Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call to order the September 2nd Planning Commission meeting. Can we please have the roll call?

Yes. Commissioner Rank? Here. Commissioner Randolph, I'm sorry, Commissioner Lee?

Here.

Vice Chair Randolph? Here. Chair Ahrens? Here.

We have a quorum. And I'm Pete Vollman and I'll be filling in for Planning Commission Secretary Catherine Payne today.

Thank you. Okay, moving on to commission business. Is there any agenda discussion? Seeing none. A director's report?

No director's report today.

Okay. I don't believe we have any informational items.

No informational reports.

And any committee reports? I don't think we've had committee since the last meeting. Okay. We're moving on through. All right. Commission matters. We do have one item here today. So this is the recognition of Commissioner Sandoval and Commissioner Rob. Commissioner Sandoval is here in the room, and I believe Commissioner Rob is listening through KTOP. So hello out there if you're tuned in. So I'll just start off to say thank you on behalf of the Commission for your service over the last three years. It's been really such a joy to work with you. I will miss you, Commissioner Sandoval, on the Commission. I have found you to be very level-headed. You take in all the information. You're very thoughtful and present, and you have always shared how and why you've made your decisions. And I really value that transparency. And I feel that you've always put Oaklanders first to have a thriving, vibrant, beautiful city. And so your presence here will be missed. Thank you so much for your service. If any other commissioners have things to share for Commissioner Sandoval, I'll open up the floor and then we can share some words about Commissioner Robb.

I'll just say ditto. It was a pleasure serving with you, and you'll be very missed, but we'll keep in touch.

Yeah, I want to say ditto as well and just thank you for your service, and you were a great role model for me, and it was always really helpful to hear your thoughts about things. Thanks.

Yeah, I also want to say thank you. Definitely took a lot of points from you what vice chair means to be and hopefully I will be able to step into those shoes. The three plus years with you flew kind of by by the time we all got used to the commission and learned all the intricate details, you're gone already. So I'll definitely miss your patience and your comments and definitely your diverse viewpoint. I think with all the commissioners that we have had on the commission. I think we're a very good set and a very good group of commissioners that all have a very unique and important view and role to play and you definitely will be missed with not only your professional background but also being an Oaklander for sure. So hopefully you'll be on the other side of all the important projects that the city is working on and hopefully continue to work on all the housing and other projects that will impact the city for generations, so thank you for your service.

On behalf of city staff and the city as a whole, I want to thank both Commissioner Sandoval and Rob for volunteering in your service over the past few years. And just, you know, thank you for, in addition to review of projects that come before this decision-making body, also being involved in the first phase of all the general plan updates that have gone forward over the past few years, as well as adoption of the and review of the objective design standards. And I believe Ed Manasseh, the deputy director, is also here to speak.

Oh, thank you very much. Yeah, Ed Manasseh, Deputy Director of Planning. Just wanted to second everything everyone said. I wanted to give my personal thanks and also from the director, Bill Gilchrist, who'd hoped to be here, but has a meeting conflict, so he wasn't able to be here. But on behalf of the entire Bureau Department, just wanted to thank Seneval and the other, excuse me, Yes, in Sandoval. Thank you so much for your service. Appreciate it.

Yes, and we're handing out the certificates.

Thank you so much. And for Commissioner Rob, if you're listening through KTOP, just wanted to say...

Here's yours, Commissioner Rob.

Yes, there it is. City staff have told me that they will find a way to mail it to you. So keep a lookout in your post office box I guess for that. But just wanted to say thank you for your expertise as an architect. Your perspective was really valuable here on the commission and always looked to you for your support on the design review committee and appreciated your thoughtful questions and calm presence. So your work on the commission will also be missed and I hope that we can find another architect very soon.

Yeah, I want to echo that. I was going to mention the architect piece because we are reviewing so many important details of a lot of projects and really having the expertise of an architect is not something that I think will be missed in the meantime. And I know that the city council mentioned during several appointment hearings and city council meetings that an architect is very important to have on the commission. So hopefully the three vacancies that we're having will be able to fill that important role and i think commissioner bob has done a really really good job on several um projects to really provide that from you know from signage to to frontage to all kinds of different things that only i think an architect really knows is something that will be certainly missed thank you

and i want to especially thank um commissioner rob because he reached out to me when i after i joined and we had coffee and it was helpful to hear his thoughts and his presence will be missed i'll echo again what everyone has said commissioner rob up up in the ether um we'll miss you and good luck with all of your future endeavors

Wonderful, thank you. I also want to use a little bit of chair's discretion to thank Commissioner Rank for serving as chair. I missed the first meeting in July. That was a transition. Thank you for stepping in, Vice Chair Randolph. But just want to say thank you for your service as chair over the last year plus. I really learned a lot from you and value your expertise and your presence and look forward to continuing to work together. And I'm sure you're happy you're over there now so just wanted to say thank you while I while I had the mic thank you so much I appreciate that and yeah what life on the other side it was gonna be good but always here to help too so thank you all right thank you so much moving on from Commission matters do we have a city attorney's report no city attorney's report today thanks Okay, excellent. Okay, moving on to open forum. These, this is a time for members of the public to speak on any item of interest that is not listed on the agenda today. And I'm happy to give two minutes per speaker. Yes, you can come up to the front and fill out a comment card. Yeah, thank you.

So we have a few speakers for open forum. We have Jack, Tanya, and I'll call you in groups of three, Jack, Tanya, and Michael. And if you wouldn't mind, can you state your name for the record?

Sure.

Give me a second to pull up what I'm going to say.

Hi, I'm Jack Gerson. I've lived on Auburn Avenue in Rockridge for nearly 30 years. I'm here representing Rockridge Neighbors for Sensible Housing. As you may know, we have nearly 2,500 signatures on our petition calling for modifications to the proposal for a senior care facility at 6230 Claremont Avenue. Why do we keep coming here? You have heard from us and from me before about the proposed senior care facility at 6230 Claremont. You know we're in favor of such a facility, but we think it's much too big. We think planning staff has overestimated the planned number of allowed units by a huge margin, more than 75%. That's because staff applied a gross to net conversion factor and and a mixed unit factor, mixed use factor, neither of which the application should receive. As I've presented here before, I've written in Rockridge Voice about it. I've written letters to you and to staff. Without them, the building would have to be at least ten feet lower, have at least 30 fewer units than they planned, plus have adequate step backs and bigger setbacks. So we have to ask, are you hearing what we say? What 2,500 people are saying? Or is the purpose just to let us blow off steam? What do the unreasonably large allowed densities mean for the College Avenue corridor? What will they mean going forward? If these are allowed, especially the gross to net, if it's ridiculous, there's no basis for it. If you look at the reference in the zoning code bulletin, it says explicitly it shouldn't be applied in that site and in that district. So what it will mean is buildings well over 100 feet tall lined up and down College Avenue. It will mean that as in Berkeley, the small shops which give the neighborhood the character and the pedestrian orientation which you supposedly want will be gone. They'll be gone because who will be able to afford it other than very deep pocketed, very high end, and franchises of national chains. That's what is coming here. That's what's invited this gigantic proposal at the Trader Joe's site at Rockridge Park.

Thank you so much for your comment. Your time has elapsed.

We hope that you will step in, that you will help step up and plan. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there, my name is Tanya Pamploni and I live on Harwood Avenue which is two blocks from the proposed development. I am not opposed to it in principle. I understand there's no stopping it. I am however opposed to an eight story building with over 200 units that sits right up against my neighbor's single story family homes. This development will not block my sunlight nor will I have someone peering into my bedroom window. It will affect my ability to park on my street, which is already impacted. Being a good neighbor means having regard for your neighbors, their homes, and their communities. We all know that seniors, like so many in the Bay Area, need affordable housing. We all know that $13,000 a month is not affordable housing, least of all for seniors. We have a walkable community with lots of trees, people who maintain their gardens and homes on College Avenue themselves, and many local owned businesses. What I'm asking for is housing that looks and acts like housing. What I need is a good neighbor. here's what i'm asking for a building that enhances the neighborhood making it more livable not less a design that reflects housing not commercial real estate a landscaping that reflects the neighborhood FEWER STORIES TO LESSEN THE IMPACT AND COMMUNITY DENSITY, STEPBACKS FROM OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTIES AND AMPLE PARKING. AND FINALLY, REGARD FOR THE RESIDENTS WHO WILL LIVE IN THE BUILDING AND PAYING A LOT OF MONEY TO DO IT. THEY WILL BE MOVING HERE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHERE THEY LIVE SHOULD REFLECT THAT CHARACTER SO THEY, TOO, CAN ENJOY IT. THEY NEED STUDIO APARTMENTS WITH SIZES THAT ARE LIVABLE. a trafficked intersection that will accommodate elderly people, and ample parking spaces so that they too can park near their homes. Frankly, I'd move if it were next to my house, and I encourage you all to head to Rockridge and see what the proposal looks like and acts like in that area. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Michael?

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Mayer. I live about a block from the site, the 6230 Claremont site, and I've lived there for 35 years. We all support building housing on this site in Claremont. The city needs housing of all types, market rate, low income, and senior. The existing Red Cross building has been an eyesore for a few years, and a new building could be great for the neighborhood. But the sheer mass of this building is so out of character for this spot. the applicant submittal claims the project is consistent with the local land use framework but then they ask for significant waivers to the zoning limits in place regarding height and setbacks so by definition it is no longer consistent with the land use plan and the character of the neighborhood There are areas in the city that can absorb a building of this enormous mass, but in this neighborhood, it is going to make a life-altering dent in the lives of a lot of residents for blocks around in the narrow side streets of Florio and Auburn, Harwood and Mystic, Manoa and Rockwell and beyond. At a community meeting the developer held for neighbors a few months ago, I asked him, can't this project pencil out with one fewer floor? He said, no. I said, can you explain the numbers to me? And he said, I don't have to. Well, he doesn't have to tell me, but he does have to tell you. Please challenge him to prove why modest and sensible modifications of the design can't be done and still allow his firm a profit. Even moderate setbacks in what would be a 90-foot wall a few steps from small homes would be so important. We're not asking for the world, just for the developer to live up to his word that this project will be a good neighbor. This commission can get them to honor this pledge. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Ellen? No worries. Do you want me to bring you a microphone and you can sit down while you speak? Okay.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Ellen Kohler, a 55 year resident of the neighborhood. I'm here to address the proposed senior living facility at 6230 Claremont Avenue. While I do support the goal of providing 200 plus units of senior housing, we cannot ignore the lethal reality of the corridor where these vulnerable residents will live. Recently, this stretch of Claremont has claimed two lives. July 2025, 67-year-old Roderick Nared was killed at Claremont and the Uplands. February 4th, 2026, 72-year-old Billy Grant was killed in the 6000 block, mere steps from this project. This isn't a theoretical risk. It's a proven pattern. We're proposing to place a large population of seniors, including those in a memory care wing, directly into a high-speed traffic environment. that is already failing to protect pedestrians. This issue is personal to me. In fact, my son was struck by a car in this neighborhood, but thankfully he survived. City data shows that residents aged 65 and older are three times more likely to be killed in traffic than younger residents. Furthermore, the high injury network maps confirmed that while Claremont Avenue makes up a small percentage of our streets, it accounts for a disproportionate number of severe injuries and deaths. Approving this project without a comprehensive pre-construction safety hall of the Claremont and College Avenue intersection is frankly negligent. I urge the commission to require a binding traffic safety mitigation plan as a condition of approval. We need daylighting, protected crossings, and speed reduction measures before the first resident moves in. Let's not wait for a third tragedy to realize the current infrastructure is insufficient for the population we are inviting here. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Paul.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Paul Friedman. Nice to see you again. I'll try not to repeat, but I'll start with where Ellen ended up because almost every day I cross Claremont Avenue with my 2 year old granddaughter and it is treacherous. Um, even no matter how careful you are, and this is going to lead to a significant increase in traffic and trucks and deliveries, et cetera. What's been on my mind lately is that there is a win win to achieve here. A right size senior housing development at 6230 and keeping with the neighborhood scale. But the developer has so far shown 0 interest. In compromising taking into account the needs of the neighborhood we've read about in the papers about some of the concessions at the Trader Joe's sites here nada We support senior housing you've heard we think that there needs to be reduced scale setbacks One floor less one story less. Safety measures. And now a legal point, both the city and the developer. Apparently rely on an administrative zoning bulletin to apply a net in support of the net acreage multiplier. I'm not a land use lawyer, but I am a lawyer, and I know that the opinion of one single city employee can have no legal binding effect, and yet it seems to be heavily relied on by all concerned here in justifying the density bonus. I don't think that's going to hold up. The density bonus calculations exceed what the general plan permit. They're legally flawed and they need to be looked at. All we ask is that this project is held accountable to legal standards, traffic safety, and proper neighborhood scale. We're looking for a win-win. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Connor?

Hello, my name is Connor. I'm with the No Data Center Oakland Coalition. And obviously, I know nothing has come to this body about data centers in Oakland at this point. But I'm just here anticipating that that is going to happen in the future. When the Bering Company announced a few weeks ago plans to make a data center in downtown Oakland, the same week that there were two announcements about AI infrastructure coming to West Oakland, a petition was launched by the No Data Center Coalition that right now has reached over 7,000 signatures. And really the core of what this coalition and the people who are signing it are wanting to understand is who decides the future of Oakland? Is it the people who live here, work here, raise families here, or is it tech billionaires who see the city as an opportunity to enrich themselves like they've seen, of course, across the country, you know? in the same way that across the country community's been pushing back on data centers you know people in Oakland are feeling similar sentiment so I'm just here to just you know raise this issue anticipating that this will likely come up in the future to make sure you're aware of you know how many members of the community are feeling about the prospect of data centers coming to Oakland and make sure this is on your attention thank you thank you we have one more speaker Khalid

I'm glad he came before me because that's what my concern was. If it's inevitable, AI and data centers, I feel like it's very important that you guys can see if you can get some resources out of them to do a life class in some of the underserved schools. Something to really prepare the kids for life, for real, like taxes, job interviews, Cyber the cyber age that we're coming across it all the things that are very practical what for me what? would be a tragedy is a 90s Oakland all the The drugs that came in and all the guns that came in that weren't even from us came destroyed the community and then gentrified, or colonized, or whatever you want to call it, and then the people, what, are going to start living in prosperity on the blood of all my people? For you to shed yourself many karmic consequences to make sure all these billionaires, if it's inevitable, if guys like him can win, it'd be great, which I would hope he can. I'm going with Bernie Sanders and his perspective. But if it's inevitable, Just make sure that the few percentage of poor black people that are here can get a life class. I would recommend a life class, a sponsored life class, that job training, you know, whatever. Just some things that are really practical because not everybody's going to college. It's just not practical. But help them out with the next step. That would just be at least something, a cookie. Otherwise, this is totally unjust. Thank you so much. Peace.

Thank you. That was our final speaker for open forum.

Thank you so much. Before we move to the next item, I want to ask staff if there is an update on the application for the 6230 Claremont project. I know I was not at the last meeting in early July. But in that intervening time, is there an update that you can share?

It's currently still under review. There was, I believe, a completeness letter sent out, and the zoning consistency is under review, and I think we identified a number of items that they're working on responding to, as well as interdepartmental comments.

Thank you. Yes.

Through the Chair, just have a quick follow-up. Is staff still working on the CEQA determination, or did it come in as an AB 130?

No, it did not come in as an AB 130. There is the CEQA document that's being prepared and it's still an admin draft form right now. So it's not public yet. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I'm going to move us on to the consent calendar, which I believe we have no items on. So I will move us on to public hearings. And we have one item today, which is... An update from staff on the updates to the SB 79 suite of activities. I'll pass it to you. Thank you so much.

Before staff make their presentation, I did note that there was an additional document distributed, and it's made available to the public as well. The commission needs to make a motion to accept the supplemental materials before the presentation is made.

Move to accept.

Second it. Sorry, I caught you off guard.

Sorry. Commissioner Rank?

Yes. Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Vice Chair Randolph? Yes. Chair Ahrens? Yes.

The motion passes to accept the documents into the record and the items are on the table for any members of the public that would like one.

Kate's up can we get the presentation Okay. Oh, you didn't plug in the HDMI. We need the HDMI cable. Oh, it's the shorty.

Right here. Oh. Can we move the podium closer? Does it work? Okay.

There it is. There it is.

Oh, sorry.

That's okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

The other computer was all good.

Bye. Okay.

I'll accept supplementary.

Sorry about that technical difficulties. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and commissioners. My name is Kelly Cha. I'm here to present the agenda item number two on amendments to planning code chapter 1786, or I'll be referring to SB 79 amendments. Oh. So just to provide some reminder, the SB 79 was enacted back in October 2025, establishing an effective date of July 1st of this year. And the state law basically allows higher density, height, and floor area ratio in designated transit-oriented development area, TOT areas, to encourage more housing near transit. And Oakland adopted its local exclusion ordinance back in March this year. And this ordinance temporarily excludes certain parcels and TOD areas using three different categories of exclusions, which I will detail a little bit later. And in June, we have received comments from both state HCD, that's the California Department of Housing and Community Development, as well as Metropolitan Transportation Commission, MTC, stating that Oakland's ordinance and related map needed to be amended to bring them into full compliance. Since then, staff has coordinated with those agencies and prepared the amendments to the ordinance. And we are here today at the Planning Commission to present these staff-recommended amendments to bring the ordinance to full compliance. And upon recommendation from the Commission, we will be moving forward with the CED Committee and City Council hearing this month and next month. So this is just showing the density standards that is included in SB 79. So there's tier one and tier two stops, and these are allowed maximum height, density, and floor area ratio. And for Oakland, we have used these three exclusions. So the first one was any parcels where Oakland's zoning allows at least 50% of the residential capacity of SB 79 standards. And that includes both high and low resource areas. And the second exclusion is any parcels that qualify as low resource areas. when existing zoning already provides at least 40% of residential capacity. So that's the TOD zones and this particular exclusion actually applies to the entire TOD zones instead of individual parcels. And the third one is the parcels that are local register historic resources and that includes landmark, historic districts and some potentially designated historic properties with some conditions. And so staff presented the planning code and related zoning map back in the City Council with all these three, all the areas eligible for exclusion. And back in March, actually, the council made specific amendments to remove certain areas, and that includes sort of east of Lake Merritt as well as the area surrounding Coliseum BART station to encourage more housing development in those areas. And as I have mentioned previously, we have received some comments from these two agencies On June 10th, we received comments from MTC basically saying that their map, so MTC has created and prepared a regional SB 79 map to assist local jurisdictions like Oakland for their implementation and they have informed us their half mile buffers. for the TOD zones, they were a little bit, slightly different from Oakland's adopted maps. It's because of, there are some differences of use, so they have used a little bit different different access points for these transit stops. But the changes are negligible, so it wasn't too much of a concern. And in addition to that, they also requested four new transit stops to be added, and that's all from uptown transit center stops. And two days later, actually, on June 12th, we received comments from the state HCD. And state, basically, Informed us that the Oakland's local exclusion ordinance is not fully in compliance with 79 and the primary reason is that the state considers any parcels with zoning that allows residential or commercial use alongside with another used to be. a mixed use zone making it subject to SB 79 standards. So before the ordinance actually considered open space and industrial parcels ineligible. So we had to make them eligible basically. And because open space and industrial zones actually allow some commercial uses, they were saying that we need to actually amend those. So, in addition to that, they have requested City to align our map with the MTC's version and also ask for some clarification on clear ground error. And so to address these feedback and bring Oakland's ordinance into full compliance, these following changes have been made to both ordinance and the zoning map. And so the first one is that we removed AC Transit Tempo 20th Avenue stop. This is the clerical error that HCD has mentioned. And so this is something. So in March, City Council has made some amendments to remove certain zones and parcels from exclusion. And this one was actually removed, but it was not reflected in the code. So we're just removing that particular bust up from the code and we also removed open space and industrial zones from the list of ineligible sites. So this is reflecting state ACD's comments and also as part of that amendments in that particular list, we have added that phrase, this phrase parcels over which the City of Oakland Planning Bureau does not have zoning authority. So if we don't have any permitting authority, like state parcels or some of the port properties, then those are ineligible now. To reflect those text amendments, zoning that was also updated to re-designate open space parcels from ineligible to excluded if they fall within an adopted exclusion or covered if not, and that same rational applied to the industrial parcels. So if they were excluded within the adopted exclusion area, then they were re-designated as excluded. The only difference is that we are proposing that those industrial parcels that were in the areas that were removed from the exclusion, so those are at the area surrounding Colosseum Bar Station, and then the 14th Avenue stop, we're still recommending them to be excluded so that we can comprehensively look at it as part of the alternative plan process. And since there's some land use compatibility issues, so we're proposing that that should be excluded, not the entire TOD. So this is the map that we have included. I apologize. Thank you for accepting those updated maps. But it's basically showing the parcels that are now excluded that were before ineligible. So those orange filled parcels were before ineligible industrial parcels. Now will be excluded with this adoption, with this amendment. And In addition, and then also we have adjusted the TOD zones and parcels within to align with the MTC's regional SB 79 map. And we also added four additional stops in the planning code section as well as the zoning map. Those are included as attachment F in the report. It shows the summary of the calculations that they actually go over 40%. of the residential density, so they are excluded as well. Upon receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission today, we will be moving forward with the CED Committee on the 22nd of September, and then to City Council on October 6th, and anticipate the adoption of these amendments on October 20th. And this is a staff recommendation. It's a little bit long, so I'm just gonna summarize this. So staff is recommending the Planning Commission to consider and recommend to the City Council that amending Oakland Planning Code Chapter 1786 to address the comments we received from two agencies and amending the code, the same chapter to exclude additional industrial parcels previously designated as ineligible to excluded. and to make a related Oakland zoning map updates and making appropriate CEQA findings. That concludes our staff presentation and we're ready to answer any questions we have. Strategic Planning Manager Laura Kaminski here as well as our Deputy Director Ed Manasseh to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I'll open it up to commissioners for clarifying questions. Commissioner Rank.

I just have a quick question. Have you run these changes by HCD or MTC to see if they agree that this fixes the issues in their letter or does this go back to them when it's adopted?

Yeah, so we've had quite a number of meetings with the state housing community development department staff, and they have said yet that these changes would address the comments in the letter and would bring us into full compliance.

Thank you.

Thank you. I have a question. Could you remind us about how this connects to the general plan phase two? I remember when we talked about this earlier this year, we had discussed having the exclusion sunset. Can you remind us how this process fits with the phase two?

Yeah, so we are, as per our general plan update, looking at meeting the requirements of the alternative plan for SB 79. So we are in the process of, the stuff that's already been released as far as the draft land use framework actually shows higher densities around the BART stations as well as along International Boulevard, so changes of the land use to allow for these higher densities that we would be able to meet the alternative plan for SB 79. And then the intention right now is we're going through all the comments that we've heard from the public during the process. And we're working on the actual draft of the elements, so the land use and transportation element. And we anticipate that that will be in early January released for then comments from the public. And so that will have some further refinement of the proposed land uses and densities as well for comments. And then we're anticipating it to be, hopefully it moves forward and we get all the comments we need that we would then make changes based on the comments. And then it falls when we anticipate going to planning commission and council for final adoption. And then as part of that, we are also working on zoning code amendments with that. And so we're anticipating we'll be making quite a few zoning code changes, both map and density allowances. One, we actually at the adoption time of the general plan because As an example right now, there's a proposal for the draft land use framework to eliminate detached residential as a land use category and creating higher densities in those areas. So obviously we'll need to reflect that in our zoning as well, that that will match. And so we're hoping that a lot of those changes will actually formulate the alternative plan during that process.

Thank you. Any other clarifying questions from commissioners before public comment? Okay.

Let's move to public comment on this item. We have one speaker. Jack, did you still want to speak on item number two? Yeah. Okay.

Hi, I'm Jack Person. 6230 Claremont. I think it would be useful to see what the SB 79 densities, how they compare. to the densities currently. For example, I know that SB 79 doesn't apply to the 6230 Claremont application or the application of the Trader Joe's site because those both filed their SB 330 preliminary applications prior to July 1st of this year when SB 79 went into effect. But I have done calculations for both of those to verify that what the developers have claimed is valid. Let me say, on the Trader Joe's site, they claim 415 units. They qualify for that with your densities in the CN2 zone for a 95-foot building, of course. Then they piggyback on the state density bonus law. That takes them up to, well, it takes them, allows them waivers on everything, and they go up over 300 feet. Now, they didn't know, I guess, about the gross to net conversion, which would bring them up to over 550 feet. Are you sure that you really want to apply that? I think that if you do, if you think that's valid, you need to adjust your densities downward throughout the city to take into account that you've made them unreasonably large once the gross to net is applied. I'd like you to think about that. I'd like to see the way your densities pre and without SB 79 apply to what happens with SB 79. Thank you.

Thank you. That was our only speaker.

Thank you. OK, I will open it up for comments and any further discussion from commissioners. Quiet group today?

I mean, I'll just say, I mean, I obviously want the city to be in compliance with HCD. So, I mean, these changes make sense to me. I read through the HCD letter. And so, you know, we have to take that kind of compliance seriously. So I support these changes.

Yeah, due to that, I support these changes as well, but the recent public commenter about the density bonus changes is something that I was wondering about as well. Do you have any thoughts or comments on pre and post SB 79 and how that might impact some of these projects? I mean, 500 plus feet.

I mean, I don't know that I can say offhand about the heights. I mean, SB 79 does have a height allowance in it that it talks about, but it does actually, SB 79 does allow you to do a density bonus project on top of SB 79, so that might be, I don't know, more of an issue. attorney question of how that works out exactly, but that does, SB 79 does allow you to do a density bonus on top of what SB 79 is.

Is that something that we have to do or is that something that we could still in the future? not regulate, but adjust or tinker around. Because some areas may be more heavily impacted than others. And the question is, is it always the best to go as high as you can? Or is there flexibility for Oakland to adjust that? Or is it just because it's state law now, it does not last for us to do?

This is Michael Branson. I'm going to attempt to answer your question from the legal framework. So as the speaker alluded to, neither of those projects are using SB 79. I'm speaking a little bit off the cuff here, but the Trader Joe's project is very close to the BART site, so it would receive the largest allowance under SB 79. That said, the Oakland zoning is quite generous on that site as well. That's why you're seeing the proposal that you're seeing. The other project is closer to the half mile band, which I can pull up the specific requirements if that's helpful to you, but I think...

Ketop, can we have the presentation back? Thank you.

Okay, great. And so we're talking about BART. We're talking about BART, so we're looking at the tier one half mile, which allows for 65 feet. But SB 79 also allows for pairing with density bonus. That's written into state law. It's not part of any local city requirement. I don't feel like I've answered your question fully, so please feel free to follow up.

These projects are not using SP 79 because I guess they were before it got into effect. But I know the public commenter mentioned projects potentially 500 plus feet. So is that, I mean, once now that SP 79 is in effect and all the density bonuses can be applied on top of each other, I mean, there's no more flexibility on the city's side to, I wouldn't say it rain in some of these heights, but... Is it what it is now, or is there still for us the opportunity to...

I mean, what I would say is that, you know, part of us working on the alternative plan is to look at, you know, a more nuanced approach than what SB 79 is. And so right now in, you know, the Rockridge area, there were not exclusions we could apply to that area. So SB 79 is in effect, but as part of the alternative plan, there may be some variations of potentially higher heights and densities the closer you get to the BART station and some of these areas maybe further away might be lower potentially than what SB 79 is showing on here. So that's where you can get into some of that nuance. But we still are required as a city by SB 79 to have at least the equivalent density allowance in the whole half mile area. So that density has to go somewhere within that half mile area. So if you, like I said, if you lower one area, then it has to increase in another spot.

Yeah, it's just very, it's a very interesting question. state law because it just looks at a scenario, but then it doesn't necessarily take into account local nuances and whether going as high as you're allowed to do is really the best fit for that specific space. So I was just wondering if there's any ability to help that nuance, but it doesn't necessarily sound like we do, which is unfortunate, but thank you.

I just want to note, too, you said that it would allow for up to 500 feet, and I think the speaker mentioned 500 units. The heights are up to 95 feet, and then...

Okay.

Okay. I'll speak to the public commenter afterwards to understand that position. I'd like to understand it a little bit more, but the height requirements under our local requirements for, I think that's in the, there's some RM, there's some RUs, there's some CCs that they kind of cap out, except for immediately around Bardot and the 95-foot mark. Again, the Trader Joe's site's different. And then under SB 79, it would go up to 95 feet and you can get density bonus under SB 79. You can ask for height waivers, but it's restricted only so that you can't ask for a height waiver if it's in excess of the local height limit. So there are some restrictions on getting height waivers under SB 79.

Also, we do have the ability to have local height limits then still, it sounds like. Okay. Yes.

But I will note under the density bonus law, which is what's being applied currently, they can ask for waivers to the height limits.

Okay.

So that's why the projects now are taller, because they're asking for waivers in order to accommodate the density that's allowed for the density bonus project.

Okay, so what is, I don't know, maybe we don't have to go into this, but maybe at a future meeting, we'd love to hear what the maximum.

I think your questions are, correct me if I'm wrong, they seem to be more about the projects and maybe the general plan, loot, phase two, and less so about SB 79 in particular. So we probably should agendize a topic related to kind of looking at that topic more holistically.

It wasn't actually, it was just projects in general that will come back under SB 79, not specifically about those two projects, but I think it would be helpful maybe in the future to maybe have a more in-depth conversation about SB 79 and what it actually means to potential future projects. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation. I don't really have any further comments. I think we had a really robust discussion here earlier this year about this item and then it went to council and some of what we recommended was adopted. They added some extra things in and I understand this item to be you know, pretty administrative, trying to right-size and adhere to the comments from HCD and MTC to come into full compliance. So I don't have further questions on the item today and I'm happy to move the recommendation forward. I think as the phase two of the general plan continues and we have more conversations about land use items and the zoning code, maybe we can continue the conversation that Commissioner Randolph has started. And I look forward to having that piece because I think Yeah, there is some sensitivity that we need to have in different parts of Oakland, especially around gentrification and displacement and the flip side of that process of exclusion that we have seen. So I'm looking forward to having that conversation as part of the phase two of the general plan.

Through the chair, if we can make sure in your motion to include the updated map, or is that not needed?

It's not needed. It's not needed? Yeah, the parcels that were at issue were the ones that were being excluded and that's showing on the other attachment.

Thank you, do I have a motion?

Can I move to forward staff's recommendation to the City Council? Do we have to read everything?

That's sufficient for me.

That's my motion.

Second.

Commissioner Rank? Yes. Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Vice Chair Randolph?

Yes.

Chair Aaron? Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, moving on to appeals, which I believe we have none of. So I will move us on to commission business. And our first item is the approval of the minutes from the July 15th, 2026 meeting. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Move to approve the minutes. I forgot, what was the date again? It was July 15th. Oh, moved to approve the July 15th minutes. Second.

Second by Randolph.

The minutes?

Did someone second? Oh, sorry. Commissioner Rank? Yes. Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Vice Chair Randolph? Yes. And Chair Aarons?

Yes. Okay, and then I have correspondence, which I don't think we have any of, but I do, Vice Chair Randolph, did you have an item?

Yeah, I thought it was at the end, but I think when there's commission business, I guess the overall question that's not on the agenda, but I warned Director Gilchrist that I was gonna mention something or just ask a general question. It doesn't need to be answered right now, but it's something for, something to come back, I think, for the commission. I'm not sure if other commissioners have, but I have received a fair amount of questions and concerns about this idea of data centers in Oakland, coming to Oakland, being in Oakland. And the more I looked into it, and I appreciate all the the questions that were answered by city staff, but it is not clear to me currently if there's really an existing CUP category or zoning code that captures the concept of what a current day use of the data center actually is. Just a quick database search shows that there are already existing data centers operating in Oakland under existing use permits, either like industrial, commercial, or a previous laboratory data center use permit. The question I really had about where in the administrative review are some of the public concerns and questions addressed that have been raised. And these concerns range from impact to community, bordering residents and businesses, and the environment specifically. You can talk about noise, water impact, energy use, air quality. impact on our power grid that might not be ready for high intense data use, data center use. And then from my conversation with city staff, there seems to be no current use specifically for data centers. So there's no way for the city to really adequately track of what it currently is, of where it could be coming in, and what an actual approval process could be that is more transparent and responsive to some of these concerns. Not saying that I am personally against data centers, but I think there just needs to maybe be more transparency for future projects. So currently, I was told that there are several different kinds of functions and operations that are commonly referred to as a data center, and based on the specifics of any given potential proposal, different regulations and standards for city review could apply. Generally speaking, the city expects that any business proposing a major project in Oakland that could affect residents would include in their approach a robust and equitable community engagement process, but that might not always be the case. obviously the city cannot speculate on cup needs for some of these projects happen in the news since no formal plans or permits have been or applications have been submitted but i think there's just a lot of confusion and concerns and ideas of what a data center is yet there are many different times that have kind of a large spectrum of external impacts so i would love to maybe learn at a future commission meeting of what the city is maybe planning to do about potentially adding a specific category that captures data centers more appropriately for us to be able to track where they coming in how they're being used and having a more robust conversation of what that type of use maybe should look like in our city because there's still of concerns of gentrification Where in the city are they going into? I know West Oakland has been cited as a resource, but what is the impact going to be? So that's just some of the concerns and thoughts I've had. I know other cities have specific categories in their zoning codes and planning codes on ways to more equitably, I guess, manage the potential growth. I know we have a really strong environmental justice component to all of our codes and overall priorities, and I don't want that to be lost when it comes to these data centers coming into our communities. Thank you.

So we'll take that forward and potentially come forward as a, you know, discuss about potentially bringing it forward as an informational item, but we can take it up with the director and deputy director.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, any city council actions?

I don't have anything to report now.

Okay. All right, and with that, I will adjourn today's meeting at 4.04 p.m., and our next meeting is currently scheduled for September 16th. Thank you so much. technically it's the 16th but it's sorry it's cancelled and the next meeting will be September 23rd a special meeting thank you