Good afternoon and welcome to the Community and Economic Development Committee meeting
of Tuesday, February 24, 2026.
The time is now 1.33 p.m. and this meeting may come to order.
Before taking roll, I will provide instructions on how to submit speaker cards for items on
this agenda.
If you're here with us in chamber and would like to submit a speaker card, please fill
one out and turn one into myself or a clerk representative before, sorry, no later than
10 minutes after the start of this meeting or before the item is read into record.
and speakers were due 24 hours prior to the start of this meeting. This meeting came to
order at 1 33 p.m. and speaker cards will no longer be accepted 10 minutes after making
that time 1 43 p.m. We'll now proceed with taking roll council members five present Ramachandran
present under here and chair Brown present thank you we have four members present and
before we begin chair do you have any announcements at this time excellent thank you so much good
afternoon everyone welcome to community and economic development committee we
only have about two items for consideration and these presentations
will be from our planning and building department so we can start with the
first items thank you thank you reading in item one approval of the draft
minutes from the committee committee meeting held on February 10th 2026 and
and we have no speakers that signed up.
Excellent, thank you so much.
So moved.
Second.
Thank you.
That was a motion made by Councilmember Fyfe,
seconded by Chair Brown,
to approve the draft minutes from the committee meeting
held on February 10th, 2026.
On roll, Councilmembers Brown.
Oh, sorry, bye.
Aye.
Ramachandran.
Aye.
Unger.
Aye.
And Chair Brown.
Aye.
Thank you.
Item number one passes with four ayes.
to accept the draft minutes from the committee meeting
from February 10, 2026.
Reading in item two,
determination of schedule about standing committee items,
and we do have one speaker that's signed up.
Excellent, thank you so much.
To the administration,
any items for consideration or changes?
Nothing at this time, thank you.
Excellent, thank you so much,
and we can hear from the speaker.
Thank you, calling in the name that's signed up
for item number two, Mrs. Zada-Ola Bala.
OK, your sanctuary city status has an economic impact
on African-Americans.
You need to have a report on your sanctuary city
status and that impact.
The city of New York, for example,
has committed billions of dollars
to illegal immigrants in the form of housing, jobs,
and so forth.
I don't know what y'all are doing.
but you have to say you're not doing anything
other than saying you're a sanctuary city.
You have the need to have a report, no,
stop having reports on African American issues
that are discriminatory racial practices
that are going on in this city.
You are discriminating against African Americans
as it relates to jobs, housing, education.
come with the recommendations for corrective action.
When you decided to do a non-citizen contract
for small businesses grant, you didn't do a study
to make sure that it was to determine
whether it should happen.
You just did it.
When you decided to be a sanctuary city, you just did it.
When you decided you needed to act on privacy
and form the privacy commission,
you didn't have a study or report, you just did it.
Why is it every time an issue comes up with African-Americans,
you've got to have a study or some report to explain
the issue with recommendations?
Stop that.
No more reports.
Correct the discriminatory practices
that are going on in this city.
Lastly, Barbara Jordan's, and I don't have enough time,
I'll do Barbara Jordan's investigative report in 1994
during Open Forum.
We have a motion to approve.
Thank you for your comments share that includes all speakers on this item
excellent thank you so much I'll go ahead and make the motion to move move the
item may have a second.
Thank you we have a motion made by chair Brown second by councilmember five to
accept the determination of schedule about standing committee items as is on
roll councilmembers five aye Ramachandran I hunger hi and chair brown I thank you
of scheduled outstanding items, committee items as-is.
Reading in item three, adopt an ordinance
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
One amending title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code
to A, amend chapter 17.96 S-14,
Housing Sites Combining Zone to update, sorry,
to update the definition of development projects
and to include a conditional use permit procedure
for non-housing developments
and we update work slash live and live slash work residential
to non-residential unit areas as sorry,
as referenced through the title 17 to correspond
with the revision to the California Building Code
and Oakland Building Code regulations
and to making appropriate
California Environmental Quality Act findings
and we have four speakers that signed up.
Excellent, thank you so much.
So for this first item,
I believe we will be hearing from Laura.
good afternoon council members and the public if we can have a presentation up
from K top so my name is Laura Kaminski on the strategic planning manager and
the first item we're here to talk about today is the amendments to the Planning
Code which is chapter seventeen point nine six for the S fourteen and the work
live and live work regulations okay so some background on this is that Oakland
They adopted chapter 17.96, the S14 housing sites combining zone as part of the housing element that was adopted in 2023.
And this is applied to all sites in the housing sites inventory.
While the S14 zone streamlines review, concerns have emerged that it may constrain activation of vacant or underutilized sites.
So staff committed to review and update this chapter based on the results of its implementation.
For the S14, zoning includes a definition of what constitutes a development project.
So an amendment would clarify the definition and
enable limited expansion to businesses within existing buildings.
The following project types are now clearly defined to not be included in the definition of a development project.
So you can see what's underlined is proposed to be changed.
So a development project does not include the making of improvements, renovations, or updates to an existing building.
or adding floor area to an existing building that is occupied by business established in that building on or before January 1st,
2026, or the placement of temporary structures.
And the following project types are clearly defined to be a development project,
which is adding floor area to an existing building that is occupied by business established in that building after January 1st,
2026, where the square footage of the building is increased by 50% or more than 30,000 square feet,
whichever is less.
And then there's also additional opportunities for projects that are non-residential to go through a conditional use permit process, which is what I'll discuss next.
So, currently, all development on S416 sites must be majority residential or meet one of four exemptions.
Existing regulations limit non-residential development constrain activation of vacant or underutilized sites.
And so we've had a staff, there's been some proposals that have come up.
One example was a non-profit that wanted to,
in an existing building, and wanted to do an expansion of their services.
And currently, they were not able to do that because of the S14 restrictions.
And we also had another project that was looking at doing in a very small portion of a corner
the housing element site to do a coffee business there.
And wanting to help actually activate that area, but because of these strict restrictions of,
because it was non-residential, we could not approve the project.
This is why we're looking at a proposed amendment that would add a conditional use permit option for non-housing development.
And a CUP would be granted only if the project meets general conditional use permit criteria and also meets the following.
So it would provide substantial community or economic benefit to the surrounding neighborhood.
And the rating sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city's
remaining share in the regional housing needs for housing allocation in this current housing element cycle.
And this finding shall be consistent with the no net loss findings that are in the government code.
And also the findings shall include a no net loss at each income level.
So then the second amendment that this package is looking at is for our Work Live and Live Work Units.
So the proposed amendments here are to align with and not contradict recent updates to the Oakland Building Code.
So recent Building Code standards do not allow Work Live or
Work Live to have more than 50% non-residential.
So amendments in the planning code were made throughout any time we had Work Live and
work development standards to make sure we weren't requiring more than the 50
percent of the non-residential square footage so that does not contradict with
the building code. So staff recommendation is that staff recommends
that the City Council conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt an
ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission amending title 17 of Oakland
Municipal Code to amend chapter 17.96 as 14 housing sites combining zone to
to update the definition of development project
and to include a conditional use permit procedure
for non-housing developments,
and update work-live and live-work residential
to non-residential unit area,
as referenced throughout Title 17,
to correspond with revisions to the California Building Code
and Oakland Building regulations
and making appropriate
California Environmental Quality Act findings.
And that concludes my presentation.
Excellent, excellent.
Thank you so much.
I think it would be great to
make colleagues any questions
or comments on this.
I would just say I believe that
the amendments here just really
helps to push forward just some
fine tuning that was needed in
order to some of the projects
that you mentioned.
Especially the one I believe it's
the one on 73rd and Bancroft
were not able to move forward
so I think that that could.
That is one of many examples
on and so this represent
represents in my opinion some
necessary amendments- so thank
you so much for your hard work
on on this item.
Colleagues any questions
councilmember five.
Yes through the chair can you
state.
For the record what will this
it's what will an extension
allow the city of Oakland to do.
While we're making these
appointments.
to do while we're making these amendments, what would we be able to plan out or what
would we be able to do with additional time to amend the state law or work inside of there?
I think it's a three year window.
So I think you might be talking about the second item.
So that might be about the S are you talking about the SP 79 I am talking about SP 79 see
I have to have the right glasses we'll get there okay do we have speakers on this yes
I'll make the motion okay we can hear from the speakers thank you calling in the names
that signed up to speak on item number three in no particular order you can come up to
the podium or if you're on zoom please raise your hand to be easily identified Kevin Dally
Asada Olabala, Derek Barnes and Jennifer Corey.
It just seems like today is not focused enough on me.
You have a number of issues that are very pressing and instead of dealing with those
pressing issues, you're coming up with all these new innovative ways that we can do something
differently.
That's all day to day.
So here we have the understanding that you have on a monthly basis 70 to 80 businesses
closing in the city of Oakland.
And you coming up with a way to open up new businesses, when you haven't created or solved
the issue of once businesses come to Oakland, how do we keep them here?
So that's where the focus needs to be at this point, but it's not happening.
You also have a lot of, and I've just pulled it up,
you have a lot of vacant parcels that you own
that are suitable for development of housing.
You have 1911 Telegraph, Barcelona parcel,
1100 San Pablo Avenue, McArthur Boulevard lots,
Foothill Boulevard, International Boulevard.
When I'm gonna hear the projected plan
to develop your vacant parcel property into housing.
You have land that can be used for housing.
When is that gonna happen?
And so we talking about a coffee shop that can be brought.
And I know what y'all talking about
when y'all bringing a coffee shop to any development.
It doesn't include my people.
So can we get more focus on substantial issues
that need to be resolved before we go on
to these expanded new creative ideas
of how we can create a workspace, living space,
whatever space, come on now, we can do better.
And we're not resolved in this issue.
I want businesses to stay in Oakland.
Who's coming up at the next meeting of this body to...
Thank you for your comments,
calling in the names that signed up again.
Kevin Dalley, Derek Barnes, and Jennifer Corey.
If you're in chamber, please come to the podium,
or if you're on Zoom,
please raise your hand to be easily identified.
Switching to Zoom user Jennifer Corey,
you can unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Jennifer, I see that you're unmuted,
but we cannot hear you.
Try one more time for Jennifer.
Jennifer, we'll try one more time.
Okay, at this time, Chair, all names have been called.
thank you so much any other additional questions or comments councilmember
five make the move I'll move the item excellent and so this would be a public
hearing for March the third thank you we have a motion made by councilmember
five seconded by councilmember Unger to approve the recommendations of staff
and to board this item to the March 3rd City Council agenda as a public hearing
on roll council members five aye Ramachandran younger I and chair Brown
I thank you item number three passes with four ayes to board this item to the
March 3rd City Council agenda as a public hearing now reading in item number
four adopt an ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission one amending
title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code to add chapter 17 point 86 s-8 abundant
affordable homes near transit combining zones,
regulations identifying sites eligible and ineligible, or
excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards.
Two, making related Oakland zoning maps amendments to designate parcels within the S-8.
Combining zones and to identify whether such designated parcels are eligible for or
excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards and three making appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings and we have five
Five people that signed up to speak on this item. Excellent. Thank you so much, and we will once again hear from Laura
Good afternoon again. If we could have the slide presentation from k-top, please
Okay, so Senate bill SB 79
We're going to be looking at planning code
implementation ordinance for this so we can go to the.
Okay, so for the background, the state law senate bill 79,
the abundant and affordable homes near transit act was signed by the governor in October of last year.
And goes into effect on July 1st of this year.
Areas within a half mile of Oakland's designated transit stops will be designated as a transit oriented development, or TOD zone.
And any parcels within the designated TOD zones could vest for development using higher density standards for housing.
Oakland has eight BART stations and 38 bus rapid transit stops,
which are the AC Transit Temple Line along International Boulevard that qualify as SB 79 zones.
There is one additional BART station, which is the Ashby BART station, and
an additional BRT stop that are not within Oakland, but their half mile boundary extends into Oakland.
So this brings a total of 48oT zones within the Oakland boundaries.
So as a clarification for SB 79, the transit stops by the state law are categorized as Tier 1,
which is the BART stops, and Tier 2 which are the BRT or tempo line along International Boulevard.
So the density standards that SB 79 requires, and this again will take effect on July of this year,
first is that for in a tier one which is a BART station if you're adjacent or
within 200 feet of a BART station it allows for 95 foot height limit 160
dwelling is per acre and then for the quarter mile this goes to 75 feet the
half mile goes to 65 feet and then for the tier two which is along International
It's 85 feet if you're adjacent within 200 feet of the station,
65 feet within a quarter mile, and 55 feet within a half mile.
There's exclusions in alternative plan that SB 79 allows cities to exclude some parcels from SB 79 requirements or
allows development of an alternative plan.
An exclusion which to suspend the implementation of SB 79 and
allow substitution of existing Oakland zoning until an alternative plan is developed.
Exclusions will expire in 2032, and SB 79 will take effect if no alternative plan has been adopted before 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 in height increases and allow for
a more tailored density in height based on local land use conditions such as historic districts.
The rationale for adopting exclusions is there's insufficient time for
the city to prepare and review an alternative plan prior to the SB 79 effective date of July 1st, 2026.
Exclusions may be adopted prior to the SB 79 effective date as an interim step to allow time for a city to develop an alternative plan.
city we're already currently engaged in a general plan update of phase two that
includes updates to the land use and transportation element with adoption
anticipated in late spring of 2027. City staff want to develop its alternative
plan in a comprehensive manner as part of this general plan update process and
not as a separate standalone process. Exclusions would give the city time
during the general plan update to analyze which areas within the T.O.D. zone have
potential for more density and which areas do not. In addition, the environmental
the justice element, which is policy EJ 8.1, talks about having meaningful,
relevant engagement and design implement public engagement processes and
events that emphasize participation from low income communities and communities of color.
They're driven by resident priorities.
And almost all of Oakland's TOD zones are in low resource areas as defined by the state.
An alternative plan would allow a fine grade analysis and
of community involvement resulting in aggregate density equivalent to SB 79 requirements.
In addition, existing zoning densities exceed SB 79 standards in many of the designated TODs as a result of prior upzoning.
So recently we had our housing element that was adopted in 2023, and there was quite a few areas upzoned during that time.
Also the downtown Oakland specific plan which was adopted in 2024 upzoned a lot of the core areas within that area.
Additionally, we've had a lot of specific plans over the years, such as the central estuary plan, the Broadway Valdez district specific plan,
the West Oakland specific plan, and the Coliseum and Lake Merritt stationary plans.
All that increased density around the tier one and tier two TOD zones.
And SB 789 standards are a blanket increase in density that could actually override some of the planning that we've done in these specific plan areas.
Because we've done a more tailored approach, which is what we would like to do in the alternative plan.
So an example of that is in downtown.
We have lower densities and height allowances in old Oakland.
But then on the Broadway spine, we have a lot higher densities than SB 79 would require.
So it ends up being actually even higher than what SB 79 standards would require.
But it's not just a blanket, you know, anything within a quarter mile all has the same height
and everything within a half mile all has the same height.
So the allowed exclusions, there's exclusion one, which allows exclusion of sites that are when existing zoning allows density,
and residential floor areas of no less than 50% of the standards.
So any individual parcel where the zoning allows at least 50% is what is required by SB 79 can be excluded.
For exclusion two, any areas that are in a primary low resource area and
has an aggregate Oakland zoning density that allows for at least 40% of the aggregate density.
And the whole TOD zone can be excluded if it meets that requirement.
For exclusion three, it allows exclusion of sites that are in a TOD zone where the parcel includes a historic resource that's been designated as of January 1st of 2025.
So starting off with exclusion two, which is looking at low resource areas that have a zoning density of at least 40% of the aggregate that SB 79 requires.
So in Oakland, all of the TOD zones are within a low resource area except for Rockridge, Ashby, and MacArthur BART stations.
Otherwise, all of the other TOD zones are in what the state defines as a low resource area.
And when we did our analysis, all of those zones that are within those low resource areas meet,
or really exceed the 40% aggregate of what SB 79 allows.
So the proposal is to exclude all of those TOD zones.
So this is one example of that.
This is on the 12th Street BART station, and actually when we did our analysis, we found that 307%.
It actually means 307% of what SB 79 aggregate density would require.
And so we're actually much higher than what SB 79 would require, but again, we have that more nuanced approach.
So it's not every single parcel is meeting what SB 79 requires.
Some are higher and some are lower.
We would like to be able to retain what we have worked with the community to develop.
And you can see here, this is an example of a map of how we did this analysis for all
the TOD zones.
So the areas that are in purple that are closest to the actual exits for the station are meet
the 200 foot requirement, the ones in yellow are shown meet the quarter mile requirement,
and the ones in blue meet the half mile requirement.
And then this is an example of the Rockridge BART station, where this is not in a low resource
area.
It's actually in a high resource area, so we were not able to exclude this as part of
this exclusion.
So just to further kind of show really how well Oakland is doing as far as already allowing
density around these TOD areas, you can see these are all the BART stations that are in
the low resource areas and you know we have you know 19th Street is 280% of
what's required Fruitville 72% Coliseum is 190% and West Oakland is at 70%
Lake Merritt 254% so most of them are higher and then some are still quite
close and would need just some changes in an alternative plan to meet that same
same density of SB 79.
And then for the tier two, which is all along International Boulevard, there's a lot of stops as we can see.
And again, if you're closer to downtown, those are around the 380% to 400% of what SB 79 would require.
As we kind of get further away, we might be more around 10th Avenue, we're around 92%.
And as we get further out, further east Oakland, an example where, you know, around 90th Ave
were at 47%.
So you can see, you know, again, some of these areas will need to have some up zoning, but
we want to do that through a more tailored process and with community input.
So getting back to exclusion one, which is the 50%, so again, any parcel where the zoning
meets at least 50% of the density of SB 79 required can be excluded, and I will concentrate
mainly on the three high resource areas that we were not able to exclude because they're
not in a low resource area.
So here for MacArthur Bart, you can see the areas that are highlighted in pink are the
zones that we can exclude because they do meet that 50% density requirement, and that
That essentially is because these are our commercial zones and we have much higher density
allowances for those and the areas that are in white we cannot exclude because those are
our lower density residential zones and they don't meet the criteria of at least 50% of
the density required for SB 79 in those areas.
And then similarly here is for the Ashby Bart Station and the Rockridge Bart Station.
So again, it would only be the areas in pink that could be excluded because the commercial zones in those areas
exceed what SB 79, or the 50% requirement.
Whereas the areas in white, again, do not meet that requirement, so we cannot exclude those areas.
And this was just an example in some other areas that are already, they're in low resource areas, so we can already exclude the whole zones.
the boundaries within those areas. So for exclusion number three, so it's anything
that's a local registered historic property can also be excluded, that
individual property. And so again showing the areas here on the Ashby and Rockridge
BART station is the areas that are in purple that can be excluded. So there's
not a lot of parcels, but there are some parcels within these areas. And then in
In addition, this is the area around the MacArthur BART station, and it would be the areas in
purple that would be proposed to be excluded under this exclusion.
And this is just an example, again, in West Oakland and 12th Street, 19th Street.
You can actually see there's a lot of historic properties in these areas.
But again, we already have the exclusion as well for, because these are in a low resource
area, we're able to exclude all of the parcels within these areas.
So there's one, in addition, we also are proposing an S-8 combining zone,
which is a new zone to be added to the planning code that would define which sites are eligible under SB 79,
that are zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development.
And which sites are ineligible, because state law does not allow SB 79 on sites that are zoned for
industrial or open space activity, or if it's within a right of way.
It also defines what is a covered site, which is essentially any that are eligible that we have not excluded.
So any that are not excluded as we just went through these exclusions earlier would then be covered.
And that means that a developer could develop under the SB 79 densities.
And it applies exclusions to certain sites that would otherwise be eligible but qualify for an exclusion.
Amends the zoning map to show which sites are eligible and ineligible.
we plan to have a GIS map that the public and staff can use that will be online.
That would show all the parcels that fall within SB 79.
And then somebody could click on their parcel and see whether it's ineligible because it's in an industrial zone.
Or it's been excluded under one of these exclusions.
Or it's still covered and they can still use SB 79 zoning densities.
And also clarifies that excluded parcels are regulated by the Underland Zoning, and that
these exclusions would be applied comprehensively.
So any parcel that is excluded in any one of these that is shown would then be excluded
from SB 79.
So in addition, I want to highlight Planning Commission's recommendation.
So Planning Commission had three different recommendations and
staff had already provided in this packet to council the revisions of A and C here.
So A is that there should be clarifying that these exclusions
would only be in effect until either January 31st of 2032.
When an adoption of a local transit oriented development alternative plan is done
So that is already included in the packet what you all have
That amendment and then in addition it also they also recommended the City Council direct the city minister
Present a local alternative plan to the council within one year of adoption of a comprehensive
management or amendment to the for the alternative plan and that also is in included in the ordinance language
For council as part of this packet and in addition
They plan Commission also had recommended to not include sites within the Ashby MacArthur and Rockridge Bart stations
for the exclusion of the 50 percent
zoning requirements and
Staff had still
Wanted to include that at least for council's consideration that amendment or there's to not to keep it as a staff had originally
recommended and mainly because the reason for that is that staff is working on a
land use and transportation element update and
We are wanting to be able to look at that in a comprehensive manner
Just like we are for all the other areas of the city and we wanted to you know
look at the particulars of areas that we think should be up zoned versus down zoned
Or sorry be up zoned higher than SB 79
Or keep lower than SB 79 and have them that more nuanced approach as well as to get community input and feedback
and so that is why staff had recommended keeping that
exclusion in as is and
So then staff requests that the City Council conduct a public hearing and upon complete inclusion adopt an ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission
amending Title 17 of the Oakland Missile Code, the planning code to add chapter 17.86 S-8, abundant and
affordable homes near transit, Senate Bill 79, combining zone regulations,
identifying sites eligible and ineligible or excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards.
And making related Oakland zoning map amendments to designate parcels within the S-8 combining zone.
to identify whether such designating parcels
are eligible for or excluded from the Senate Bill 79
property development standards
in making California Environmental Quality Act findings.
That concludes my presentation.
Excellent, thank you so much, Laura.
I know that it takes a lot of work
from all of our city staff to put together,
you know, and make changes to the key ordinances
on you know new state law and so I guess I'm curious did you want to shed some
light on SB 79 and its kind of current status in in the legislature right now
yeah so maybe part of the reason we want to have more time to work on this
alternative plan is that at least there has been discussions in the state
legislature about still making further amendments to this bill and so it makes
It makes it difficult for staff to be working an alternative plan if we know things may be changing.
And we don't want to go down a certain path and then amendments are made and then it's different.
As well as, I think a lot of it was trying to, there's been a lot of requests for
clarification on different items in the bill and that's I think what some of the amendments will do is help provide more clarity.
And we've been actually at staff meeting with other cities to try to get their interpretation.
It seems like we even amongst ourselves,
we sometimes have a different interpretation
of what some of the state law is saying.
And also we've heard similar issues
with the metropolitan planning organizations
or MTC is one of those,
that there's also been some confusion
and disagreement between language with them
and also the state HCD or housing community development
which is in charge of sort of the implementation of this.
the city council and then at
this time I know you mentioned
MTC.
Did they have a vital role to
play in this.
Yeah so MTC is actually there's
they're supposed to be providing
maps that show these boundaries
and they have not actually
provided that yet to any cities
and we were lucky enough to have
very good GIS staff who could do
this analysis for us and so we
were able to move forward but
And that's all we have to do to
make sure that, you know,
that we're doing the right thing
and making sure that we're
doing the right thing.
So that we're doing the right
thing and making sure that we're
doing the right thing.
So that's all we have to do to
make sure we're doing the right
thing.
So that we're doing the right
thing and making sure that we're
doing the right thing and making
sure that we're doing the right
thing.
So that's what we're doing.
And that's what we're doing.
And that's what we're doing.
And that's what we're doing.
And that's what we're doing.
And that's what we're doing.
And that's what we're doing.
And that's what we're doing.
So how do we create an action plan around T. O. D.'s?
Yeah, so one I will say, which is why I think we've done so well, is we've had a lot of specific plans where we got grant money that was for areas around BART stations, specifically is why we got those grants, so the downtown specific plan, the Broadway Bill Does specific plan, the Coliseum area specific plan, and the West Oakland specific plan were all done because they're near BART stations, and so we already did a lot of that plan.
and we need a lot of that planning
and increasing of densities because of that.
But then the land use and transportation element
will go even further because, as an example,
we don't have a specific plan for Rock Ridge.
And we also have requirements of,
there's priority development areas that go through MTC
that allow for additional funding for grants.
And one of the requirements is to, from MTC,
was we needed to do more detailed plans
around those areas that we don't have specific plans.
that's one of the primary things that the land use and transportation element is looking
at doing to provide that gap.
And so certainly we're looking at Rockridge and the MacArthur Bart station and Ashby area
and Fruitvale as well that, but even all the areas we've done already we're still analyzing
to make sure because West Oakland specific plan as an example was adopted a while ago.
So we will be doing updates to those areas and we're keeping in mind certainly that we
I do want to be adding new density along around those areas and we're looking at now that we know we have SB 79 trying to make sure that we're meeting at least the requirements of what SB 79 is is going to be requiring us to do and that we make sure that whatever densities we're trying to do for a general plan will be able to accommodate that.
So I think you so much and then, um, what, what is the timeline for, um, uh, putting
together a, a, a TOD action plan or, uh, was it spring 2027?
Is that it?
Well, so the land use and transportation element itself, um, is when we plan, we plan to bring
that to council for adoption in late spring of 2027.
Um, what we will be doing with that is we will be, um, again, trying to make sure that
But it's more this, the ceiling, the general plan sort of sets the ceiling on development.
And so we're going to want to make sure that our, what we do for the general plan amendments in those areas are at least allowing for the SB 79.
It'll be, I think, more of an implementation action out of the land use and
transportation to do the up zoning and the zoning changes that would, to do an alternative plan.
because we want to make sure, again, that we have enough information,
especially if the Senate does make changes that don't happen until late October of this year.
We want to have enough time to analyze what is all the requirements to meet that alternative plan.
There are nuances, it's not as much as just aggregate density.
You could have minimum densities in each tier and so forth, so it is fairly complicated.
that would be the idea would be to have that is the very first thing as
implementation after we adopt the land use and transportation element.
Excellent thank you. I did want to make space for Councilmember Unger did you
want to highlight your amendment that you have? Yes I can. So first I just want
to thank the planning staff and Michael Branson city attorneys and others for
all the work on this SB 79 legislation especially given the time constraints
I just want to ask a couple of questions.
There seemed to be unanimity between planning staff
and the planning commission that we should take
the permitted exclusions for the low resource areas
and historic sites, is that right?
Correct.
And that would basically mean all of the station areas
except those in D1, MacArthur, Rockridge,
and our little corner of the radius of Ashby?
Correct.
Okay, so if that's the case, I'm comfortable with that,
especially if it works for my colleagues
who represent those areas.
But I think that the point of disagreement
between planning staff and the Planning Commission
is about the possibility of taking the exclusions
in District 1, which is a high resource area
and doesn't qualify from the other major exclusions, right?
Correct.
Okay.
So the Planning Commission recommended,
unanimously, six to nothing that we not take
the exclusion one in District 1.
that yes that is correct okay so I'm inclined to side with the planning
Commission on this and I appreciate that staff want as much time as possible to
continue with the general plan update but I I'm worried that this is whether
you agree with 79 or not 79 we've created a little bit of a perverse
situation here, where we will be, because on July 1, that sort of interior parts of
the neighborhood portion of this go into effect, but we are excluding the corridors.
So we've created this weird donut hole whereby we will be pushing development into the interior
of the neighborhoods and excluding it from the corridors.
And I'm worried about that because this is all going to take effect anyways a year from
now.
So I don't want to send the message that we want development in the interior.
And I think even folks who are maybe here because they don't support 79 don't want
this sort of perverse outcome where we push the development into the interior of the neighborhood
rather than the corridors in the neighborhoods.
That's why I am introducing this amendment.
And if K-Top could put it up there, that'd be great.
Basically, I'm recommending that we not take
exclusion one in district one.
So this will only affect district one,
and it will mean that we can continue with moving forward
with more development along the commercial corridors,
which is where I believe that development
in D1 should take place,
rather than in the interior neighborhood.
So I'm introducing this amendment,
and I'll give you all a minute to digest it.
And if we don't have any immediate questions,
I would like to hear from the public speakers.
Calling in the names that signed up for item number four,
in no particular order, you can come up to the podium.
Or if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand
so you can be easily identified.
Jennifer McElrath, Naomi Schiff, Asada Olibala,
Derek Barnes, and Kevin Dalley.
I appreciate the amount of effort the staff went through to follow SB 79.
It has some weird provisions.
I think Oakland could go further just because the state requires us to provide high density
housing near certain transit stops.
It doesn't mean we have to limit ourselves to those transit stops.
For example, light rail, Oakland was built around light rail, the key system.
Most of Oakland would be right next to a light rail system if it hadn't been torn out and
replaced by AC transit.
Why aren't we, should we consider high density housing near any AC transit stop that's 15
minutes, frequency or better?
That would substantially increase the amount that's covered.
You know my neighborhood of Glenview or Diamond and District 4, I think pretty much all of
it would be included by 15-minute intervals.
What can we do to push forward and consider going beyond what the state requires?
Thanks.
Thanks if you still wish to speak on this item you can come up to the podium or raise your hand on zoom
Naomi shift for Oakland Heritage Alliance
First I want to thank you for the new screen. It's the first time in years that I've been able to see
What was displayed and that's very exciting
So thank you to whoever did that public works or whatever
Our organization has participated in every specific plan
and in all general plan updates since time immemorial.
Well at least as long as I've been around.
And we really appreciate the thoroughness
of the staff effort here.
It is incredible.
Somebody asked me to print out the attachments
and then when I got to the second to the last one
it was 1600 pages and I didn't have that much paper.
And so what I know is that the city staff is well armed
to move forward into an alternative plan.
I don't think that we should exclude maps one through three,
MacArthur, Ashby and Rockridge.
I think we should follow the staff's inclination here.
I have faith that they have looked at this in enough detail
to be able to proceed and come up with a good plan.
And I also know that the densities have increased enormously
in the last 10 years, and even at that,
many of those projects didn't get built for reasons
that have nothing to do with zoning.
It isn't really about zoning, it's about money.
And so my experience of that is if you zone it high,
you might get some applications,
but it doesn't mean you get a building.
And so I am more interested in a comprehensive,
long-term, good plan than I am in worrying
about aggregate density which is already beyond what the state requires.
I really appreciate the thoroughness of the, thank you for your comments.
Hello, council members.
I strongly urge you, my name is Jennifer McElrath.
I strongly urge you to agree with the staff's recommendation on this item by delaying action
until 2032 as provided in the state legislation and recommended by the staff, you will give
folks most affected to have a chance to study their neighborhoods to decide where upzoning
is appropriate.
People in Rock Ridge will be very disturbed to find out that parts of our community have
been upzoned without anyone's knowledge.
The subject could be referred to the Rock Ridge Community Planning Council for analysis
with a firm date set, then the discussion could occur in public.
Hardly anyone in the community has any knowledge of this issue, which is incredibly complicated
to a lay person.
Rockridge's concern has been height, not use.
We welcome the reuse of the CCA dorm on Broadway for the homeless and opposed the 19-story
proposal.
We worked for years to arrive at a much more reasonable height for CCA.
We welcome housing in our community as long as it does not overwhelm the houses adjacent
to the main corridors.
Thank you.
I don't know what y'all talking about.
So I'm just going to read some more crazy legislations because this is crazy.
R. A. B. one eight seven oh.
Is home subsidies for illegal
immigrants to provide.
Interest free loans for first
time home buyers.
For their down payment A. B.
twenty two sixteen.
Forces land laws to take in pets.
A. B. twenty four ninety eight
illegal immigrants rental
would appeal proposition two oh nine and reinstate affirmative action A. C. A. eight within involuntary servitude. In our
prisons where they are essentially under the label of being slaves. So y'all continue to have this talk about
whatever. I just brought up some things that's of interest to me all. Y'all do some crazy stuff in the
interest to me, y'all do some crazy stuff and I don't know what this is gonna do in
District 6 and District 7. So at least the one thing you could have had is by
districts who would be impacted or what districts would be impacted. I think it's
the rich white folks that are gonna be impacted and poor black people in
district six and seven this has nothing to do with them but y'all carry on with
some more than sanity I'll keep talking oh that's my sister calling let me go
thank you for your comments chair all names have been called excellent thank
you so much and so I just wanted to yes that's fine hi my name is Steve Cook I
you're going to be taking a
stand. I would like to extend
my heartfelt gratitude to the
staff for their their obviously
humongous amount of work that
they put into this project and
under I'm sure very tight
deadlines- I recommend you you
accept their recommendations I
do oppose councilmember under
his- amendment- I think the
Rockridge community planning
council had previously done a
study. About the probability of
that development outside of the corridor area the commercial corridor areas was
infeasible financially for most any serious projects of any significant
magnitude leaving those areas for for infill which is really nice we get a lot
of ADUs and things built in in those low-density housing areas now and that
will increase the overall density meanwhile we should give time for people
to think about doing it properly which is what the staff has has requested time
that's what they're supposed to do to ensure the long term
viability and livability of our city. So I recommend you give
them all the time that they can get because they're going to
need it. It's a lot of work. Finally, I would like to point
out there was a lot of real estate development taking place
prior to the pandemic, a lot of which is still languishing
because remote work came into a thing and a whole huge
remote work came into a thing and a whole huge sector of the workforce no
longer works in offices. We now see AI coming to the fruition and that's going
to be at least as consequential on the job market and what are you going to do
when a hundred thousand people who currently work in San Francisco don't
have jobs anymore? Do you think they're going to be wanting to live in a tower
near a BART station? Yeah, they're going to be living up in Fairfax in that
the high-tech billionaires are
financing in the night.
Thank you for your comments
sir your time is up.
Excellent thank you so much
before I call on my colleagues
I just wanted to emphasize I
think it's page eleven.
And I think page eight in the
report you're able to tell
which districts are impacted
based on whether it's in tier
one or tier two and we know
that throughout the city of
Oakland in council district
it's very good to have the
in council district seven five two and three you have your BART stations and
then of course there's also it also outlines all of the AC transit stops as
well throughout the entire city of Oakland so all in all all of our
council districts the entire city would be impacted and I think maybe lastly for
my colleagues consideration of this item I think I continue to be focused on I
I know that a lot of the conversation at the state level
right now is around how we are increasing housing
around our transit-oriented development.
And I think that one of the things that our planning
and building staff have really done an amazing job of
is really outlining action plans and detailed plans
around some of our key development sites, as was mentioned.
And so I feel as though in this moment I'm interested
that I'm hopeful that in the further development
of the land use and transportation plan,
maybe we can put a component in there
for a transit oriented development action plan
that could dive into some of these locations
around Rock Ridge Bart, MacArthur Bart,
or in some of the key areas outlined in the report.
So that's just my initial feedback.
I'm gonna call on Councilmember Fyfe
and then Councilmember Unger.
I'm gonna go on to councilmember
five and then councilmember Unger.
Excellent, excellent.
I wanted to, through the chair,
get an understanding from staff's perspective
about councilmember Unger's proposed amendment.
I will say that in this presentation,
and thank you for the briefing that we had earlier this week,
I see that my district around the development locations
because we have so many historic buildings
and a lot of the parcels will be excluded
from this particular plan.
But I also understand that we are elected
to represent the districts that we represent
because a majority of the residents in that area
voted for us.
And so I assume, and Council Member Unger,
please correct me if I'm wrong,
that you're doing this based on feedback
that you've heard from your constituents.
and I want to find out where staff see the amendments
that council member Unger proposed
as impacting the overall work that you're trying to achieve.
You explained it, but I would just like a little more clarity
about this particular amendment
that was presented to us today.
Yeah, I think in general, we were looking at this project
of SB 79 and we knew this was happening from the state,
ideally what we want to do is an alternative plan.
So we were looking at what are the tools
that the state bill allowed for us to do
to essentially delay SB 79 taking effect
until we developed an alternative plan.
Because we really, as planners,
as someone stated in the audience,
That is what we do and we have been doing this already
in a lot of these areas and have been looking
at more strategic up-zoning of areas.
And so that is why we, as staff, wanted to look
at taking advantage of all the exclusions,
no matter where they were located,
in order to have that additional time.
I will say in the Rockridge-Bart area and MacArthur,
as well as the Ashby-Bart area,
well, I'd say more for the Rockridge
and the MacArthur Bar areas, that a lot of those areas
of the commercial zones do actually already
are the equivalent, pretty close,
or even as what SB 79 would require.
There are a few of the commercial zones
that allow lower densities than that
that would be, you know, could then take advantage
of SB 79, so I think it's not,
whether it's those areas are excluded or not excluded,
it's gonna be a small amount of parcels
that we're talking about of a difference really.
But again, from staff's point of view
is just wanting to have that comprehensive look overall
of what we can do.
I can also see what Council Member Unger is saying
is that the bigger concern could be in Rockridge right now
and other areas are the areas that we cannot exclude
because you do have a large area
of residential lower density zones
so we do not have to exclude
those areas that do not allow us to exclude them.
And so I think that's what I'm hearing from the concern
is that if we don't, if we exclude the areas
along the main corridors, is there a potential push
for development to happen off those corridors
because we cannot exclude those areas?
So I do hear that, what the council member is saying,
I think I'm going to have to
So maybe you can articulate
time.
Thank you to the chair thank you
A. C. A. Baker I yes I just
wanted to stress that point that
what we're talking about doing.
Eventually we could end up you
know taking the time to come up
with alternative plan we could
you know we have a question of
going through a process that
might.
Take us to the same conclusion
it's not it would it would not
preclude the opportunity to look
at the concerns you have and
have those as part of the
alternative adoption.
So it's really I think a question
of timing as well.
So nothing that we would adopt
today would probably face you
presume we could not come back
and we visit or review.
In alignment with your- amendment
so it could work either way.
Yeah I wasn't I didn't get a
wanted to know is the amendment that councilmember Unger is the amendment
that he provided problematic for what you all are trying to do and if timing
is the issue can it how do we address his concerns is what I'm trying to find
out or can they be addressed I'm trying to figure out how to move on on how to
it's a priority to have this
committee to have a vote on on
this topic and I want to
understand- the staff's
assessment of this amendment.
Yeah I mean I don't think that
staff sees it as a. A it's a
huge problem I would say. I
think again we can still
continue on with our planning
process in place as as we are
doing. And again I think there's
quite a few parcels that are
to also allow in these areas.
So we are talking about a smaller number of parcels.
But again, I think, you know, from, as a planner,
you know, my preference always is that we wanna go through
the planning process and we are going through
that process right now with the public
and getting input and so forth and so that is essentially
why we have our recommendation as we have it.
But again, I would add that most of these areas,
a lot of the zoning is already similar to SB 79
would require of the areas that we would exclude.
And I chose the wrong noun.
I shouldn't have said, is this a problem?
What impacts would it have if we?
So what that would mean is, right then on July 1st,
if that's when it still does take effect,
that is what is proposed right now from the state,
the state is looking at potential changes.
But right now, the proposal from the state
is that this law would take effect on July 1st.
So that means that any areas that are not excluded
could then use the SB 79 densities that are allowed.
And that also means they can get a planning application in.
I believe it's a pre-application
that could be a vesting project.
So let's say we later on, as a city,
to do different zoning and we have lower zoning for some of these areas and a project has already been vested in nerdy approved under a higher density that we would not be able to reverse that at that point. So. Through the chair, if I may, Chair Brown to council member Unger what you're asking the committee to support through your amendment is to.
not allow this to take place
for these three BART station locations.
So there's a lot of double negatives
in excluding the exclusion.
I know, I know.
Here's what I'm saying.
I want to be able to develop along the commercial corridors
in the high resource neighborhoods of North Oakland.
I want to develop there.
And if we adopt my amendment,
we will be able to do more development
along the commercial corridors
in that high resource neighborhood.
If we do not adopt that amendment,
we will not be able to develop along the corridors.
We will only be able to develop
in the residential neighborhoods
until this plan is completed.
I see.
And through the chair to staff, that's correct.
That is your understanding
of the interpretation of this, the state law.
So, well again, I would clarify,
it's not that we cannot develop,
it's just the SB 79 densities would not apply
in these commercial quarters at this time, as of July 1st.
So we wouldn't be able to take full advantage
of the development opportunities.
We would or would not.
If we adopt my amendment,
we would be able to take full advantage
of the SB 79 development opportunities
if we accept my amendment.
Okay, thank you.
I do have one just clarifying question.
One of the speakers mentioned
that it would be delayed until 2032.
that your understanding? Well so what is written in the the ordinance is that
the state law says we can only have the exclusions until 2032. So so they will
expire in 2032 but or in the city until the city adopts an alternative plan and
if we don't adopt an alternative plan before 2032 and we those exclusions will
And so the intent of of staff and that's actually something that the Planning Commission made is one of the recommendations is that we come back with an alternative plan no later within within one year after adopting the land use and transportation element.
Right, so you're not proposing that we take the exclusions all the way through 2032, but rather just until the next general plan update is adopted next year.
Correct.
correct okay so so this is I mean I think we're gonna end up we're gonna end
up where my amendment is like we're likely to end up where my amendment is a
year from now so the question is whether we do it now or whether you have the
capacity to do it now or in here well I think you know there will what we're
looking at again is the aggregate or the is what the alternative plan can do is
is look at what areas would be up zoned and other areas maybe stay lower.
And so some may be higher than SB 79 is required, and some may be lower.
So I can't say that all of the areas, especially as you get further away
from the in the half mile boundary that we would necessarily have the same density allowances that SB 79 requires.
might have lower there and have more higher
in the areas that are directly much closer
to the BART station as an example.
So that's what we're talking about
of having a more nuanced look at this
is actually trying to have maybe even higher
right near the BART stations and maybe lower
once you get really farther away
because the likelihood that you're gonna get
that kind of development.
And to kind of your point earlier
or some of the speaker's points
that when you have a lot of single family parcels,
this is a good idea to make sure
that these small parcels is going to be hard to develop
something at a higher density in those areas.
Okay thank you.
Okay thank you so much administrator Baker and then
councilmember Ramachandran.
Thank you and through the chair on just to clarify there would
be one year after you have an extension of one year after.
The the planning is is sort of the amendment or the general
supposing so it wouldn't be it wouldn't be one year to be one year after that in terms of when this would go into
Effect the potential new plan
Which is I'd say two years
Yeah, and that's the one clarification through the chair. That would be the the latest
I that would be the latest. Yes, I think we as staff are hoping to do it earlier
But we just want to make sure we do have enough time
Especially not knowing what the changes might be from the state. Yeah, because I think the the ordinance reads like whichever comes first, right?
the community. And just one of the point to a. To the councilmember we staff. Are proposing
that the community. Really be engaged on in this decision and that's where we're seeing
this is a one to two year potential delay that's come to sweet spot on we're not looking
at. Two thousand thirty two but we're also not saying today right so that's when we say
the community engagement and we
the city. And we need to get
in there and be very mindful
that the cities in the
neighborhoods we have. Need to
work at a scale that is really
appropriate for them. And
ultimately we have got to get
the densities overall densities
aligned under the S. B. seventy
nine. But what we're really
looking to do is to get an
opportunity to make this
context sensitive to the city
of Oakland. So we're looking
neighborhood by neighborhood
Carter by Carter there was a
reference on. Transit earlier
and certainly long international
So I think that that's, that's
an example of the whole idea of
taking this through this step.
Of of doing a more deliberate
plan rather than having it sort
of you know just sort of.
Planning by diagram under under
the broader legislation.
It's really what we're trying to
achieve and we do I think
tying in another point earlier
about the action items what
comes out of the general plan
update that we will certainly
have as these are priorities
that we must get this work done.
Excellent thank you so much and
The state legislation that was proposed, you know, sometimes things are put forth as like a one size fits all and I think a lot of the feedback from a lot of the cities was, hey, we're not sure how to interpret. We're not sure how this works. And so that's why ultimately, they're back to the drawing board on this.
we're not sure how this works and so that's why ultimately they're back to
the drawing board on this and so more than likely once the legislative session
wraps up there's probably going to be more changes to be considered and so
therefore more work for staff. Councilmember Ramachandran? Thank you. A
couple of clarifying questions so one at a very basic level if there's a street
with single-family residences within half a mile of a BART station, how can those be
required to be up-zoned if it's all built out and their single-family homes? Would it
then be if there's a vape, if someone buys a house or for houses on a block, all of a
sudden they can demolish it and build a 20-story? How does it work with the single-family homes?
Well, with any of these projects, it's basically where a developer would say, would look at
the SB 79 and say, oh, I can, you know, build this density and so, yes, they would need
to acquire a property to do that or it could be obviously somebody who is an existing homeowner
who decides they want to develop their property more intensively and sell it for that purpose,
could do with that as well or it could be where, again, they maybe get an offer from
developer because now this land is worth more money and so that could be a
potential but yes certainly I think if something is you know to build these
types of higher densities and higher heights you would generally need to like
a 4,000 square foot parcel would not be large enough alone to do that so you
would often have to acquire probably a number of parcels and you'd have to have
people willing to do that and then does that still potential pencil out right
or how much they need to pay
for that property compared to how much they could then build
and sell it for.
I think that answered the question there.
But to your point, and to the Chair,
to the Councilmember, in terms of requiring the property
to re-subdivide, once they did that, then the density,
they'd have the opportunity to take advantage of that.
Yes.
So I do have a question because this amendment was originally
Planning Commission, correct? That they supported this as well? Correct. So what
was, I guess, what is, we've heard just now that the big issue is you want more
time to plan, more comprehensively higher zoning in some areas or lower density in
other areas, which I understand, but if this were, if the amendment were to move
forward, which was the Planning Commission's original recommendation,
And could it be modified in a year
when you go through more comprehensive planning?
Or if this is it, we're stuck with it
till state law changes?
Well, I mean, ultimately, what we are proposing
is an alternative plan.
So the alternative plan would then
take place of development being able to take advantage of SB 79.
So instead of using the blanket requirements of what SB 79
and then the alternative plan would allow is then the
adopted the alternative plan would then say, yeah,
these areas, maybe you can achieve what SB 79 had,
but these other areas would be less than that.
And so once we do adopt an alternative plan,
it will replace whatever SB for the,
if this amendment were to move forward,
it would replace that allowance for those to be able to
take advantage of that density.
And it would look at whatever our alternative plan was
allowing.
And I may again do the chair and I may also ask
representative from City Attorney's office
to address this as well.
But to the extent that we are moving forward
with an alternative plan as we're going through the lute
and the update, we still would have an opportunity
to revisit this as well, I mean amendment or non-amendment.
If it turns out that we're able to get a clear alignment
based on input about areas that would take advantage
of density and we can do a closer examination then
by the time that the year after we complete the lute,
we could also revisit this area irrespective
of the action that's taken today.
Okay, thank you.
All right, well thank you so much
for the robust conversation.
Did you all want to hear
from the city attorney's office at all?
Nope, okay.
All right, well, I think we have two options
that we can make, which is adopt the recommendations
from staff, and or the proposed amendment
that council member Unger put forth.
So does anyone have any further questions or comments
or would like to make either motion?
Council member Fife.
I just wanna be clear about what we just heard,
Chair Brown from director Gilchrist,
is that regardless of the amendment,
we can still review what council member Unger is suggesting?
Yeah, I think that is my understanding.
And of course, Director Gilchrist and team
let me know if I'm off base.
But ultimately, in considering staff's recommendation,
no matter what, our planning and building department
is actively working on a land use
and transportation action plan
I do think that that that that
would further align with what
is being proposed by staff's
recommendation and so even with
the amendment that we see before
us I think that there was
already going to be engagement
around this.
And then if we adopt the
amendment from councilmember
Unger maybe maybe that's your
question then councilmember
five that was exactly my
question to director Gilchrist
and again as I have a city
right on line, but the answer is yes. We still would have the opportunity going through this exercise to look again
through the completion of the loot,
part of the general plan update and also within this year's deadline, less than this year's, the additional year's deadline, to
adopt a plan which may again through our investigation have us revisit some of the assumptions either under the amendment or not. So
That was at two through the chair to the council members that responsive that is exactly what I wanted to hear and I will
say that it also you know sits with me that the Oakland here members of the Oakland heritage
Alliance who are oftentimes opposed to staff's recommendations spoke out on this item in support
And also there is a history in this area of Oakland where there are people who push back on
additional housing and housing density growth and I just want to see how we can
But if we are going to move forward with the loot,
well in less than a year you said we can review
what Councilmember Unger is talking about.
Yes, ultimately the loot will come before this body,
well this committee then referral to the Council of a Whole
for adoption to the chair, to the Councilmember.
So what is finally uploaded as the loot,
but has the force of law will be the determination
of the Council.
So there will be more bites at the Apple, so to speak.
I'm hearing it is that we want to be clear that today's action we still have an opportunity
through the loot and then through the adoption of the specific to the program within less
than a year's time thereafter that we will have that opportunity to craft that in a way
that is responsive to the work that we've done.
Thank you.
That's what I want to also.
going to the work that we've done.
Thank you.
That's what I wanted.
I will also.
Through the chair to the body.
This is Michael Branson, deputy city attorney.
Over the long run, the difference between the staff recommendation and Councilmember
Unger's proposal is there really isn't much of a difference because staff will need to
bring forward either a local alternative plan, or if one is not brought, then all of the
SB 79 provisions would fall into place.
The difference is in the short term.
So in the period up until the local alternative plan
is adopted, Council Member Unger's amendment
would allow for developers to choose to use the densities
and standards that are in the planning code
or to use the densities and standards that are in SP 79.
So it's putting a different option on the table
for the year or two years up until the local alternative
plan is adopted as mentioned by staff in many areas along for example on College Avenue.
The density provided by Oakland is very similar to what is provided in SP 79.
There is a difference in height.
SP 79 allows for more height than local zoning allows.
So that could provide an opportunity for developers to take advantage of additional height.
I will also note that often when people are doing large housing projects, they use a different
state law called the state density bonus law which also allows a developer to
seek additional heights so my opinion is that it's unclear that there are
significant benefits that a developer would gain from using SB 79 but at the
same time there also does not seem to be significant issues that would come
about with implementing SP seventy nine as proposed by councilmember Unger
administrator Baker thank you and through the chair just to address the
council members question in terms of if we go forward with councilmember Unger's
amendment can we kind of undo it and we can but we can't undo development and so
But we have to think about that 18 month gap where there is an accelerated opportunity
to take advantage of the parcels, which is something that actually can't be undone, right?
So in terms of, yes, we can change the policy.
We can change whatever we adopt later.
We can't actually undo whatever's happened in that timeframe, and I think that's important
in terms of how we evaluate the timing of this decision.
I had my mind made up until A.C. Baker, you just said that.
So now could you just elaborate on the point that you're making?
We can't undo development.
How does that statement respond to what we're hearing from my colleague and city staff?
So we heard, and thank you for that question, and through the chair.
We heard the question of what does it take to develop density, right, and you would acquire
one or more parcels, you would build up, that could happen right now under the amendment.
That can't be undone.
The building's up.
That's what I mean.
But what can be undone is whether or not we decide to do that or not, right?
can decide that we don't want to move forward with density or we want to move forward with
density at a later date.
What we can't do is undo the actual density that might happen during that gap.
And if I may again to the Chair and I appreciate A.C.
Baker's observation I was discussing this very same point with the city 30 a moment
ago is that essentially it's a vesting of sorts that anyone who's taking advantage during
that window and they get to the point of development on the project and irrespective of what we
And I think if we do afterwards they would still have the rights to develop that way which is exactly the point a seabed makers making. And again I have the city attorney behind me to back that up. I'm here as available so if the council. If it pleases the council to have me I'm happy to answer further questions. I think basically what we're talking about is vested rights under California law. The standard way that vested rights occurs is if you start building a project that you have received entitlements for.
entitlements for, the city cannot take away your right to build that building.
There are some additional ways to get what's called vested rights. There's a
significant expansion of vested rights in recent years under a different SB
called SB 330. Essentially what that says is if a developer submits a
pre-application that has very specific information in it, they are essentially
putting a marker in time that they are subject to the standards that were in
in place on that date.
So it is a way for developers to lock in the existing code.
So it really advances that vested right.
So if somebody applies for a project using certain rules
and the city changes the rules later,
the city cannot take back any of the rights
that that applicant had under those previous rules.
That's what vested rights are.
All right, well, I think at this time,
I think we have a couple options.
You know, I'm always in favor of ensuring
that all of our colleagues on the council
can weigh in on a particular item.
So we could have a motion to move this item
to the full city council so that we can further
kind of engage stakeholders on the item.
Or we could accept the amendments as is, colleagues.
so we can accept staff recommendation as is,
and then we can take further time to consider
the proposed amendment from Council Member Unger,
or even vice versa, whichever you all,
but we can move it so that the full body can weigh in on it.
Council Member Unger.
I've got an amendment on the floor
and I'd like an up or down vote.
Okay, so you made the motion to go ahead
I'm sorry I've got a motion to
move that is there a second.
Thank you we have a motion made
by councilmember under second by
councilmember Ramachandran to
approve as amended the
recommendations of staff to
port this item to them.
March third city council agenda
as a public may I get get some
clarity I'm so sorry I'm city
clerk- it's the-
recommendations from staff plus-
councilmember angers amendment
okay perfect excellent thank you.
I'm sorry I'm unclear on the
motion we're including council
member under second by council
member Rama chondrin to approve
the recommendation of staff as
amended.
To board this item to this.
March third city council so
agenda as a public hearing.
Okay on roll council members
fight I'm sorry I'm unclear on
the motion we're including
councilmember angers amendment
in the motion yes when it
contradicts with the staff's
I think we just need a second so which which we had a second from council member around we need to vote on the amendment
Yeah before we move forward with
The motion that was just made. I'm I'm just trying to get clarity
Councilmember
Ramachandran, I'd just like to ask the parliamentarian to weigh in because I know we have voted on item with an amendment before
meant several times so
Okay
by a recommendation of staff as the members
to move it to the much vote, okay?
So my understanding is Councilmember Unger
made the motion to adopt staff recommendation
with his own amendment that changes
the staff recommendations.
So it's one single motion that moves the item
with the amendment.
If it's simpler, I'm happy to withdraw that
and just vote on the amendment by itself
and then we can vote on the whole bill.
Would that make it simpler?
that would not be a complete motion because then it doesn't move the item, so.
I mean we would, we can't vote on just the amendment by itself.
No. No. I think if somebody else had made, moved the original item then you could have
moved, then you could have made a motion to amend that motion with your amendment. So
if somebody moved original item you can then make a motion to amend the original motion
with the amendment.
As you had moved the item already, you could, I mean, you could withdraw the motion, but
as I think what you did before was appropriate motion to just move the item with.
Okay.
All right.
We'll do that then.
With the proposed amendment.
Okay.
Okay.
Just for clarity, I will restate the motion with the amendments.
So the motion is made by Councilmember Unger, seconded by Councilmember Ramachandran to approve
recommendations of staff as amended with the following amendments to remove maps one, two,
and three from exhibit C and to add a planning code section 17.86.060.a. The words not including
sites within one half mile of Ashby, MacArthur, and Rockridge BART stations before the phrase
beginning sites with the following zoning designations are excluded to the March 3rd
Ayes and noes.
And third City Council agenda as a public hearing.
Okay on roll council members five no.
That's a member of a child in I.
Councilmember hunger I.
And chair Brown no.
Okay motion fails with.
Two eyes and two nose brown and five.
So I think at this time I will I would make the motion to
for consideration to the full city council please. Second thank you we have
a motion made by chair Brown second by council member five to approve the
recommendations of staff as is and to forward this item to the March 3rd city
council agenda as a public hearing on roll council members five aye Ramachandran
aye Unger aye and chair Brown aye thank you item number four passes with four
public hearing.
Now moving on to open forum we have one public speaker that
signed up miss a side of all of all of.
When the conversation and you have not had one conversation
about the Oakland housing authorities.
Where they have authority to enter act with HUD and just a
few weeks ago beginning of February.
So just a few weeks ago beginning of February HUD is
proposing to change the requirement that all members of
the households receiving federal rent assistance, you must verify
the U.S. citizenship status or your eligibility as an immigrant
As a immigrant and other than in order to have living accommodation at with HUD
the Housing Authority
with HUD is
withholding funds in
certain situation
HUD is removing the Fair Housing Act
Violations of landlords are not being dealt with under HUD section 8
Thank you for your comments. Ms. Olavala chair that concludes all speakers
Excellent. Thank you. Thank you all so much. This meeting is adjourned