Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There's six for open forum and three for the item.

Hello, hello everybody, it's good to see you. I know it's a new actor in front, a new player in front. I'm chairing the meeting today because our new chair, Commissioner Ahrens, is not here, so I get to step up as the new chair to call the Planning Commission meeting for July 15th to order, if we can get a roll call.

Commissioner Sandoval? Here. Commissioner Rob is absent. Commissioner Rank? Here. Commissioner Lee?

Here.

Vice Chair Randolph? Here. And Chair Aarons is absent.

Excellent. Thank you. Any agenda items to discuss? All right. And then a director's report? Any informational reports? Any committee reports?

Not for a while.

Any commission matters? I have a, I mean, a commission matter. I just want to thank longtime Chair Rank and Vice Chair Sandoval for their service. I know this is the first meeting you're sitting somewhere else or leaving the commission entirely, but we will be honoring, you know, your service, I think, at the September 2nd commission meeting, as well as potentially Commissioner Rob, who officially left the commission, right?

It's always good to have a very smart person sitting next to you. Thank you, Steph. So we have two commissioners who are leaving after their first term. So as we know, Commissioner Sandoval, thank you very much for your service, will be leaving after today's meeting. And Commissioner Rob just announced yesterday he'll be leaving as well. We were a little concerned about today's agenda. We had an item on the agenda that's now been moved, continued to the future. We were concerned that we wouldn't have enough time, and we have a commissioner who needs to leave at 5 o'clock. So knowing we would lose our quorum. At 5 o'clock, we have opted to force our two wonderful commissioners to come back because we love seeing their faces in order to honor them at a future meeting, and that will be in early September.

Great. Thank you. Any city attorney's report?

No city attorney's report.

All right. Moving on to open forum.

We currently have 10 speakers for open forum. I'll call you in groups of three. Please state your full name for the record when you get to the mic, and you will have two minutes to speak. We have Leila, Ken, and Jack.

Hi, I'm Leila Goss. I'm representing Rockridge Neighbors for Sensible Housing. We represent a neighborhood group with 500 weekly listserv supporters and over 2200 petition signers requesting a reduction in height and mass for PLN 26025. at 6230 Clermont. Today I'm gonna set the stage for our comments. First and foremost, we support housing at this site. So why do we keep coming before you? I'm sure you're asking that question. We believe this project represents a shot across the bow regarding new state density bonus law legislation. under AB 2694. Developers are increasingly leveraging these senior housing projects to build market rate developments with massive density bonuses. The City of Oakland is already fully compliant with Housing Element, has already upzoned to achieve this, and we want you to understand the devastating precedent this project will set for the neighborhoods across the city. As proposed, this building rises up 85 feet straight up against our neighborhood with zero step backs. This is not an either or situation. We can have housing and integrate into the neighborhood. It must be both. If the city properly applied its own zoning laws and its design review guidelines, this building could be built compatibly. Today, we want to focus on how planning staff can ensure housing is built at this site while reducing neighborhood impacts fully within the confines of the law. Specifically, we believe the city planning staff is incorrectly applying the state density bonus law, failing to apply the city's own design review guidelines, and allowing luxury senior housing to be built at the direct expense of the existing neighborhood. We urge the Planning Commission and staff to lawfully apply Oakland's zoning rules as permitted under state law to reduce the height and mass of this development and protect our community. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, get it?

Hello, good afternoon. My name is Ken Jong and I live at 6201 Auburn Avenue and I'm here to comment on the proposed senior housing facility at 6230 Claremont. First, I do support development of housing at this site. However, I am here to ask that the commission ensure that the city's own design review process and objective standards have been fully satisfied before any approval is granted. Several months ago, we submitted comments to the city questioning if the proposer had met the regular design review requirements. To date, we have not been able to determine the status of the issues we have raised. Specifically, we are asking for confirmation that the proposed project has been shown to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in its scale, bulk, materials, and overall relationship to nearby homes. And the required assessments of the effects on sunlight privacy and the design of a transition between this larger development and the lower density residential neighborhood particularly along Auburn Avenue, have been completed and considered. These are not new issues. These are standards already contained in the city's planning policies and design guidelines. We simply ask that the public be able to see how those standards have been applied and how the project satisfies them. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Jack Gerson. I live on Auburn Avenue. My home is one of the four adjacent to 6230 Claremont Avenue. I work with Raptors Neighbors for sensible housing also. And like hundreds of neighbors and community members, I'm for a large senior care facility at 6230 Claremont. But the one under review is too big, it needs to be reduced in size. As a senior housing development, 6230 Claremont is entitled to a 20% density bonus under state density bonus law. But commissioners, I want to make sure that you're aware the planning department staff interprets the state DBO to authorize a 112% density bonus. We believe that staff is misinterpreting local zoning code in its relation with the state DBO and that reverses the intent in doing so of local zoning code. Now, this is important because, as we know, the state law already restricts the city's ability to intervene. So it's very important that the city make sure that its zoning code is interpreted correctly and enforced correctly. Now first, staff awards a 33% bonus interpreting the state DBL to let the project claim neighborhood center mixed use density, even though local zoning code requires neighborhood center mixed use to have a commercial component and be pedestrian oriented. The proposed project has neither. Staff awards another 33% bonus citing the DBL to apply a gross area to net area conversion factor. Even though staff's own zoning code bulletin says that because the property is in a CN zone, its local zoning maps and densities have already been adjusted in the general plan update, so gross to net area conversion doesn't apply. When NCMU densities and gross to net area conversion aren't used, even after applying the 20% state density bonus, 6230 Claremont proposal falls more than 30 units short of the 203 units they claim. I want to emphasize, by planning staff's reasoning, the gross to net conversion factor can be applied to all projects that fall under the DBL anywhere in the city. Such a misinterpretation of the local zoning code and such a reversal of the intent of the general plan update will have serious implications throughout the city. It would, for example, increase the number of allowable units of the Trader Joe's site from the 414 that they're asking now to about 550 units. Would you like to make a closing statement, please? This would apply to residential districts as well. This really needs your attention.

Thank you. Tanya, Victoria, and Carrie.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Tanya Smith. My husband and I live on Auburn Avenue, so I've been watching this project move forward. I'm really concerned about the mass of the project, like so many of my neighbors. Its height and mass dwarfs surrounding small shops and single-story homes, shadowing the rare public space in front of Safeway and nearby solar panels. All of the mature perimeter trees will be removed, even though the developer's own arborist listed only half of them as unhealthy. These are mature trees used by lots of birds, lots of animals, lots of pollinators. Their 15-foot replacement trees are not going to do what these trees do. I've also been learning about the Oakland Zoning Code and when and where it's applied or not applied. And I think that this inadvertent use of the code could really set a bad precedent for the whole city of Oakland. So I hope that we look at this and we look at our zones and take them seriously and not just give developers whatever they ask for.

Hi, my name is Victoria Griffith, and I live on Florio Street. I'm one of the four people directly affected by the building. While our community strongly supports senior housing on the site, we must call this project what it actually is, a high-end luxury development. THE DEVELOPER IS SEEKING MASSIVE ZONING CONCESSIONS INCLUDING SOARING HEIGHTS UNDER THE BANNER OF SENIOR HOUSING. YET THE FINANCIAL REALITY OF THE PROJECT MEANS IT WILL ONLY BE ACCESSIBLE TO A VERY WEALTHY SEGMENT OF THE SENIOR IT DOES NOT SERVE THE SENIORS IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO ARE ACTUALLY STRUGGLING TO FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. TO UNDERSTAND THE DISCONNECT, LOOK AT THE OFFICIAL ALAMEDA COUNTY INCOME LIMITS. FOR A SINGLE SENIOR, THE ANNUAL THRESHOLD FOR EXTREMELY LOW INCOME IS JUST $33,600 AND VERY LOW INCOME IS $55,950. EVEN A MODERATE INCOME EARNER IS CAPT AT $134,250. THE MARKET RATE RENTS REQUIRED FOR THIS LUXURY PROJECT ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF REACH FOR SENIORS IN THESE We asked the commission to hold this project to local zoning standards. Please require the developer to reduce the overall height and introduce meaningful step backs on the Auburn side so that this building actually integrates with the neighborhood. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Kerry Goff. I live on Auburn Avenue across the street from some of the other speakers. I'm a retired litigation lawyer who hopes not to have to become active again. At the stage of the permit application for the Claremont Senior Housing, it appears that there are two, perhaps three, different interpretations of what the proper density bonus calculation may be. Ellis has its calculations, city staff has its calculations, and our experts have their calculations, which, if applied, will reduce the building by one story. When the experts disagree and compromise cannot be achieved, litigation often has to follow. I believe it would be very unfortunate if we have to bring litigation and if the issue is left in the hands of a judge or a jury, probably a judge in a case of this type, But if it is necessary, the experts will all testify. The trier of fact will decide, and the losing party will appeal. And eventually, way down the road, the issue may be resolved. I urge that Ellis and the planning staff reach a compromise to reduce the size of this building so litigation, which is on the horizon, will not be necessary. Thank you.

Thank you. Robert

Hi, my name is Robert Broco, a long-time North Oakland neighborhood activist. I'd just like to widen the lens a bit and say that we're here, unfortunately, because of what's been done in Sacramento by development Democrats, i.e., Buffy Wicks, who's, whatever, parachuted in from nowhere. But she did work for Barack Obama and Scott Weiner, who, luckily, Hopefully, it's going to go on in November to be defeated by Connie Chang, who actually truly does represent neighbors and neighborhoods. And who has said explicitly that zoning changes imposed from Sacramento are not going to create affordable housing, which all of us agree is a necessary thing. But in this Trump era, I guess we have to conclude that Elections Matter and Wiener and Wix, other local YIMBY lobby supporters, have at the moment gained ascendancy. I think we should also explicitly – whatever – put it out there that this will not ultimately be senior housing it's simply a canard it's the camel's nose under the tent everyone knows it's a a ruse and we all know they're going to come back and say well we tried we really did try but you know we've invested all this money lucky you oakland and um take it or leave it um so but we are and hopefully this will ultimately with saner heads in the legislature and on city councils etc Some of these policies will be reversed, they'll be more nuanced, they won't be imposed from the outside. And as many people have pointed out, you can simply tell developers we want affordable housing, you can put a gun to the heads of city officials, etc. But if the private sector doesn't want to do it because the profits aren't there, they won't do it. If we really wanted affordable housing, if we really wanted to do something about these people, that are living in um disgusting unhealthy conditions on the street then we would actually commit public money to do it this is not it it's a joke but a very bad one at that thank you so much alexis

Good afternoon. I'm Alexis Woodkey. I live in Rockridge. I've been trying to get up to date with what the Planning Commission is doing to integrate SB 79 into the general plan. And the way I looked at the documents briefly, it looks like you're being presented with two options. One is to keep Rockridge as a neighborhood, and the other is to allow the transit district to swallow it up. with tall buildings at the Rockridge BART station and smaller buildings gradually to the border with Berkeley. College Avenue goes from the Berkeley border down to past BART and on down to College Avenue. That's the Rockridge neighborhood. It's used by your tourist people as a place for people to go and see. It's a neighborhood where all the amenities that you described that the staff says you want to have in the neighborhood, they're all there. Many of the people have lived there for a really long time. I married into one of the families that has lived there a long time and uh i would really hate to see us lose that neighborhood atmosphere which at one time was the city council's priority so please if you're given the option of choosing between a neighborhood and a transit district please choose the neighborhood thank you thank you that was our final speaker for open forum

All right. Thank you, everybody, for your input and feedback. With that, open forum is closed, and we're going to move on to the public hearings.

Yes, there's no consent calendar today and you have one public hearing. Item number one, this is a citywide item. The City of Oakland is updating its general plan. Phase two of the general plan update process is currently underway and will include updates to the land use and transportation element, otherwise known as the LUT. The Estuary Policy Plan or EPP, which will be incorporated into the new LUT. Sorry, open space conservation and recreation element, fondly called the Oscar, and noise element, as well as the creation of a new infrastructure and capital facilities element. Phase one of the GPU was completed in 2023 and included updates to the housing element and safety element and adoption of the city's first environmental justice element. And this is a very long blurb, so I'm going to leave the rest of it out. That is an introduction to the item. Today, you will be providing comments, as will the public, on a notice of preparation for an environmental impact report, or EIR. under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA and again today is a public hearing to receive comments on what should be included in the scope of the environmental analysis and the comment period will remain open until August 3rd, 2026. Did I say the year correctly, 2026? August 3rd, 2026. And with that, I actually don't know who from our staff team will be presenting the item. It will be Daniel Finley, and he's here to make a presentation. Thank you.

I think I did have a slide deck prepared.

Can we get the presentation, please?

All right. Can I go ahead and start? Good.

All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Daniel Finley, and I'm with the City of Oakland's Planning and Building Departments. I'm joined by my colleagues, Kalila Haynes and Laura Kaminski. Did I, okay. Also in planning and building, thank you for the opportunity to present our item, which is on the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and its requirement that we convene a scoping meeting when publishing a notice of preparation of an environmental impact report for our project, phase two of the Oakland 2045 general plan update.

Are you able to advance on the computer? You might have to have Laura as your assistant.

Thank you. all right so here's our agenda i'll quickly run through the general plan update and share the project description in the context of sequa we'll cover some of the probable environmental impacts and discuss the purpose of today's scoping session and we'll conclude with our recommendation and next steps please So what is the general plan? So it's really the guiding document for how the city grows and develops and lays out a city-wide vision with goals, policies, and implementation measures to guide long-term growth, preservation, and stabilization. So with this update, we're being very intentional on using this as an opportunity to address racial inequities and promote inclusivity by ensuring meaningful engagement with communities that have been traditionally left out of the planning and decision-making process. Next. So you may recall that the general plan update is taking place over two phases. In 2023, we completed phase one, where we updated the housing and safety elements and created a new environmental justice element. Now in phase two, we're focusing on four elements, the land use and transportation element, open space conservation and recreation, and infrastructure and capital facilities, as well as the noise elements. So the land use and transportation element, or LUTs, sets the rules for what gets built where and works to create an inclusive multimodal transportation system that balances mobility, safety, and connections. The open space conservation recreation elements builds an equitable and accessible parks network while also protecting existing open spaces and improving access to each. The infrastructure and capital facilities elements will focus on keeping essential systems like water, sewage, electricity, and internet reliable and resilient. It ensures that our public facilities such as schools and libraries are well maintained and equitably distributed. Finally, the noise elements will work to reduce and mitigate noise pollution and its impacts on health and the environment.

Please.

So just real quickly on the timeline, we published the draft land use framework in March 2026 and received a lot of feedback on the city's vision of a city of neighborhoods. So we'll be using feedback to develop the draft elements, which we'll publish for public review in late fall 2026. Now in summer 2026, we'll be convening stakeholder meetings on specific topics, revising maps, and beginning to create draft policies, which we'll feed into the draft elements later this fall. And from fall 2026 and into spring 2027, there will be plenty of time for folks to weigh in on the draft elements, and staff will be out getting feedback, listening to stakeholders, and refining the draft elements. We'll continue this process through and prepare for formal adoption of the general plan in fall 2027. So the development and division of the general plan is grounded on several guiding principles that seek to accomplish equity and environmental justice, is place-based and focused, yet adaptable to changing conditions, and is strategic and long-range in scope and analysis. It is also important to note that this work would not be possible without significant interdepartmental and interagency coordination, and we should acknowledge the critical role that community-based organizations continue to play throughout this process.

Next slide, please.

So we briefly discussed the element updates, one of which was the land use transportation elements, or LUTs. At the moment, we also have an Estuary Policy Plan, or EPP, which, when adopted in 1999, was a collaborative effort by the Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland to reinforce Oakland's identity as a livable city, the objectives and policies to enhance Oakland's estuary shoreline. And so one of the key updates in this general plan update is that the EPP will be updated and incorporated into the new LUT. And as such, there will no longer be an EPP, but rather one LUT that covers the entire city, including its waterfronts. We're also debuting an infrastructure and capital facilities elements, which provides a policy framework for aligning and coordinating public investments in the city's infrastructure and capital improvement program with the general plan's land use objectives. Finally, the program EIR will evaluate the environmental effects of adoption and implementation of the general plan update and is intended to support future CEQA reliance, tiering, streamlining, and or consistent determinations for subsequent or concurrent actions that implement the general plan. So on the screen before you are two figures showing the regional location of Oakland and the planning area as required by CEQA. Next page, please. So the EIR will analyze and disclose the direct and indirect potentially significant impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Where significant impacts are identified, the EIR will describe potentially feasible mitigation measures that could minimize impacts. Here's a list of some of the environmental issues contemplated under CEQA, and we invite the Commission and the public to give any feedback on any additional topics we should consider in the EIR. Next slide please So the purpose of the scoping session is really to invite the Commission and the general public To tell us what other information we should an analysis we should include in the IR And so that's we hope that there's any comment and also also consider some the feedback that we will receive the other methods described in the notice of preparation and Next slide, please. So the recommendation is that we receive comments from you, the commission, and get feedback from the public on the scope and content of the draft environmental impact report for phase two of the Oakland general plan updates. Next slide, please. And we can conclude with our next steps. So we'll be publishing the general plan elements, the draft general plan elements in the fall with the draft EIR in spring 2027. And the final EIR in summer 2027. And then we'll conclude with hopefully the council will consider adoption of the general plan in fall 2027. This includes our presentation.

Are there any specific question about the presentation before we go to any public comments? I just have maybe two quick clarification.

Is this item coming back to the Planning Commission for any consideration?

No, it goes straight to City Council.

Is this working? Yeah, Laura Kaminski, Strategic Planning Manager. Yeah, we will bring the draft elements to Planning Commission.

And when would that happen? Because the calendar that you had did not mention the Planning Commission at all. So I'm just wondering if it...

It would be during the community input process. So planning commission is part of that. Similarly as we did with just the framework, we went to quite a few of the commissions and boards for input. We would be doing the same with the draft elements as well. So that's starting basically. We anticipate the late fall of this year is when we will release the draft elements, and it will go through spring. So sometime in that process, we will come to planning commission for input as well.

Mayor Mrakas, Great if you maybe if there's a way to call that out in future timelines, so that the public knows that it's still opportunity the Commission, maybe to provide feedback. Mayor Mrakas, And then the one is that I noticed on the staff report, maybe that's why you asked if you got the year correct it actually says 2022 is the year of the closing of the comments there's a way, maybe to update the document so that it reflects the correct year but.

Yeah, I apologize. That was an oversight. The correct closing date is August 3rd, 2026. So we can make that correction in the staff report. Perfect. Thank you.

And then with that, I'm going to public comments.

We have three speakers, Jennifer, Naomi, and Delaina.

Good afternoon. I'm Jennifer, a 25-year resident of Rockridge. Can you state your full name, please? Thank you. Jennifer McElrath. in the general plan you emphasize a city of neighborhoods and so many of us really agree with that whether we're talking about where we live in Oakland or whether we're talking about going to some other place whether it's New York or London or San Francisco, you want to experience the different neighborhoods. You don't want them all to be the same. So one issue I have is that with some of the changes being made, it looks like there's not enough emphasis on what's in these neighborhoods and what is it we're going to keep. The emphasis on cultural and historical and the arts seems to not really be emphasized in these plans. I know this is at a very high level at this point, but I don't ever see the word the arts or historical resources mentioned. If every neighborhood looks the same and it's all high-rises and chain stores, because that's all that could afford space in the bottom of a high-rise, it's like, who's going to go there? Would you go to Chinatown? Would it be Chinatown if it looks like every other neighborhood and it's all modern towers and Panda Express? I also feel like some aspects have been under-emphasized by focusing on just housing so much in the beginning because green space in North Oakland is already a small fraction of Oakland's target. Every square inch has now been identified for housing practically and doesn't leave much for anything else. And also, we had a great opportunity to have an arts center, and that's not being done. So my issues are really to truly focus as neighborhoods in working out the details of what a neighborhood means. Thank you.

Thank you.

Naomi Schiff for Oakland Heritage Alliance you may want to ask specifically about the Planning Commission's role in reviewing an environmental impact report whether that is coming at the same time as a final draft of the general plan or before that what the comment period would be you should request a long comment period because An EIR on a general plan update is presumably should be a fairly complex document that requires adequate review. So I suggest you ask about that. We were very alarmed in looking at the framework draft that was put out a while back. And presumably the NLP is based somehow on that. I don't know the relationship, but While there is some mention of Native American history, there is no mention of the word history, historic preservation, nothing much about cultural arts in the NOP or in the draft framework, other than saying there's a topic there. We think that it's pretty important to study culturally significant structures and sites beyond and in addition to the discussion of Native American sites. We are really following a Native American site up at Holy Names College, which is currently being threatened. And we also are very concerned about the estuary policy plan. There was not just two entities doing the estuary policy plan, there was a third one. And that was a very robust group of the public participated in that. And it was pretty quickly completely overruled by a development proposal. And that development proposal rewrote the estuary policy plan. So some real definition of what do we mean by rewriting this thing and incorporating it is very important. Would love to see some details on what is contemplated. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Delana Castillo, and I'm here on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, an environmental justice nonprofit that organizes in East Oakland. We all value a clean and healthy environment where all Oaklanders can thrive. The city can uphold these values in the forthcoming environmental impact report by using the correct baseline, thoroughly identifying and describing foreseeable environmental impacts, adopting appropriate mitigation measures, and honestly considering alternatives. The city should study the cumulative impacts of the Phase 2 update to improve Oaklanders' understanding of how abstract plans translate into on-the-ground impacts. A cumulative impacts analysis is a critical step to untangling past harmful land-use decisions while paving the way for a more just and equitable city. To that end, CBE looks forward to engaging around the loop and the consistency updates with the environmental justice element.

finally the feedback from the phase two process should be meaningfully incorporated into the environmental impact report thank you thank you that was our final speaker thank you with that i guess public comment um and well it's not closed but uh we are going to be moving on to any commission feedback or comments anybody have any feedback or comments or thoughts commissioner lee um

Yeah, I mean there's a few things that I think I would like to see. One would be that the EIR evaluates whether proposed open space allocations are physically accessible to lower income multi-family housing zones. Essentially look like study on park access equity. I do think the study of cumulative pollution burdens would be important, particularly along freight corridors and industrial borders. In terms of the capital facilities plan, comparing baseline infrastructure capacity in different parts of the city and address in order to evaluate whether the capital facilities plan prioritizes historical infrastructure deficits caused by disinvestment. And I also want to highlight the importance of preserving historical and cultural resources to the degree that that could be incorporated. I think that would be a priority as well.

Thank you. Anybody else? Commissioner Rankin.

Thank you, Vice Chair, or now currently Chair. This list looks consistent with CEQA and adequate. I would just want to note that I would hope and or assume that there would be a health risk assessment under the air quality analysis. I think that even while it's not pulled out into the nop that the cultural resources section would do a hopefully a robust analysis of historic resources and impacts to those um in addition to um archaeological um and then of course tribal resources um but otherwise this look this list looks good to me so i'll leave it at that

Commissioner Sandoval.

Thank you, and thank you to staff for providing the presentation for us. Mine's a little bit more of a clarification. I'm intrigued by the new infrastructure and capital facilities element, and just wondering if someone could speak to how that is going to complement the LUT and how you think about that as contributing to this larger general plan update phase two.

Yeah, so for the the capital improvements or infrastructure element of the general plan the idea in that is that when we're doing all like the land use and transportation element the open space conservation recreation element and even from other elements we've already adopted when we're looking at what types of infrastructure is needed to support, you know all the new investment that's happening in the city and and looking at policies in there that can then help with actually building the infrastructure. So some of the policies that we could be looking at is when we're talking about a need for electricity, as an example, in order to bring more businesses to Oakland, and especially certain types of industrial businesses, and that's a real issue right now. So that could be a policy that's needed in the infrastructure element. Also, when we're looking at how are we gonna build new parks and new recreation centers, new police stations, new fire stations, that would be looked at through policies and infrastructure element of how do we actually bring about this new infrastructure that's needed in the city. And then the ideas, those policies would feed into the long-range capital improvement plan, so a 10-year capital improvement plan instead of the two-year plan that we've been looking at for budgetary purposes so that we can start looking at if we want to build a new library or a new fire station, We don't have the money right now, but maybe if we put that on a 10-year plan, we can start to put money away and get different grants in the future to actually make that building happen maybe in five years from now. Whereas if we're only looking at a two-year process, then that makes it very difficult for that to happen if we don't have the money within a two-year time frame.

That's helpful clarification. Thank you very much. And then just one more question that I had. I will not be on the commission when the draft EIR comes. So to follow up on one of the comments today, could you just speak to the actual length of the comment period for the draft EIR, as well as the draft general plan update? Like how long that might be?

Sorry.

Good afternoon, commissioners. We haven't released the draft EIR yet. I'm Rajiv Bhatia. We are the prime consultant. We also have the environmental consultant here, Elizabeth Kanner from ESA here. This is just the NOP process. This is a 30-day period that's going to close in several more weeks. Later on, As was stated that the EIR itself will be released and that'll be sometime in spring 2027. That'll be available for public review a minimum of 45 days as required under state law. It could be a little longer. One person spoke about the need for a slightly longer review period because certainly city staff can look into that, but that time will come later on for that. And also, just to add to the last item about the infrastructure as well, most cities do like a five or a seven-year CIP so that the longer CIP would be... I'm just blanking out the infrastructure planning program, community infrastructure planning program. So that we can, so we need to set the stage for that from a bigger picture perspective to understand what the needs might be and where the financial resources will come in for that. So the general plan will help to set the stage not just for the projects, but also the financing piece for it to, for us to understand what the deficit, so those two can be reconciled.

Great, thank you for that.

I have a quick follow-up if that's okay. Commissioner Rankin. Is the intention then with the addition of the capital facilities section that this EIR would cover the projects that might come later outside of sort of the usual timeframe?

Yeah. So first, the capital improvements program itself will follow the general plan. So what you will get initially is the element itself. And then the EIR will be a programmatic EIR. So it'll cover the cumulative totality of the impacts resulting from that. If the city were to, for example, later on do a specific park analysis for a new park, it would rely on the previous general plan EIR. And to the extent we need to delve deeper into site-specific issues, we would do that. But this issue about cumulatively, you know, studying traffic issues again those would have already been studied as part of the general plan eir so hopefully the process for analysis of those individual projects whether it's a roadway or a park or i don't know sewer treatment plant or whatever it might be those will be smoother So and there could be a variety of options at the time. It could just simply be an exemption from CEQA as permitted under by the state, a tiered process, you know, just that focuses just on that. But the idea is to streamline those. And certainly we are anticipating that those projects would be ultimately be reviewed within the umbrella of this program EIR.

Great. Thank you.

Any other questions? I have one more, I'm sorry. All right, go ahead before I go into mine.

I don't know who the right person is to answer this, but I know that there have been some struggles in different jurisdictions about how to tackle wildfire analysis. Have we thought about sort of how that's going to be analyzed here in this document?

Yeah, so as part of phase one, that is a housing element. And as part of that, we did a pretty deep dive into wildfire analysis. We looked at the zones that are susceptible for very high fire hazard severity zones and the different roadways that would come out of that. And we looked at those issues in a very detailed manner. As part of this general plan update, we are not proposing to, as far as I can recollect, increase housing densities in areas that are already susceptible to high fires. So in other words, the hills that you, the high fire hazard areas are in the hills, and we're not proposing to increase housing densities there. So while we will look at wildfire as a topic in this EIR, we are not proposing to redo that analysis because it will remain exactly the same as was presented in the previous EIR. Is that correct?

I would add also the safety element was one of the main elements that looks at studying the wildfire and evacuation routes, and that was a requirement as part of the safety element, and looking at areas where you only had one means of egress as opposed to two means of egress. And so that was also studied as part of the safety element, but that was looked at in combination when we did do the housing element and when we were looking at areas of housing sites and increasing density, as Rajiv said, through the housing element process.

And in that safety element actually are several policies that relate to some of the routes that we have that say that there should not be parking on both sides of some of the streets because we might need additional capacity. And those are actually identified in that EIR. So as we do the loot and as we do this capital improvements program and so on, we need to be watchful and be sure to follow those policies now into the land use and transportation element.

Thank you.

I have a question, maybe partly a comment as well, but it kind of maybe fits into the environmental justice piece, which we already kind of addressed, but also the OSCAR element, and that's around climate change and heat or temperature across the city. Do you ever analyze temperature in certain neighborhoods of parts of Oakland through like a heat map or climate change impacts on neighborhood and temperature in certain neighborhood. Is that something that you would consider as part of an EAR?

I believe I'd have to look at, because when we did the environmental justice element, there was about like, was it 45 or 52, sorry, different things that we looked at as far as affecting different areas. And I can't recall, was the heat element one of those, or heat? Yeah, Urban Heat Island. So that was actually looked at as part of the environmental justice element. And that's part of what went into our environmental justice communities. And so we looked at all these different factors and looked at the areas that had highest scores cumulatively from all these different factors to then show where our environmental justice communities are. And then that's where we're trying to direct a lot of the policies. and changes that are needed. And so when the city is looking at if they are planting new trees, they should be trying to plant those trees in these areas where there are the heat islands and other areas of high pollution, how we can work to mitigate those issues as well, where there's more prone to flooding areas, how we can address those issues. We also will be doing a regional shoreline adaptation plan that will tie into kind of what we're doing here with the general plan. So that's a requirement by the state. So that will also be looking at specifically sea level rise areas and what types of mitigation measures and so forth might be needed for those. and that will probably come out more as policies that will happen in the general plan, and then we'll get, and part of those policies will be to address those issues when we do the regional shoreline adaptation plan.

Great. Yeah, I don't want to relitigate this issue then, but I think it ties also to some degree into the R-square element and the importance of open space and recreation in certain neighborhoods to make sure that we preserve open space or just also create additional parks and other elements that are equitably distributed. So if there's a way as part of this EIR review To include that as part of the kind of Oscar element That would be I think very very helpful, especially when we're thinking about You know open space in other areas around the city That would be my I think I my only other question. I guess 50 we said 50 elements is a lot so if we can maybe Not revisit it, but add this as a potential additional element to this EIR. That's complementary to what you've already done.

All right, with any other questions? I would just like to recommend that we do at least a 60-day review period for the EIR. I agree with Naomi that it will probably be a bit of a beast, and I think people will need a lot more time than the typical 45 days.

I agree with that. We don't need to take action on that. This is, I guess, a consensus on the commission.

Right, that's a comment on the NOP, and you will receive a response through the draft DAR.

Well, you can add my name to it as a second to that comment. All right. Anything? Are you done? All right. Not being chair anymore has its privileges. All right. All right. With that, I think we're done with our comments. Thank you so much.

And just a reminder through the chair that the comment period remains open, I believe, through August 4th, 3rd.

2026. 2026.

Yes.

Some of us want to go back to 2022, but we can't.

I'm just looking. August 3rd, 2026. Thank you. All right.

Well, thank you so much for all your hard work and looking forward to seeing the EIR. EIR.

And again, through the chair, I'll just note that there was a second item and that item has been continued to September 16th, 2026. So that will be coming to you, but later.

Okay. Great. All right. Let's see. Commission business. So there are no appeals, right? There are no appeals? That is correct. No appeals. Approval of minutes for the June 3rd, 2026 meeting.

That's right. You have the draft June 3rd, 2026 minutes in your packet. Okay. Motion to approve the minutes from June 3rd, 2026. Second. A motion from Commissioner Sandoval, your last motion. Controversial piece. And a second by Commissioner Rank. Roll call vote, please.

All right, Commissioner Sandoval. Yes. Commissioner Robb is absent. Commissioner Rank. Yes. Commissioner Lee.

Yes.

Vice Chair Randolph?

Yes.

And Chair Ahrens is absent. Motion passes. These minutes will be posted as final. Thank you.

All right. Any correspondence?

No correspondence.

Any City Council action?

Yes, there have been a few City Council actions, and before I mention what they are, I will note, I will simply state what actions, but not the detail of those actions. You will need to go, just at the risk of starting discussions about decisions that have been made, you can go back to the Council record to see how any decision that was made might be different from what Planning Commission recommended. SB 79 was decided and approved by council since your last meeting, I believe. In addition, the ADU amendments, which were part of a bigger package, the ADU amendments that you reviewed and made a recommendation for, ADU amendments were approved by the city council. There were changes on the floor. I believe, I can't recall off the top of my head if for SB 79 there were changes, but I do know the decision was different from I believe what the Planning Commission actually recommended. Thank you.

Thank you. And then before adjournment, just I guess a clarification, because I didn't fully understand it at the beginning. When is Commissioner Robbs leaving the commission? When is that effective?

We already off-boarded him.

Oh, so he's already no longer a member of the commission? No. Okay, because you just said during roll call that he's absent. So I just want to make sure if he's no longer a member that he would not be absent. Is that correct?

So we just found out yesterday. He just let us know. So I think, you know, apologies that we're a little unclear on exactly the moment. For example, Commissioner Sandoval let us know she would be leaving, but she stayed on for a few meetings. We know today is her last meeting. I don't know that we have absolute clarity from Commissioner Rob, but our assumption is, he will not be attending Planning Commission from this point forward. He did RSVP for this meeting, that he would be absent. He did not say he was no longer on the commission.

He does want to make sure for the correct minutes to reflect whatever the status is.

Yes, he is absent today.

Great. All right. Making sure. And with that, we are, I think, adjourned at 3.58 p.m. We made it before 5. Thank you.

Thank you.