. I believe the standard in the Tier 2 kind of radius was something closer to 60 or 80 dwelling units per acre. going down to 50% of that is maybe 10 dwelling units per acre less than what would be required to hit that 50% mark.

OK, thanks. I mean, the way you're describing it makes it seem like there is some wiggle room to sort of redistribute some density from one TOD zone to another. So I think if the alternative plans had those kind of features, I would want to understand sort of the rationale if that were to happen. And another thing I wanted to confirm is, so the SB 79 does have these requirements around inclusionary zoning and prohibition of demolition of rent controlled units and labor standards. And those understandably weren't necessarily highlighted in this presentation, but I just Given how complicated it is to sort of compare those requirements and how they would impact sort of existing requirements on the cities, is there a plan on when sort of those requirements in SB 79 might be presented or included in materials?

Well, I think part of the intent is that we would provide something on our website that would be an FAQ, as well as a guidance for staff to help with evaluating what meets the SB 79 law requirements. Because again, I think we didn't want to put that into the actual code, because if it does change, then our code would not be up to date. but the intention is to have guidance to try to both help applicants and staff as you know they navigate if they do qualify for SB 79 project okay thank you okay I think we can open up the public hearing

All right, so we have three speakers. We have Naomi Schiff, Raul Maldonado, and Ali Sapirman. You may come up. You have two minutes. And please state your full name for the record.

How much time do I have?

Two minutes.

Okay, cool.

Hi, my name is Raul Maldonado. I'm speaking on behalf of East Bay YIMBY and more than 100 plus members in strong support of SB 79. It's a promise to bring more housing near transit in Oakland. SB 79 was designed to make it easier to build homes closer to TOD locations like BART stations, et cetera. Especially, this is important for working families. Living close to transit. This is a great opportunity for them Housing your transit is critical for creating affordable housing and family-sized units and preventing displacement already previously discussed for families giving you them an opportunity to live in the city They live which is Oakland There are some concerns about some of the exclusions that would be added. I think that is generally a nice analysis, but typically an analysis with no target or deadline is just something that stays in limbo for some time. So I think with the concerns and reservations like the exclusions and amendments have there, I think that should not be considered in the analysis that was you know, really done through SB 79 should just be, you know, you should like, sorry, you should be able to just like rely on the state to handle that. And then also the additional amendments that would come in as well, instead of waiting on something, THAT POTENTIALLY OTHER STAFF MEMBERS PERSPECTIVELY IN THE FUTURE THAT WOULD DO SOME MAJOR OR MORE EXCLUSIONS TO THAT IN THE FUTURE. ANYWAYS, GETTING OFF THAT TANGENT, WE URGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LEAN INTO SUPPORTING EXISTING SP-79'S INTENT TO AVOID UNNECESSARY EXCLUSIONS OR JUST OTHER KIND OF LIKE DRAGGING ON SITUATIONS LIKE WE'VE SEEN EARLIER IN THE OPEN FORUM WITH THE DIFFERENT SMALLER PROJECT AND MORE RICH RESOURCE NEARBY. Thank you for your time and have a good day.

Good evening. My name is Allie Saperman, the policy manager for the Housing Action Coalition. Oakland has done real work to plan for housing, and that's not easy. But I'm here to say planning alone isn't enough. Oakland has a responsibility to deliver housing, especially in a housing crisis this severe. SB 79 was passed for a reason. It reflects a statewide recognition that cities haven't built enough homes near transit and this has real consequences. Displacement, long commutes, rising costs, impacts to our climate, and fewer opportunities for working families to stay in their communities. The intent of SB 79 is not to create another planning process. It's to create housing near transit and make it possible now. We recommend not creating carve-outs that move away from the bill's intent. As someone who lives and travels throughout the Bay, I see the impacts of underbuilding every day. Friends and neighbors priced out, long commutes that steal time and money, climate goals that feel out of reach because we haven't aligned housing with transit. While the law allows some flexibility, broad exclusions and long delays risk turning the housing law into something that exists mostly on paper. Oakland has the opportunity, and I would argue the obligation, to implement SB 79 in a way that results in real usable housing capacity near transit, especially in areas well served by jobs, schools, and services. I'm urging the Planning Commission to recommend an approach that stays true to SB 79's purpose, do not accept the exclusions and unnecessary carve-outs, which are a way to circumvent the law, lean into housing near transit, and ensure this policy leads to homes being built. Oakland can lead by showing that we take both our planning and our housing responsibilities seriously. Thank you.

Naomi Schiff, did you want to speak?

Hello, Naomi Schiff for Oakland Heritage Alliance. I want to thank the staff for that enormous pile of data. When I saw that Section H was 1,600 pages, I rejected a request to print it out because I didn't have that much paper. But I think that it's a good approach and that we really look forward to participating in the whatever public process results in an alternative plan. And I would just remind everybody that a great deal of Oakland's rental housing is in existing buildings and those largely are the ones that are affordable. The new stuff that we have seen has been largely unaffordable. And so we're really interested in seeing some innovative approaches to reuse of existing buildings that are underutilized. hope that the state will recognize that it's not always new construction that generates new units sometimes we can get new units out of old buildings and I really would like to see that this city includes that in its contemplation thank you and I really thank the staff for a comprehensive report

All right, we have one speaker left, Aaron Eckhouse. Please state your full name for the record, and you have two minutes.

Hello, thank you. My name is Aaron Eckhouse. I'm the local and regional policy program director for California YIMBY. We were proud to sponsor SB 79 to support transit oriented development across California. And we were very grateful to have support from Mayor Lee as well as Council Member Wong and many other members of the Oakland community in passing that bill. I think we can see from this analysis, I, as an Oakland resident, feel very proud of the work that Oakland has done and the pro-housing leadership that the city has shown. I think that's reflected in the analysis that if more cities were doing what Oakland has been doing, we would have less of a housing crisis. So very impressed, very proud, and also very impressed by the analysis that staff did. I will say I would encourage you not to adopt Exclusion 1. I think that one specifically, you will see it carves out subsets of TOD areas. And the areas in Oakland where SB 79 makes the biggest difference for housing capacity are resource-rich neighborhoods in North Oakland around Rockridge, North Telegraph, MacArthur. These are areas where I think Oakland has proactively done more planning work over the last years to create housing opportunities. SB 79 provides an opportunity to lean in and do even more. So I would encourage you not to remove College Avenue from SB 79, not to remove those stretches of Telegraph, even though they may be eligible for the 50% exclusion. I think you will get better outcomes. It will allow us to learn things potentially if developers are using SB 79 standards instead of local zoning standards about why that is and what constraints may exist in other places. And it will also, honestly, simplify the mapping process and the process for somebody to determine is their property eligible for SB 79. Thank you.

Here's our final speaker. All right. Thank you. I will close the public hearing and bring it back up for discussion. Who would like to start? Or do we have any follow-up questions for Laura? Okay, Vice Chair Sandoval.

Thank you, and thank you for the public comment as well. I'm really less concerned with exclusions two and three here, just because I think that they really kind of speak to, you know, preservation of historic sites, as well as making sure that, you know, we go through a, you know, thoughtful public process in under-resourced neighborhoods and really make sure that we're grounded in anti-displacement strategies. I am less enthusiastic about Exclusion 1 around the Rockridge, MacArthur, and Ashby BART stations. I just feel that those are some of the most more higher-resourced areas in Oakland and are the neighborhoods where we could really benefit from more housing, more dense housing, diverse housing. And I feel that SB 79 was designed Particularly for such neighborhoods like that. So those are just my thoughts in terms of moving forward on this. I would like to, you know, if we were to consider exclusion one, I'd like to see more detailed kind of parcel discussions. Based analysis of those stations really understanding what parcels would be eligible for SB 79 and how It would compare against the current zoning in those areas whether it would be You know making what the difference would be between what's existing and how it would be impacted by SB 79 I also just wonder if as part of that analysis which I know is a lot of analysis is just like the basic parcel typology whether it's single-family home or multifamily just because I think that SB 79 is less likely to be applied to single-family home sites there is potential there sure But I don't think that is where the real difference will be made. And so just understanding what are the multifamily and commercial properties that would be eligible for SB 79 would be really helpful. Thank you.

Thanks, Vice Chair.

Yeah, thank you for that as well, and for the public comments. I mean, I do share some of the concerns around impact on equity and some of the things that we discussed earlier today, but I think that SB 79 is an important tool to build additional housing at a time where not everybody across the state is meeting their goals. I know Oakland is doing a really good job of meeting our goals, but I think we can always do better. So I do share some of the concerns about exclusion number one and wondering if there's some flexibility to Remove some or allow SP 79 to apply it to some of these Specific corridors that have been identified specifically in Rockbridge and Telegraph Is there any flexibility there? I know the good news is is that the exclusions are temporary as you mentioned earlier I mean we still have the opportunity with the alternative plan and phase two to provide important tools that SP 79 is trying to achieve and we not permanently making some of these areas exclusions, which I would not be supportive of. I know the goal is to pause and really identify and analyze and have a public process that's really intentional and deliberative. But then I also have concerns of how long is it going to take until we no longer have the temporary exclusions and we have the alternative plan or phase two. I don't want to necessarily wait six years, because six years in the process of building housing, who knows what the world is going to look like in six years, right? So who knows how many times SB 79 could be amended or changed. So yeah, I guess my comment or question is, Is there any flexibility? Have you thought about what was brought up about some of these corridors that might not be excluded right now, even temporarily, and provide SP79 to become active in July? Have you had any thought or was it really like, as soon as something is over 50%, we put it on the list without any necessarily thought of flexibility?

I would say when we were looking at this as staff, again, we realized we are in the process of the general plan update. And what we had looked at first was, was it even possible for us to do an alternative plan? Could we try to front loads and up zoning? But as we were going through the general plan process, we just really thought that did not make sense because AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS COMPREHENSIVELY AND LOOK AT HOW THE TRANSIT CONNECTIONS ARE THERE, THE CORRIDORS, THE VARIOUS TYPES OF LAND USES AS WELL AS EMPLOYMENT USES AND NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, WHERE JOBS ARE LOCATED AND SO FORTH. SO WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THAT IN A COMPREHENSIVE MANNER WHEN land use and not in isolation of just, okay, we're just going to add density. But what does that mean? You know, how do people actually get around? Are there, you maybe have a BART line, but do you have a bus line to, you know, to get around in Oakland if you're not taking a BART to go? somewhere outside of the city or within the city, as well as how are you trying to get to your job, where you're working, where are those destinations. So we feel it's a much more comprehensive, which is what the land use and transportation element is, essentially. AND SO WE FELT IT MADE SENSE ACROSS THE CITY TO APPLY WHATEVER EXCLUSIONS WE COULD IN ORDER TO ALLOW STAFF THE TIME TO DO THAT ANALYSIS AND ALSO GET THE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC. NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE, WE WANT TO GET THAT INPUT AS WELL. And ultimately, you know, they're still going to, you know, the upzonings are going to have to happen some, but they may be distributed differently than what has been proposed so far with SB 79. And I would kind of... not agree with some of the statements of what the public said, because obviously the state passed this law with these exclusions in place. If they didn't want cities to have the exclusions, they wouldn't have allowed them to be part of the bill. And I think they recognized that it wasn't realistic for any city to be able to do an alternative plan within such a short timeframe. You know, just to get something for us through planning commission and council, you know, that's almost, you know, a three month process in itself without any actual analysis to take place. So the idea that you could get that done and really what the state has said is that they have 90 days to actually review our code after it's adopted before July 1st. So essentially that really leaves us the end of March that we have to get this adopted in order to get that review by the state, the 90 day review to make that July 1st deadline. And something that was passed in October to, you know, that's almost impossible for any city unless I think like San Francisco, they had already worked on their family zoning or kind of, looking at a lot of these things, so they were ahead of the curve in that process, but we are somewhat ahead of the curve because we are already doing our general plan update, but we're just not quite there to be able to meet this deadline of July 1st of this year. And again, we very much have the intent that this will be next year that we want to have an alternative plan. And I'm sure we're going to have pressure from the community because, again, there are areas that are not excluded. Right. So they're going to want us to get this alternative plan done as fast as possible.

And I know you mentioned that yesterday during our meeting and then just now is that the state still has 90 days to review it. Is that more of an administrative review where they look at, okay, well, have you complied with state law and now you're allowed to submit these or approve these exclusions or do they have, what do they do? Can they say no during their review and what happens if they say no?

Looks like Mike is going to...

I WILL SAY THIS IS NEW FOR EVERYONE, RIGHT? SO WE'VE NOT GOTTEN ANSWERS FROM STATE HCD EXACTLY WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD BE LIKE. WE'VE DONE THE PRELIMINARY WORK TO JUST ASK THEM WHO DO WE EVEN SUBMIT IT TO AND THAT ACTUALLY TOOK A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT TO GET THAT IN PLACE.

SO WHAT THE LAW DOES SAY IS THAT

We have 60 days. The city has 60 days after enactment to send it to state HCD. We also have to send a draft to HCD prior to adoption, at least 14 days before adoption. And they have an opportunity to provide us feedback.

So we will be doing that as well.

After we send it to the state HCD, they have 90 days to review the ordinance. They can ask for an additional 30 days if they so choose to. And there is a presumption that if we do not hear from the department within that time period that the ordinance is deemed compliant for purposes of specific penalty provisions. There is an additional provision that says if at any time the department determines that the ordinance does not comply with this section, HCD shall notify the local government in writing. HCD shall provide the local government a reasonable time not to exceed 60 days to respond before taking further action. This is similar to what we've seen in a couple other housing-related bills. Essentially, we get a list of concerns, and then the ordinance, or sorry, SB 79 provides that. In response to that, we as a city would either amend the ordinance to comply with the comments from state HCD, or we would enact an ordinance that includes findings explaining why we disagree with state HCD's findings.

And would that come back to the planning commission or city council? Or who would be the entity to?

Yes, it would come to planning commission and city council. I'm fairly certain of that. It's an amendment to the planning code. So it would need to come to both bodies. Okay.

And then I know this might be more of a rhetorical question, but what is your sense that HTC actually has the capacity to review potentially hundreds of thousands of documents that will be submitted by cities within the 90 days or 120 days? So I guess if you don't hear back, we don't hear back. It might be good news as it is.

I don't have an answer to that, and I do not know what their capacity is. Thank you.

YEAH, I WOULD ALSO ADD AN ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO VICE CHAIR SANDOVAL. THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, STAFF DID LOOK AT THE DENSITIES ALLOWED IN THESE AREAS ALONG COLLEGE AVENUE AND IN THE MCARTHUR BART AREA AS WELL AS SOME OF THE ASHBY BART AREA. the Really the zoning densities along these areas are already quite high and some of them, you know already Meeting or exceeding what the SB 79 densities would require There are a few that are not But they you know, one of the areas as I mentioned earlier, maybe the height limit is lower but again because you can take advantage of a density bonus project and and have higher heights that that allowance is still there and And again, if you were to do an SB 79 project, you would have to do a density bonus project. So we don't feel like, again, waiting this short amount of time to allow for this planning process really is impeding much compared to what our density allows currently. And yeah, we just again we really feel as staff, you know the principle of that, you know if we're going through general plan process That is the area of where we should be looking at the city comprehensively and making those decisions and we understand We feel that you know Really this bill was meant for a lot of other cities that have not been doing the work and sit in Oakland has been doing the work and And it's been very diligent and our numbers actually show that of where we're at of our densities and our allowances. And so we feel that, you know, we should be able to get given this short amount of time to actually do the necessary planning and get community input in order to make these decisions.

Could we shorten the time frame of the exclusions? Because by operation of law, they sunset with the next housing element cycle, right? So what if we could consider having them sort of sunset with, I don't know, the general plan update or something that keeps it more temporary than I think it is right now? Was that something that, I mean, we could make that recommendation to the city council if we were so inclined?

Yes, there is language in the draft planning code amendments that specify Pursuant to our planning code, what the expiration date is so currently. 1786010 says that these exclusions are valid until. January 31st, 2032, or 1 year following the adoption of the 7th revision of the city of Oakland. Housing element, whichever occurs 1st, it's written that way because there's. some strange nuances in state housing law about when we have to certify a housing element you don't really know until kind of right before you start that process. It's our planning code. If you want a different date, you can put a different date in it.

Okay. Thanks, Mike. Commissioner Rob.

So I actually have another question and it kind of piggybacks off of what Commissioner Randolph and Commissioner Wright just stated. It's more about logistics, about how we sort through this thing. If we approve the exclusions today, but when the alternative plan comes and we don't find it suitable, will it come back before us and can we default back to SB 79? Does that make sense? I don't know. Yeah, no. Okay.

Yeah, so the alternative plan would be essentially upzoning different areas in order to be compliant with what the alternative plan requires for SB 79, and so that would have to come back to the Planning Commission because we would be changing zoning maps and densities, and then it would go to the City Council.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Randolph?

I mean, the deadline piece is a very interesting consideration, because I didn't think about that. So when you say that the goal is to have an either alternative plan or phase two done or approved by 27, 28, which is way ahead of the housing element, probably, or 2032, I hope. Do these exclusions then still remain on the book, even though we have an alternative plan and phase two approved? So my understanding... Would the phase two and the alternative plan replace the exclusion and basically remove them?

My understanding, and Meg can correct me if I'm wrong, is that you can't have both, I believe, but I'm not positive. But I think the intent would be to have the alternative plan replace the exclusions.

But I don't know if Mike, have you... Because that's not how it's currently written, so maybe there's some confusion to me at least, but...

Yeah, well, as currently written, there's no references to the planning code about the local alternative plan. And I think part of that is because we're on a limited timeline here. I don't see anything that says that you can't have a local alternative plan and exclusions. It doesn't say that in the statute, but that doesn't really make sense to do that. So my assumption is that an ordinance that was bringing a local alternative plan or the general plan element would include something that would repeal some of this language. Probably not all of it, but perhaps the exclusion section. Or it may actually, there may be essay amendments that come as part of the local alternative plan and maybe built into it. I don't think we've had opportunities to explore that as the staff level exactly what the structure of alternative plan would look like. I think also we're waiting to get a little bit more guidance from the state as to what they're looking forward to see in the alternative plan. So it's a little difficult to craft exactly what it would look like until we have that guidance.

Yeah, and I think if you had the alternative plan, that would mean you're not subject to SB 79 anymore, so you wouldn't really need the exclusions at that point because you've complied with an alternative plan. And so we would be setting what those densities would be in those areas, which means you wouldn't be able to do the same densities on every parcel that SB 79 would have allowed, right, because we've now set the densities in the alternative plan what they're complying with instead. So I don't see what reason you would need an exclusion at that point.

I'll just add, I think that there is some ambiguity in the statute for this. And I do expect there to be guidance, or perhaps it would be in the amending bills that we've been talking about. Because just as a practical example, SB 79 has these affordability requirements. It has a labor requirement. As you know, those labor requirements are often quite difficult for cities to impose themselves. So there's going to have to be some dovetailing about, OK, if a local jurisdiction adopts an alternative plan, it still lives within the realm of SB 79, because projects that are using that alternative plan I THINK ARE ANTICIPATED TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS OR IF IT'S JUST ADOPTED DIRECTLY INTO THE GENERAL PLAN, THEN I THINK THERE WOULD BE A CONCERN THAT IT'S NOT MEETING SOME OF THOSE SP 79 STANDARDS THAT WERE ANTICIPATED. SO ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S A GOOD REASON WHY WE'RE LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE AND PERHAPS SOME AMENDMENTS ARE COMING.

I mean, I would worry about the alternative plan being separate from the general plan update, because I understand we have pressures on funding for that. And I've seen other cities just really race to get across the finish line, because the money is going to dry up. So my fear would be that there's going to be so much emphasis on the general plan work. And then the alternative plan could trail. And I don't know how long that could trail. And so then we're just we've sort of we're in suspended animation with SB 75 until 2032. So that that's that's my struggle is it just feels too long, but just because I don't want to get stuck in like analysis paralysis or the very real case that you know there's so much going on with city planning and you're doing all this good work and it can just take more time than we're talking about today

I mean, I understand state law tries sometimes to be very flexible and provide some wiggle room for the actual entities that need to implement whatever they are codifying on the state level. And it creates ambiguity, which can be helpful, but then it can also be problematic because the state is not always very good at providing that guidance when cities or entities are trying to find that guidance. So I think the question is, Is it better to pre-plan for that and build in some type of sunsetting or exploration timeline or date and say, when Oakland approves phase two or an alternative plan, it repeals the exclusions? Or is it better to wait? And is it possible to write it into the phase two in Phase 2 approval process or the alternative plan, it says with this approval of this alternative plan or Phase 2, we will also repeal the exclusions that were passed by Planning Commission on X date or City Council on X date. is it better to pre-plan and do it now and say what if these plans are being approved or is it better to wait and build that into the plans that we are proving in the future what is the cleaner way for staff or the city to to do it are we able to write it something like that into the alternative plan same with this plan approval we are repealing the exclusions or

Um, I think I'd like to focus 1st on what's before you today. So there includes language that says, when the exclusions are valid until right now. The part that I read in says these exclusions are valid until January 31st, 2032, or 1 year following adoption of the 7th. Revision of the city of open housing element 7 cycle. you could add language into that that says these exclusions are valid until January 31st, 2032, or until the city of Oakland adopts a qualifying local alternative plan, whichever occurs earlier.

Thank you.

Sorry, Commissioner Rupp.

Yeah, so my concern goes back to what I originally asked is that this could drag on and we won't get anything done. So can we actually set a deadline for when the alternative plan, when it happens or anything like that? Is that doable?

I don't think that you can set a deadline for when the alternative plan can be adopted. I don't think there is a deadline under SB 79, and I don't think jurisdictions are obligated to adopt an alternative plan. So for some municipalities, they may decide not to. I think what you could do is, again, put in a different date for these exclusions if that's the interest of the body.

Thank you. That makes sense. Thank you.

Ed, did you have anything to say? I always know when you step down that's a... Hi, thanks very much.

Ed Manassi, Deputy Director of Planning. We hadn't directly talked about this issue, but it's been extremely interesting. My assumption all along is that the exclusions would be in place only until we adopt an alternative plan, that they're kind of the interim measure to get us to that point. um and so um we would if that were to be um you know that shared vision then we would build that into the adopting uh regulations coming before this body and and council the exclusions would would really have no purpose in in an alternative world where the the plan is adopted as an alternative plan because They would be necessarily superseded because they You would have certain areas Not if they're not if they don't apply to SB 79 then they would have then local regulations would apply to and those local regions would be an alternative plan. So their necessity would be overridden by the additional amendments that would come along with that. So I would be comfortable with what was suggested as far as having it, you know, the exclusions, that they would sunset as soon as an adopted alternative plan would be adopted. so and again our intent is to do so as soon as possible concluding or shortly after adoption of the general plan amendment just on a on just on a workload As soon as we get the general plan amendment completed, we would have to move a lot of our limited resource towards the sub-regional planning that's required around the same time as when the housing element is due. So we're going to need to do a lot in the latter half of this decade that... where we would want to get this alternative plan done so that it wouldn't overlap so much with other things coming up in the foreseeable future.

Yeah, thank you.

So I think I would feel comfortable hearing from staff to make that amendment to the staff recommendation to add that little piece to the expiration date, or with the adoption of an alternative plan. So keep the two items in there, so the housing element, the year after whatever, the 2032 deadline. And then the third one would be the or with the adoption of an alternative plan.

I still worry about the lag my preference would be to tie it to the general plan, but That's what that's where I am And I don't I mean I don't think there's gonna be this huge window of risk I if we tied it to the general plan versus the alternative an alternative plan i think it will actually motivate the alternative plan to happen sooner i don't think we're going to get flooded with if there was some time in between that we're going to get flooded with you know hundreds of sb 79 applications if there's that you know there's a window but that's speculation yeah i mean i

I would be, I think I would like a little more time beyond the journal plan update of phase two finish just because I know all the work that is involved and needed as part of that process. This is something, you know, we've had the project scoped out and this is an additional item that is now being tacked on and we already had a very TIGHT TIMELINE OF MEETING THE TIMELINE ALREADY. SO I FEEL THAT THAT TIMELINE IS NOT, TO HAVE IT AT THE EXACT SAME TIME IS NOT REALISTIC. AND THEN AGAIN, MY CONCERN WOULD BE, AGAIN, ALL THE WORK WE ARE DOING AS PART OF THIS PROCESS TO THEN COMMUNITY and telling community this is what we're going to do and then oh no now all of a sudden time's up you know SB 79 kicks in and everything you've worked to plan for is is gone.

I mean, I share your concerns around the lag, but what my concern is that you might have three different scenarios of time periods. Now you have the period of projects being submitted during the period of exclusions, and then potentially post phase two adoption, whatever that brief moment is. And then all of a sudden you have another phase with the alternative plan that might bring back some of these exclusions or make some other upzoning changes. So you might have three different phases of three potential different projects, depending on when they've been submitted. And that might create an additional confusion to applicants, developments, or staff to figure out what was submitted and what of those three phases. So I would feel, for me, the middle ground here is still push staff to get the alternative plan done, which I think they're planning to because they have to, but make it a lot more temporary than 2032. So that's why I think I prefer the alternative plan, this inclusion in the deadline.

Commissioner Lee?

Just want to throw out an idea that might solve some of these problems. Maybe if we tied it to one year after the general plan, exclusions end one year after a general plan. And then if something happens and that timeline still doesn't work, we can always amend the deadline, right?

Yeah, I mean, I would assume we can always mend the planning code. We would have to come. So I guess what you're saying is maybe we're not potentially going to meet that deadline and we need another month or two. Staff would have to come back and ask for an amendment for that date to extend the date.

Are we assuming that we would get the alternative plan done within a year after the

general plan yes yeah so yes so um i think the since we don't know exactly when the general plan is done with spring summer uh it might be best to come up with a date uh that generally meets that one year so sometime in 2028 um so we could um i don't want to come up with a date on the fly but at june 30th july 1st um that that um is in the approximate range of when we expect the general plan to be completed one year after that

I don't know. I think what Owen Lee was saying, I mean, maybe if we say, and this is a question for Mike Branson, if you maybe say one year after the adoption of the general plan, because then that would, or do we need a hard, fast date?

We don't need a hard, fast date, but I do have a little bit of concern about writing into the planning code one year after the general plan update. That means something to everyone in this room. We've been really working on phase two and have specific deliverables, but... In the event that it doesn't go as anticipated, it becomes a little bit unclear as to what that means in terms of completion of general plan update. So I think you would need to be more specific with the language to say. Something like a comprehensive amendment of the land use and transportation element. Um, again, I think you still need to be pretty precise with that language because. From time to time, we do make land use and transportation elements amendments that are more targeted. It could be for a specific project or something like that. So you just need to be pretty precise with what the trigger is that you're referring to. I will say I don't share that concern with the local alternative plan because that is essentially defined by state law. I don't have that concern with putting in a specific sunset date.

I caused the timing discussion, but I don't want to... lose sight of if anyone has any sort of going back to the vice chair's comment about exclusion one. I mean, do we want to talk about whether or not we're on board with all of these exclusions as written or kind of explore that thread and then come back?

I would love others' opinions on that. I know this is temporary, but just any thoughts on exclusion one as compared to two or three.

Commissioner Ahrens.

Thank you. Yes, I do share some of the concerns about exclusion one. You know, looking at exclusion two, I think it makes a lot of sense to remove Ashby and Rockridge and MacArthur because they're not low resource. They're high resource areas. but then looking at the map again for exclusion one, it is, and I know it's because these parcels are zoned 50% density and residential FAR. Um, but I, yeah, I guess I, it's just like a lot of parcels along the key corridors, which, uh, Yeah, I am a little bit concerned about, yeah, I'll just stop there. I do have a concern.

Okay.

Anyone else?

I share the same concern, so I'll jump in with that.

So I guess I wonder if there is a scenario here where we move forward with the request for exclusions two and three, thinking about having this sunset date. We'll look to you for the exact language there after the general plan update. But more detailed, is there a scenario where we're able to do that and then request additional information related to exclusion one? I know that you're working on this tight timeline, so it is a question.

Yeah, I mean, I think we would like Planning Commission to make a recommendation today to move forward to Council because we are trying to meet, and this is, you know, we actually already have this scheduled for rules at this time because we're trying to meet this deadline of getting it adopted in March.

Okay, so I would say then sounds like the request for more information related to exclusion one is really not part of the timeline that we're working with. So if the commission were to think about exclusion one as maybe possibly not including exclusion one as part of our motion.

Well, excluding exclusion one. Yeah.

I mean, what does that mean? If we exclude exclusion one, it's almost like a double negative in my brain. And it goes to counsel for recommendation, except exclusion one, what does that mean? Then you have to come back with exclusion one, or it's just not going to get excluded. So basically... There's no exclusion one. It's just basically all those parcels would fall under SB 79.

They would be SB 79 eligible. Unless the council overrides.

So the council could override and add exclusion one back into...

Yeah, because we're only recommending...

Correct, yes. So council could still say that they want to include exclusion one. The one thing I would also say is that what we've done on purpose, because the state law... is we're having to go by our best interpretation of analyzing like the 40% aggregate density and the TOD areas and so forth. So we are sort of trying in all areas to apply any exclusions that are possible. So we are actually applying exclusion one to the low resource areas as well. Because if for some reason the state says we did some kind of calculations, or something different than when they come out with their interpretation and we see maybe we didn't interpret it quite correctly and they're like, well, why don't you go back and start over again for your exclusion two? We wanted to have a backup of exclusion one in these low resource areas because there's a lot of zones in those areas that already have very high densities that meet that 50% or higher. So... If this is something you are wanting, I would maybe ask that you maybe just not have those exclusions for exclusion one in the particular TOD zones that you're concerned about and not for all of the TOD zones.

Can I clarify what you're saying? So that would mean? the three-part stations in the higher resource areas.

If those are the ones that you're concerned about, then yes.

OK. And I'll just say from a process standpoint, what I'm hearing, what that looks like, is you're asking to remove maps one, two, and three from attachment D. I would recommend that you also include in your recommendation some modifications to the planning code amendments themselves, 17-86060. That's the section that lists the exclusions. It has an A, B, and C that include the three different exclusions. A is exclusion one. And so there would need to be a little bit of amendment to that language to basically say not including sites within a half mile of Ashby, MacArthur, and Rockridge.

Can you say the section again, Mike?

Yes, it is 1786060. That is the exclusions section. And then paragraph A under that is specifically this 50% exclusion. And so you'll see just a list of zoning designations that meet that criteria. It doesn't say anything about any particular TOD stops. It's just applying it to those zoning designations. So you would need to have in that intro paragraph 2A something that says not including sites within a half mile of Ashby, MacArthur, and Rockridge. Ashby, MacArthur, and Rockridge Park.

Thank you for that I like that approach, but I had the one concern I also had was this did parcels around West Oakland Bart station because that is Another one of those areas that I think is important to build housing housing around So I don't want to you know start removing every single map but I would feel inclined to add map, I think it's map four, to the first three maps. Because that was one of the areas that I was concerned about.

Can I ask a clarifying question around that? Can you confirm whether that West Oakland area falls under the 40% threshold? Because I thought that it did. It does. So it already is an exclusion.

It's a low resource area. West Oakland is a low resource area. So I think staff would definitely have even more concerns about removing that.

Yeah, OK. That's fair. Yeah. Go ahead.

Yeah, I think based on exclusion one, I think that does, I see where you're coming from. I think that that does make sense, in part because table three in the staff report, which is on Don't know what page, but table three, it does show that the SB nine aggregate capacity near West Oakland Bart is higher. Um, it's like 22, almost 23,000 units. And the current Oakland aggregate capacity is around 16,000 around West Oakland. So, um, I do see where you're coming from, but I, I do agree that because it is a low resource area, I am kind of concerned about eliminating that but I yeah I wanted to recognize where you're coming from and also note that that was one of the two BART stations where the SB 9 aggregate is higher does anyone do we want to come back to the timing does someone want to make a motion I do have a few more comments.

Oh, sorry. I don't mean to cut anyone off. Go for it.

Um, I don't think that these are, I'm not proposing any further like changes or, um, motions, but while I have the floor, I did want to make a few comments. So I think that part of the intent with SB 79, there's a lot of intents, but one of them is about you know, some of the onsite affordability options and the increase in demolition protections and the prevailing wages benefits, like those are all real benefits, some of which Oakland already provides and some of which we don't have strict requirements around. And so I think that there is a benefit of having SB 79 apply to some more areas in the city and that's why I'm glad to see the high resource areas are not excluded. I think one thing that I do like about SB 79 around the onsite inclusionary requirements is that it does have a deeper level of affordability than what we require in our impact fees. The 15 percent moderate income that we have for Our impact fees here is not actually providing the deep affordability that I think that the city should be prompting. So I do like the 7% for extremely low income, 10% for very low income, and 12% for low income that SB 79 does provide. So I'm happy to see that that will apply to some parts of the city. And I just wanted to state that I do think our impact fees and that moderate income piece at 15 percent is still concerning to me, and that we're not seeing moderate income in the legislation. I am also very concerned about displacement, demolition, and protection for renters. I know that the limitations of Costa-Hawkins means that the city itself can't require rent control for renters in single-family homes, but I'm just thinking about single-family home renters, especially in more low density parts of the city along the BRT out into East Oakland, and hoping that the city, I think, has already done the most robust protections it can under the state preemption. But just wanted to reiterate through our updates to phase two of the general plan, making sure that we're able to prioritize protections for renters as much as we can, which is a little bit outside of this process. My last comments are about the downtown stations. I do understand that they're low resource. although looking at the maps the parts of downtown stations that are low resource um are not the parts that are right next to the lake and so it is kind of this like mixed district area even though i know overall um they come out to be low resource but um in an effort to provide consistency and direction i think whole cloth excluding low resource stations is good. But I do think that we're missing out on some of the additional pieces at SB 79 prompts around the affordability options and prevailing wages around these downtown stations. And so Yeah, I just feel like, you know, that's our most transit dense core in Oakland, in the Bay Area. And it's a little bit of a missed opportunity, even though I know the heights down there are really high and in some cases already exceed SB 79. But some of those additional pieces is what I feel like we're kind of missing out on. And those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm going to make one more plaque, and I understand. I'm going to move on. But I feel like West Oakland, specifically the area around that station, would kind of mirror what you were saying in your comments is that, yes, West Oakland is a very low resource neighborhood and community. But the amount of lack of development and potential for development around the West Oakland BART station specifically with the empty parcels, gas stations, and underdeveloped community resources over there, I think that is such a prime positive way of increasing capacity. specifically for housing in Oakland around that station. And a lot of the projects that have been approved already are not moving forward for various reasons. So I do hesitate of providing broad-based exclusions because some of the parcels that are identified in Map 4 are not. I think currently housing or not the type of housing where you would displace a lot of people, but I understand that there's a concern from staff and I don't want to, you know, overrule staff necessarily in a specific point, but I just think that it is a missed opportunity and I hope that The alternative plan gets moved forward very quickly and there's some really strong analysis being done specifically in West Oakland because I know that the plan has been not moved forward for a very long time. It is outdated and just a lot of things have changed in West Oakland in regards to how it's being used and how it could be used specifically on housing and equity and community. I appreciate your focus on West Oakland, hopefully with both Phase 2 and the alternative plan, but just wanted to bring that up before we vote on it.

Thank you for that. Does anyone else have comments? Commissioner Leap?

Sorry, can I just ask, so the SP-79 requirements around inclusionary zoning would apply to an area even if it already exceeded the density requirements? If it were not excluded?

If somebody wants to utilize SB 79 density, I would think someone would only want to use SB 79 density if it's higher than what the existing zoning allows. But it would then require those percentages of affordability in order to take advantage of the SB 79. And as I did state, we do have actually pretty equivalent requirements in our impact fees or the onsite already right now for onsite affordability with our existing zoning. but yet i think to maybe your point is that somebody if the zoning already allows them to do that density then they would not be doing sb79 because it actually would have more potential restrictions on them um than doing with the zoning does that answer your question yeah yeah

Commissioner Robb.

Should we discuss... And thank you for staying past five.

Yeah. We would miss you with this one. Should we discuss timeline as far as when we expect to see this after the general plan?

Anybody have thoughts on that? Yeah. So I'll just jump in and then we'll figure this out. But if we were to... make the recommendation to exclude these maps, I would be less concerned about timing. How's that?

So I would still be a little concerned about just one person's opinion.

So, um, and so, and I don't know if we, with what we're, we've been hearing is that the cleanest way to do it would be to link it to the

Adoption of the alternative plan so I could get on board with that unless people you know you wanted to do it sooner like we were talking about so I Wonder if we could say something along the lines of like You know within one year of the approved general plan You said something about like the land use transportation element approval or I July 1st, 2028, whichever comes first.

And that would be a good bookend, given that July 1st for this year is the deadline.

Yeah, I mean, I think when I heard concerns by staff and the city attorney's office around just the confusion it could create if you have a specific date or linking it to something that is not mentioned in SB 79, I do feel more comfortable if we link it directly to the alternative plan, which I think is the cleanest and makes the most sense because The point of these exclusions is to have enough time to create an alternative plan, which we are allowed to do under SB 79. We're not required, but we're allowed to. And I have full faith that staff will come up with an alternative plan that will address hopefully some of the concerns that we have here. And I assume as part of the alternative plan, it will come back to the commission for consideration. So I think we will have hopefully ample time to have conversations. The community and the public will have time for input and consideration. So I would feel most comfortable Especially since we are removing some of these maps if we just keep it clean and tie it to the alternative plan Are you saying commissioner?

Are you saying like more of an expiration date?

I guess I'm trying to understand what you well It would not necessarily an expiration date, but it would be a sunset tied to the adoption of the alternative plan by I guess the City Council

Vice chair?

I think what I was thinking about, what I meant when I said the July 1, 2028, or one year after, was to see the alternative plan, to have the alternative plan come to Planning Commission. So not necessarily like an expert. I mean, let's just move on. Let's not be in the limbo zone.

So you would say, as part of the recommendation to council, that you request staff to submit an alternative plan by July something. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. And thinking, like, let's be optimistic. The general plan is kind of mostly wrapped up early summer 2027. So that is a year. to give staff to work and create that alternative plan. This is what was going on in my head.

I mean, I don't know if we can request that, but I still mean it still doesn't solve my problem is that I want it to be clear that if an alternative plan is adopted, it repeals these exclusions. So I'm fine with making sure or directing staff, or if we can, to get an alternative plan submitted by a certain date, but that still doesn't address my concern around just the clear language of these exclusions are temporary and will be repealed. Can we do both?

When we adopt the alternative plan, we could make sure that the exclusions are rescinded as part of the reso or whatever, ordinance or however we're doing that.

I agree.

which Michael Branson might be part of the amendment and guidance we get from the state anyways, right?

Correct, yes. I think it would be part of that guidance. I'm trying to work through the language I'm hearing kind of two different concerns. One is about kind of trying to put a date to make sure that something's adopted soon enough. And then also Commissioner Randolph's concern that you want to write into the planning code that the exclusions go away once the alternative plan is adopted. I think Commissioner Randolph's concern is fairly easily addressed in that Section 1786-010, the one I've read a couple times that includes the valid until date. I would offer to amend it to say the exclusions included in Section 1786-060 are valid until January 31st, 2032. adoption of a local transit oriented development alternative plan or one year following the adoption of the seventh revision of the city of Oakland housing element, whichever occurs first. So you sort of have three different triggers for when the exclusions would be removed from the books essentially. I'm not sure if that addresses the other commissioner's concerns.

I mean, I'd be open to, if we're allowed to, to request or prefer to have an alternative plan submitted by a certain date on top of that. But I think we can do both if we're allowed to do that.

You're looking at me. So can you state that one more time?

I think the question I have is, are we allowed to request that staff submit an alternative plan by a date certain? Like if we say we want the alternative plan by, I don't know, I'm making this up, by July 1st, 2028.

What I heard you say earlier Mike was that it was not about a date certain for the alternative plan but a date a different date of when the exclusions expire because We're not even contemplating like this ordinance doesn't or code doesn't even talk about You know an alternative plan is talking about the exclusions so

Yeah, the problem is I don't want to have a date. And then the exclusions expire on July 1, 2028. But then there's no alternative plan yet in place. So then we go back into these three phases of exclusions, no exclusions, and then an alternative plan. I think the cleanest for me is you have the exclusions currently that are temporary, and then you adopt the alternative plan that will repeal those exclusions. So that, I think, is the cleanest way to address the exclusions piece. It doesn't address the concern I think the commission has about taking too long to submit an alternative plan. So I think the question, I think you're hearing the commission is very eager to see an alternative plan as soon as possible. So how can we achieve that?

Two separate but related items. The expert expiration, tying the expiration to the adoption of an alternative plan is easily an amendment to the code. Direction to have that alternative plan by a certain date separate we couldn't really memorialize that in in the code itself it'd be more as party recommendation that then could be part of the recommendation going to council that they could then include as part of their motion or some direction to staff I'm not sure what the form would be. I'm looking to Mike on that. But it's something that could be included in the recommendation, not necessarily in the code. Yes, I agree.

I think I see this as a separate recommendation coming from Planning Commission. It's a recommendation that the council direct the city administrator to present an alternative plan to the city council by a date specific.

I think that's the best, cleanest way to do that.

I mean, I still, but I mean, if there is a window in between exclusions and an alternative plan, what's the worst that can happen? We get a few or a bunch of SB 79 applications and we get some housing. I mean, I don't, I don't under, I mean, If there is that window, I don't think we're going to see 1,000 people running to City Hall with SB 79 applications. And if there were a bunch, then that would still be a good outcome. So I don't see that problem, but I'm not opposed to what Ed just suggested.

Yeah. I mean, I could see some of the exclusions are historic landmarks. So if that exclusion goes away, then maybe a landmark maybe goes away.

I just think it leaves up too many potential unintended consequences that we can't anticipate what some of these projects are, but I don't know.

Does someone want to try? Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

Because now it's almost three hours into the meeting. I don't know if this is, maybe we're, I'm trying to, I'm going to offer something and hopefully it's helpful. Maybe you already said it, maybe not. But in the 17.86.010, that last sentence or on that page one, these exclusions are valid until January 1st, 2032, or when you're following the adoption of the seventh revision of the city of Oakland housing plan or the adoption of alternative plans, whichever occurs first.

That's essentially what I have written here in my notes. I have it in a different order than you, but that doesn't matter.

So that way the exclusion sunset when the alternative plan is adopted, and the second but related piece is that we can't dictate a date when the alternative plan will be adopted, but we can make a recommendation to City Council about that.

We just need to decide what the date is.

Yeah. If we're making a recommendation, I think one year after major revisions to the land use and transportation element, And that wouldn't go into the code, but.

You're referring to the direction of the . You want the local alternative plan to be brought within one year of adoption of the comprehensive amendment to the land use and transportation element?

I think that's what she said, yeah.

OK, one moment.

And then the third piece will be to exclude the three maps from.

Right, one, two, and three.

From exclusion one. Maps one, two, and three, and then the other sections that you mentioned.

Yes, here's what I have written so far. the recommendation from the Planning Commission is to adopt as proposed with the following changes. Revise section 1786-010 paragraph 2 to state the exclusions included in section 1786-060 are valid until January 31st, 2032 or one year following the adoption of the seventh revision of the City of Oakland housing element or upon adoption or upon adoption of a local transit-oriented development alternative plan, whichever occurs first. And then, additionally, a recommendation to remove maps one, two, and three from attachment D. Attachment D is exclusion one. Revise section 1706, sorry, 1786-060 to include excuse me, 1786060A to include, quote, not including sites within one half mile of Ashby, MacArthur, and Rockridge BART stations, and recommend that the council direct the city administrator to present a local alternative plan to the city council within one year of adoption of a comprehensive amendment to the city of Oakland land use and transportation element.

Our hero, yes. So I think we're done. No, I'm kidding. So I think we need to, if we're all, I mean, I'm just looking around, and I think if we're ready to do a motion and what he said, yeah.

Yes, so basically you're supporting staff's recommendation, which also, just to be clear, includes all the language that's on the last page of your staff report, including the CEQA determination. I don't feel a need for you to read it in full if you are pointing to the staff recommendation. I have it written down. I will send it to Hanifa. You're welcome to say so moved if that is your desire.

You say we can just say so moved? So moved.

Second. Sorry. Motion by Commissioner Rob with a second by Commissioner Vice Chair Sandoval.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Lee.

YES.

COMMISSIONER ROB?

YES.

COMMISSIONER AARONS? YES. VICE CHAIR SANDOVAL? YES. E-CHAIR RANK?

YES.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SOMEBODY MISSED ME.

I CAUSED ALL THIS TROUBLE. I SHOULD BE VOTING ON IT.

MY APOLOGIES. COMMISSIONER ALEX RANDOLPH?

YES.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN COUNTED. THIS RECOMMENDATION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

And Laura and Ed, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. And thank you for letting us chew on all of this. Okay. So we obviously continued the appeal today.

Right, just to note specifically, that's been continued to March 4th, 2026.

Yes, thank you. So let's, can I get a motion on the approval of the minutes for January 21st, 2026?

I move to approve the minutes from January 1st, 2026.

Motion by Commissioner Ahrens.

Second.

Sorry, and that was a second by Commissioner Robb. Did I catch that? Yeah.

All right, Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Commissioner Robb? Yes. Commissioner Ahrens? Yes. Commissioner Randolph? Yes. Vice Chair Sandoval? Yes. E-Chair Rank?

Yes. Motion passes. Minutes will be posted to the website as approved.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any correspondence?

No correspondence. Any city council actions? No city council actions related to recommendations or staff reports, proposals you've considered.

Okay, well, then thank you. I'll adjourn the meeting today at almost six o'clock. Thank you. Thanks, guys.