APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
________________________
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. _______________ C.M.S.
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL BY EAST BAY RESIDENTS
FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND THUS UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’S ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
AND APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT 222 DWELLING
UNITS ON THE EXISTING VACANT LOT LOCATED AT 1396 5
TH
STREET, OAKLAND CA (PROJECT CASE NO. PLN20-101).
WHEREAS, the project applicant, the Michaels Organization (Applicant), filed an application with the City of Oakland (City) Bureau of Planning on June 24, 2020, to develop an eight-story residential building that would include 222 dwelling units, 16 of which would be designated as affordable for very-low-income households, at 1396 5th Street (Project); and WHEREAS, the project site is located within Opportunity Area 2 (7th Street) of the West Oakland Specific Plan across Mandela Parkway from the West Oakland Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the Planning Commission conside red the design review aspects of the Project at a duly noticed public meeting on October 28, 2020, during which the Committee recommended design modifications prior to the item moving forward to the full Planning Commission for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the design recommendations were incorporated into the revised Project prior to proceeding to the full Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission took testimony and considered th e Project at its duly noticed public meeting of March 3, 2021 and , at the conclusion of the public hearing, deliberated the matter and voted (7-0-0) to 1) affirm staff’s environmental determination and adopt California Environmental Quality Act (C EQA) findings and 2) approve the conditional use permits, design review, and tentati ve parcel map for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2021, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (Appellant), filed an appeal (PLN20-101-A01) of the Planning Commission’s CEQA determination and approval of the Project, which appeal included a statement setting forth the basis of the appeal; and
___________________________________ ____________________ 2 WHEREAS, after giving due notice to the Appellant, the Applicant, all interested parties and the public, the Appeal came before the City Council for a public hearing on September 21, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant, the Applicant, supporters of the application, those opposed to the application and interested neutral parties were given ample opportunity to participate in the public hearing by submittal of oral and/or written comments; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, the City Council voted to direct staff to pr epare a resolution for future City Council consideration that would all ow for additional time for further consideration of the environmental impacts to the resid ents with focus on hazards and hazardous materials on the basis that the CEQA Analysis pre pared for the Project inadequately described the current status of soil and groundwat er hazards conditions, did not adequately compare the current status with the analysis con ducted under the West Oakland Specific Plan (WOSP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and did not address whether any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the WOSP EIR were necessary;
WHEREAS, after giving due notice to the Appellant, the Applicant, all interested parties and the public, the City Council held a public hearing on April 19, 2022; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Appellant, the Applicant, supporters of the application, those opposed to the application and interested ne utral parties were given ample opportunity to participate in the public hearing by submi ttal of oral and/or written comments;
WHEREAS, at said hearing, the City Council directed Oakland Bureau of Planning staff, through the City Administrator, to prepare furt her environmental analysis of Project impacts pertaining to potential existing soil and groundwater hazards conditions and community outreach, and for staff to return to City Council with the additional analysis and a recommendation as to whether the Project will have one or more significant effects not described in the WOSP EIR such that an additional EIR, such as a supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15163, 15182, and 15183, and/or an infill EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3, as determined appropriate base d on the additional information reviewed and analyzed, be prepared;
WHEREAS, after giving due notice to the Appellant, the Applicant, all interested parties and the public, the City Council held a public hearing on July 19, 2022; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Appellant, the Applicant, supporters of the application, those opposed to the a pplication and interested ne utral parties were given ample opportunity to participate in the public hearing by submi ttal of oral and/or written comments; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: That, after review of the additional requested materials prov ided within the July 19, 2022 Agenda Report, the City Council hereby independently finds and determines that the requirements of the California Environmenta l Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as prescribed by the Secretary of Resources, and the City of Oakland’s environmental review requirements, have been satisfied, and specifically, that the Project is exempt from 3 CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15182 (specific plan exemption), 15183 (projects consistent with community plan, general plan, or zoni ng) and/or 15183.3 (qualified infill projects); and furthermore none of the factor s requiring further CEQA review are met and the City can rely on an Addendum to the prev iously Certified 2014 West Oakland Specific Plan Environment Impact Report, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162-15164; and that each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council, having heard, considered and weighed all the evidence in the record presented on behalf of a ll parties and being fully informed of the application and the Project , the Planning Commission’s decision, and the appeal, finds that the Appellant has not shown, by reliance on evidence already contained in the record before the City Planning Commission, that the Commission’s dec ision on March 3, 2021 was made in error, that there was an abuse of dis cretion by the Planning Commission or that the Commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, based on the March 3, 2021 Staff Report to the C ity Planning Commission and the September 21, 2021, April 19, 2022, and July 19, 2022 C ity Council Agenda Reports hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Accordingly, the Appeal is denied, the Planning & Building Department’s CEQA Determination is upheld, based upon the March 3, 2021 Staff Report to the City Planning Commission and the September 21, 2021, April 19, 2022, and July 19, 2022 City Council Agenda Reports, each of which is hereby separately and independently adopted by this Council in full; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That, in support of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project, the City Council affirms and a dopts the March 3, 2021 Staff Report to the City Planning Commission (including without limitation the discussion, findings, conclusions and conditions of approval each of which is hereby separately and independently adopted by this Council in full), as well as the September 21, 2021, April 19, 2022, and July 19, 2022 City Council Agenda Reports (including without limitation the discussion, findings, conclusions and conditions of approval, e ach of which is hereby separately and independently adopted by this Council in full), except where otherwise expressly stated in this Resolution; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That, the City Council finds and determines that this Resolution complies with CEQA and the Environmental Review Offi cer is directed to cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption and Notice of Determination with the appropriate agencies; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That, the record before this Council relating to this application and appeal includes, without limitation, the following:
1. the application, including all accompanying maps and papers;
2. all plans submitted by the Applicant and representatives;
3. the notice of appeal and all accompanying statements and materials;
4. all final staff reports, final decision letters and other f inal documentation and information produced by or on behalf of the City, including wit hout limitation all 4 related/supporting final materials including the CEQA Analysis prepared for the Project and attached to the staff reports, and all final notices relati ng to the application and attendant hearings;
5. all oral and written evidence received by the City Planning Commission and City Council during the public hearings on the appeal; and all written evidence received by relevant City Staff before and during the public hearings on the application and appeal;
6. all matters of common knowledge and all official enactments and acts of the City, including, without limitation: (a) the General Plan; (b) Oakland Municipal Code (c) Oakland Planning Code; (d) other applicable City policies and r egulations; and, (e) all applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That, the custodians and locations of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings u pon which the City Council’s decision is based are respectively: (a) Department of Planning & Building, Bureau of Planning, 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 2114, Oakland CA.; and (b) Office of the City Clerk, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 1
st floor, Oakland, CA; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That, the recitals contained in this Resolution are true and correct and are an integral part of the City Council’s decision.
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES - FIFE, GALLO, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, TAYLOR, THAO AND
PRESIDENT FORTUNATO BAS
NOES –
ABSENT –
ABSTENTION –
ATTEST:
ASHA REED
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California