[1:28] Call to order

[1:29] the september 2nd planning commission meeting.

[1:33] can we please have the roll call?

[1:35] yes, commissioner.

[1:36] rink.

[1:39] here, commissioner randolph.

[1:41] I'm sorry. Commissioner lee.

[1:43] here. Vice chair. Randolph.

[1:46] yeah. Chair. Aarons here.

[1:49] we have a quorum,

[1:51] and I'm keith vollmann, and I'll be filling in for,

[1:53] planning commission secretary kathleen payne today.

[1:56] thank you.

[1:58] okay, moving on to commission business.

[2:00] is there any agenda discussion?

[2:05] seeing none.

[2:06] a director's report?

[2:08] no director's report today. Okay.

[2:11] I don't believe we have any informational items.

[2:14] no informational reports

[2:17] and any committee reports.

[2:19] I don't think we've had committee

[2:21] since the last meeting.

[2:23] okay,

[2:24] we're moving on through.

[2:27] all right. Commission matters.

[2:28] we do have one item here today.

[2:32] so this is the recognition of commissioner sandoval and commissioner rob.

[2:37] commissioner sandoval is here in the room,

[2:39] and I believe commissioner rob is listening through k top.

[2:42] so hello out there.

[2:43] if you're tuned in,

[2:47] so I'll just start off to say,

[2:49] thank you on behalf of the commission for your service.

[2:52] over the last three years,

[2:54] it's been really such a joy to work with you.

[2:58] I will miss you.

[2:59] commissioner sandoval on the commission.

[3:03] I have found you to be very level headed.

[3:05] you take in all the information.

[3:07] you're very thoughtful and present,

[3:08] and you have always shared how and why

[3:10] you've made your decisions.

[3:12] and I really value that transparency.

[3:15] and I feel that you've always put oakland first

[3:18] to have a thriving, vibrant, beautiful city.

[3:22] and so your presence here will be missed.

[3:25] thank you so much for your service.

[3:28] if any other commissioners have things to share

[3:30] for commissioner sandoval, I'll open up the floor

[3:32] and then we can share some words about commissioner rob.

[3:39] I'll just say ditto is been a pleasure serving with you.

[3:42] and, you'll be very missed, but we'll keep in touch.

[3:50] yeah, I want to say ditto as well.

[3:52] and just, thank you for your service. And,

[3:55] you were a great role model for me.

[3:57] and, it was always really helpful

[3:59] to hear your thoughts about things.

[4:01] thanks.

[4:05] yeah. I also want to say thank you. Definitely took a lot of points from you.

[4:08] what vice chair means to be.

[4:10] and hopefully I will be able to step into those shoes.

[4:13] the three plus years with you flew kind of by.

[4:17] by the time we all got used to the commission

[4:19] and learned all the ins into good details.

[4:23] you're gone already.

[4:24] so I'll definitely miss your

[4:26] your patience and your your comments

[4:28] and your definitely your your diverse viewpoint.

[4:31] I think with all the commissioners that we have

[4:34] had on the commission, I think we're a very good set

[4:37] and a very good group of commissioners

[4:39] that all have a very unique

[4:40] and important view and role to play, and you

[4:44] definitely will be missed with

[4:46] not only your professional background, but also being an oak islander.

[4:50] for sure. So, hopefully you'll you'll be on

[4:52] now on the other side of all the important projects

[4:54] that the city is working on and hopefully continue

[4:56] to work on, on all the housing and other projects that will,

[5:01] impact the city for generations.

[5:02] so thank you for your service.

[5:07] on behalf of, city staff and the city as a whole,

[5:09] want to thank both commissioner sandoval and rob for,

[5:13] volunteering and your service, over the past few years.

[5:16] and, just, you know,

[5:18] thank you for in addition to review of projects that come

[5:21] before this decision making body

[5:23] also being involved in the first phase

[5:26] of all the general plan updates that have, gone forward over the past few years,

[5:29] as well as adoption of the and review of the objective

[5:33] design standards.

[5:34] and, I believe edmond ac, the deputy director,

[5:37] is also here to speak.

[5:44] oh, thank you very much.

[5:47] yeah. Edmond ac, deputy director planning just wanted a second.

[5:49] everything everyone said.

[5:51] wanted to give my personal thanks.

[5:53] and also from the, the director, bill gilchrist,

[5:56] who hoped to be here, but was, has a meeting conflict.

[6:00] so he wasn't able to be here. But,

[6:03] on behalf of the entire, bureau department,

[6:06] I just wanted to thank, centerville.

[6:10] and, the other, excuse me.

[6:14] yes. And, sandoval, thank you so much for your service.

[6:16] appreciate it.

[6:24] yes. And we're handing out the certificates.

[6:31] thank you so much.

[6:33] and for commissioner rob, as you're listening through.

[6:36] okay, tom, just wanted to say,

[6:39] and here's yours, commissioner rob.

[6:40] yes, there it is.

[6:43] city staff have told me that they will find a way to mail it to you.

[6:46] so keep a lookout in your,

[6:49] post office box, I guess, for that.

[6:52] but just wanted to say thank you for your expertise as an architect.

[6:55] your perspective was really valuable here on the commission.

[6:59] and I always look to you for your support

[7:01] on the design review committee, and I appreciated

[7:05] your thoughtful questions and com presence.

[7:07] so your, work on the commission will also be missed.

[7:11] and I hope that we can find another architect very soon.

[7:18] yeah. I want to echo that I was going to mention the architect piece,

[7:19] because we're reviewing so many important details

[7:23] of a lot of projects and really having

[7:25] the expertise of an architect

[7:27] is not something that I think will be missed in the meantime.

[7:30] and I know that the city council mentioned

[7:32] during several appointment hearings and,

[7:36] city council meetings and an architect

[7:37] is very important to have on the commission.

[7:39] so hopefully the three vacancies that we're having will be able

[7:43] to fill that important role.

[7:44] and I think commissioner bob has done

[7:46] a really, really good job on several, projects

[7:49] to really provide that from

[7:51] from signage to, to frontage to all kinds of different things.

[7:54] the only thing an architect really knows

[7:57] is something that will be sorely missed.

[7:59] thank you.

[8:05] yeah. And I want to especially thank, commissioner rob, because he reached out to me

[8:07] when I, after I joined and we had coffee

[8:09] and it was helpful to hear his thoughts and,

[8:11] his presence will be missed.

[8:15] I'll echo again what everyone has said.

[8:17] commissioner rob up in the ether.

[8:20] we'll miss you. And good luck with all of your future endeavors.

[8:26] wonderful.

[8:28] thank you. I also want to use a little bit of chair's discretion to thank,

[8:31] commissioner rank, for serving as chair.

[8:34] I missed the first meeting in july.

[8:38] that was a transition. Thank you for stepping in, vice chair.

[8:41] randolph, I just want to say thank you for your service

[8:43] as chair over the last year.

[8:45] plus, I really learned a lot from you

[8:47] and value your expertise and your presence

[8:50] and, look forward to continuing to work together.

[8:54] and I'm sure you're happy you're

[8:58] over there now. So just wanted to say thank you all I while I had the mic.

[9:00] thank you so much I appreciate that.

[9:01] and yeah, I want life on the other side.

[9:03] it was going to be good.

[9:05] but I'm always here to to help tim.

[9:07] so thank you.

[9:12] all right. Thank you so much. Moving on from commission matters.

[9:14] do we have a city attorney's report?

[9:17] no city attorney's report today. Thanks.

[9:19] okay. Excellent.

[9:21] okay. Moving on to open forum.

[9:24] these,

[9:26] this is a time for members of the public

[9:27] to speak on any item of interest

[9:29] that is not listed on the agenda today.

[9:32] and I'm happy to give two minutes for speaker.

[9:38] today, status?

[9:41] yes. You can come up to the front of fill out a comment

[9:43] card.

[9:44] yeah. Thank you.

[9:45] so, we have a few speakers for open forum.

[9:48] we have jack, tanya,

[9:52] and I'll call you in groups of three.

[9:54] jack, tanya and michael.

[10:02] and if you wouldn't mind, can you, state your name for the record?

[10:05] sure.

[10:06] just give me a second to

[10:09] pull up. I'm going to see,

[10:12] hi, I'm jack person.

[10:14] I've lived on auburn avenue in rock ridge for nearly 30 years.

[10:20] I'm here representing rock ridge neighbors for sensible housing.

[10:22] as you may know, we have nearly 2500 signatures

[10:26] on our petition calling for,

[10:30] modifications to the proposal for a senior

[10:32] care facility at 6230 claremont avenue.

[10:36] why do we keep coming here?

[10:38] you have heard from us and from me before

[10:41] about the proposed senior care facility at 6230 claremont.

[10:45] you know, we're in favor

[10:46] of such a facility, but we think it's much too big.

[10:50] we think planning staff has overestimated the planned

[10:52] number of allowed units by a huge margin, more than 75%.

[10:56] that's because staff apply to gross to conversion factor and

[11:00] and a mixed,

[11:03] unit factor, mixed use factor,

[11:05] neither of which the application should receive.

[11:07] as I've presented here before, I've written in,

[11:11] rock ridge voice about it.

[11:13] I've written letters to you and and to staff.

[11:17] without them, the building would have to be at least,

[11:21] ten feet lower, have at least 30 fewer units than they planned,

[11:24] plus have adequate setbacks and bigger setbacks.

[11:28] so we have to ask,

[11:30] are you hearing what we say, what 2500 people are saying?

[11:33] or is the purpose just to let us blow off steam?

[11:37] what do the unreasonably large allowed densities

[11:39] mean for the college avenue corridor?

[11:41] what would they mean going forward

[11:44] if these are allowed, these,

[11:46] especially the, gross to net, it's it's it's ridiculous.

[11:50] there's no basis for it.

[11:51] if you look at the reference in the zoning code bulletin,

[11:55] it says explicitly

[11:56] it shouldn't be applied in those

[11:57] in that site and in that district.

[12:01] so what will mean is buildings well over 100ft

[12:04] tall lined up and down college avenue.

[12:07] it will mean that, as in berkeley,

[12:09] the small shops which give the neighborhood

[12:11] the character and the pedestrian orientation

[12:14] which you supposedly want will be gone.

[12:18] they'll be gone. Because who will be able to afford it other than, very deep pocketed, very high

[12:21] end and, and franchises of national chains.

[12:24] that's what is coming here.

[12:27] that's what's invited.

[12:28] this gigantic proposal at, the trader joe's site at rockridge.

[12:33] thank you so much for your time. We hope the time has elapsed.

[12:37] okay. We hope that, you will step in, that you will help

[12:39] step up and plan. Thank you.

[12:42] thank you.

[12:47] next.

[12:52] hi there. My name is tanya pamplona, and I live on harwood avenue,

[12:55] which is two blocks from the proposed development.

[12:58] I am not opposed to it in principle.

[13:01] I understand there's no stopping it.

[13:04] I am, however, opposed to an eight storey building with over 200 units

[13:07] that sits right up against my neighbors single,

[13:10] single storey family homes.

[13:12] this development will not block my sunlight,

[13:15] nor will I have someone peering into my bedroom window.

[13:19] it will affect my ability

[13:21] to park on my street, which has already impacted.

[13:24] being a good neighbor means having regard

[13:26] for your neighbors, their homes, and their communities.

[13:31] we all know that seniors, like so many in the bay area, need affordable housing.

[13:35] we all know that $13,000 a month is not affordable

[13:39] housing, least of all for seniors.

[13:42] we have a walkable community with lots of trees, people

[13:45] who maintain their gardens and homes on college

[13:47] avenue themselves, and many locally owned businesses.

[13:51] what I'm asking for is housing that looks

[13:54] and acts like housing.

[13:56] what I need is a good neighbor.

[13:58] here's what I'm asking for a building that enhances

[14:02] the neighborhood, making it more livable, not less.

[14:05] a design that reflects housing, not commercial real estate.

[14:10] a landscaping that reflects the neighborhood.

[14:17] fewer stories to lessen the impact and density and community density.

[14:21] step backs from our neighborhoods,

[14:23] neighbors properties and ample parking.

[14:27] and finally, regard for the residents who will live in the building

[14:30] and paying a lot of money to do it.

[14:32] they will be moving here for the neighborhood

[14:34] where they live should reflect that character so they too

[14:37] can enjoy it.

[14:40] they need studio apartments with sizes that are livable,

[14:43] a traffic intersection that will accommodate elderly people

[14:47] and ample parking spaces so that they too, can park

[14:51] near their homes.

[14:53] frankly, I move if it were next to my house

[14:57] and I encourage you all to head to rockridge and see what

[15:00] the proposal looks like and acts like in that area.

[15:04] thank you, thank you, thank you,

[15:07] michael.

[15:12] afternoon.

[15:13] my name is michael mayor.

[15:15] I live about a block from the site of the 6230 claremont site,

[15:18] and I've lived there for 35 years.

[15:20] we all support building housing on this site in claremont.

[15:24] the city needs housing of all types, market rate, low income and senior.

[15:27] the existing red cross building

[15:28] has been an eyesore for a few years and

[15:30] a new building could be great for the neighborhood,

[15:32] but the sheer mass of this building

[15:34] is so out of character for this spot.

[15:37] the applicant submittal claims the project is consistent

[15:40] with the local land use framework,

[15:41] but then they ask for significant waivers

[15:43] to the zoning limits in place regarding height and setbacks.

[15:48] so by definition, it is no longer consistent with the land use plan

[15:51] and the character of the neighborhood.

[15:52] there are areas in the city that can absorb a building

[15:55] of this enormous mass, but in this neighborhood

[15:57] it is going to make a life altering dent in the lives

[16:01] of a lot of residents. For blocks around in the narrow side streets of florio

[16:04] and auburn, harwood and mystic, manoa and rockwell and beyond.

[16:09] at a community meeting the developer held for neighbors

[16:11] a few months ago, I asked him,

[16:13] can't this project pencil out with one fewer floor?

[16:17] he said, no. I said, can you explain the numbers to me?

[16:18] and he said, I don't have to. Well,

[16:20] he doesn't have to tell me, but he does have to tell you.

[16:23] please challenge him to prove why modest and sensible

[16:26] modifications of the design can't be done,

[16:28] and still allow his firm a profit, even moderate setbacks.

[16:32] and what would be a 90ft wall

[16:34] a few steps from small homes would be so important.

[16:37] we're not asking for the world

[16:38] just for the developer to live up to his word

[16:40] that this project will be a good neighbor.

[16:42] this commission can get them to honor this pledge.

[16:45] thank you,

[16:46] thank you, thank you.

[16:50] ellen.

[17:07] no worries.

[17:09] you're made up. Bring you a microphone and you can sit down while you speak.

[17:10] okay?

[17:17] good afternoon, commissioners.

[17:19] my name is ellen koehler,

[17:21] a 55 year resident of the neighborhood.

[17:24] I'm here to address the proposed senior

[17:26] living facility at 6230 claremont avenue.

[17:31] while I do support the goal of providing 200 plus units

[17:34] of senior housing,

[17:35] we cannot ignore the lethal reality of the corridor

[17:38] where these vulnerable residents will live.

[17:42] recently, this stretch of claremont has claimed two lives.

[17:45] july 20th 2567 year old roderick

[17:49] red was killed at claremont and the uplands.

[17:53] february 4th, 20 2672 year old billy grant

[17:57] was killed in the 6000 block mere steps from this project.

[18:01] this isn't a theoretical risk.

[18:03] it's a proven pattern.

[18:05] we're proposing to place a large population of seniors,

[18:08] including those in a memory care

[18:10] wing, directly into a high speed traffic environment

[18:13] that is already failing to protect pedestrians.

[18:17] this issue is personal to me.

[18:20] in fact, my son was struck by a car in this neighborhood,

[18:22] but thankfully he survived.

[18:30] city data shows that residents age 65

[18:33] and older are three times more likely

[18:35] to be killed in traffic than younger residents.

[18:38] furthermore, the high injury network maps confirm

[18:42] that while claremont avenue

[18:44] makes up a small percentage of our streets,

[18:45] it accounts for a disproportionate number

[18:48] of severe injuries and deaths.

[18:51] approving this project without a comprehensive

[18:54] pre-construction safety hall of the claremont

[18:57] and college avenue intersection is frankly negligent.

[19:02] I urge the commission to require a binding traffic

[19:05] safety mitigation plan as a condition of approval.

[19:09] we need daylighting, protected crossings and speed

[19:13] reduction measures before the first resident moves in.

[19:18] let's not wait for a third tragedy to realize the current infrastructure is insufficient

[19:22] for the population we are inviting here.

[19:24] thank you very much.

[19:26] thank you.

[19:29] just just.

[19:32] paul.

[19:37] good afternoon, commissioners.

[19:39] paul friedman, nice to see you again.

[19:41] I'll try not to repeat, but I'll start with,

[19:44] where elon ended up, because almost every day

[19:47] I cross claremont avenue with my two year

[19:50] old granddaughter, and it is treacherous.

[19:54] even no matter how careful you are.

[19:58] and this is going to lead to a significant increase in traffic and trucks

[20:01] and deliveries, etc..

[20:05] what's been on my mind

[20:06] lately is that there is a win win to achieve here.

[20:10] a right sized senior housing development at 6230,

[20:13] in keeping with the neighborhood scale.

[20:17] but the developer has so far shown zero interest

[20:21] in compromising,

[20:23] taking into account the needs of the neighborhood.

[20:24] we've read about in the papers

[20:27] about some of the concessions at the trader joe's sites.

[20:30] here. Not a,

[20:33] we support senior housing.

[20:36] you've heard we think that there needs to be reduced scale setbacks.

[20:40] one floor less, one story less,

[20:45] safety measures.

[20:47] and now a legal point.

[20:49] both the city and the developer apparently

[20:52] rely on an administrative zoning bulletin to apply.

[20:55] and that in support of the net acreage multiplier.

[21:00] I'm not a land use lawyer, but I am a lawyer,

[21:03] and I know that the opinion

[21:07] of one single city employee

[21:11] can have no legal binding effect,

[21:14] and yet it seems to be heavily relied on by all

[21:17] concerned here in justifying the density bonus,

[21:21] I don't think that's going to hold up.

[21:25] the density bonus

[21:26] calculations exceed what the general plan permit.

[21:30] they're legally flawed, and they need to be looked at.

[21:34] all we ask is that this project is held accountable to legal

[21:39] standards, traffic safety and proper neighborhood scale.

[21:43] we're looking for a win win. Thank you.

[21:46] thank you.

[21:47] connor.

[22:00] hello. My name is connor. I'm with the no data center oakland, coalition.

[22:02] and I've said no, nothing has come to this body

[22:04] about data centers oakland at this point,

[22:06] but I'm just here, you know, anticipating

[22:08] that that is going to happen in the future.

[22:10] you know, when the bearing company

[22:11] announced, a few weeks ago that,

[22:13] plans to make a data center in downtown oakland,

[22:16] the same week that there were two announcements

[22:18] about ai infrastructure coming to west oakland.

[22:21] you know, a petition was launched by the no data center coalition,

[22:24] that right now has reached 7000 over 7000 signatures.

[22:27] and really, the core of this coalition

[22:29] and the people are signing, are wanting to understand is

[22:33] who decides the future of oakland?

[22:35] is it the people who live here, work here, raise families here?

[22:39] or is it tech billionaires who

[22:41] see the city as an opportunity to enrich themselves

[22:45] at the scene? Of course, across the country, you know,

[22:46] and in the same way that across the country,

[22:48] community has been pushing back on data centers,

[22:50] you know, people in oakland are feeling similar sentiments.

[22:53] so I'm just here to just, you know, raise

[22:55] this issue, anticipating

[22:56] that this will likely come up in the future.

[22:59] to make sure you're aware of, you know,

[23:00] how many members of the community

[23:02] are feeling about the prospect of data centers

[23:04] coming to oakland and make sure this is, on your attention?

[23:07] thank you.

[23:11] thank you. We have one more speaker, khalid. Hi.

[23:23] I'm glad he was. He came before me because that's my concern was,

[23:26] if it's inevitable, ai and data centers,

[23:30] I feel like it's very important that you guys can see

[23:33] if you can get some resources

[23:34] out of them to do a live class in some of the underserved.

[23:38] schools.

[23:39] so they're really prepared.

[23:40] the kids for life for real, like

[23:43] taxes, job interviews,

[23:46] cyber, the cyber age that were coming across

[23:49] it, you know, all the things that are very practical.

[23:52] what for me, what would be

[23:54] a tragedy is a 90s oakland.

[23:58] all the

[24:00] the drugs that came in and all the guns that came in

[24:02] that weren't even from us came destroy the community,

[24:08] then gentrified

[24:10] or colonized or whatever you want to call it.

[24:13] and then,

[24:15] the people's republic and

[24:16] instead of living in prosperity

[24:17] on the on the blood of all my people,

[24:20] it's for you to shed yourself many karmic consequences

[24:25] to make sure all these billionaires, if it's inevitable, if,

[24:27] if if guys like him can win and be great.

[24:29] but which I would hope he can have one

[24:31] with bernie sanders and his perspective.

[24:34] but if it's inevitable,

[24:36] let's make sure that the few percentage

[24:39] of poor black people that are here can get a life class.

[24:42] I would recommend a life class, a sponsored life class,

[24:45] that job training, you know, whatever.

[24:47] just some things that are really practical.

[24:48] now everybody's going to college is just not practical.

[24:52] but help them out with the next step.

[24:54] that would just be at least something a cookie.

[24:58] otherwise, this is a totally unjust.

[25:00] thank you so much. Peace.

[25:03] thank you. That was our final speaker for open forum.

[25:07] thank you so much.

[25:09] before we move to the next item, I want to ask staff

[25:13] if there is an update on the application for the,

[25:17] 6230 claremont project.

[25:21] I know I was not at the last meeting in early july,

[25:25] but in that intervening time, is there an update that you can share?

[25:27] it's currently still under review.

[25:30] there was a, I believe, a completeness

[25:32] letter sent out and the zoning consistency is under review.

[25:35] and I think we identified a number of items

[25:37] that they're working on responding to,

[25:39] as well as in departmental comments. And.

[25:44] thank you.

[25:47] yes, through the chair's I have a quick follow up.

[25:50] do or is staff still working on the sequel determination,

[25:53] or did it come in as an ab?

[25:55] 130 no.

[25:56] did not come in as a ab 130

[25:59] there is the secret document that's being prepared

[26:01] and it's still in admin draft form right now.

[26:03] so, it's not public yet, but okay. Thank you.

[26:10] thank you.

[26:13] okay. I'm going to move us on to the consent calendar,

[26:15] which I believe we have no items on.

[26:18] so I will move us on to public hearings.

[26:21] and we have one item today, which is,

[26:28] an update from staff on the update

[26:29] to the sb 79.

[26:34] suite of activities.

[26:36] I'll pass it to you.

[26:37] thank you so much.

[26:38] and before staff

[26:41] make their presentation, I did note that there was an additional document,

[26:43] distributed and it's made available to the public as well.

[26:47] the commission needs to make a motion to accept

[26:50] the supplemental materials, before the presentations meet.

[26:54] moved to accept, second.

[26:59] I do I need to okay.

[27:03] sorry I caught you off guard.

[27:04] oh, sorry.

[27:05] commissioner rink.

[27:07] yes, commissioner.

[27:08] lee. Yes, vice chair randolph. Yes.

[27:12] chair. Aarons. Yes.

[27:16] the motion passes to accept the documents into the record.

[27:19] and the items are on the table for any members of the public

[27:22] that would like one.

[27:46] this is mike. You gotta push the button.

[27:49] ktab. Can we get the presentation?

[27:57] oh, I think it needs to be.

[28:01] for the parking. Yes.

[28:12] sure. Just use.

[28:16] maybe try the signage.

[28:18] I can do something that.

[28:19] oh, it won't reach the other side.

[28:23] the, k talks coming up.

[28:25] okay. Oh, you don't plug in the hdmi.

[28:27] we need the hdmi cable.

[28:29] there's always the shorty.

[28:33] right here.

[28:35] oh, can we move the podium?

[28:37] does it? Okay.

[28:38] there just.

[28:40] there it is.

[28:41] oh, sorry.

[28:42] that's okay.

[31:18] the other computer was all good.

[31:56] yeah.

[32:26] yeah.

[32:28] okay. Yes.

[33:06] I'll accept some comments. For.

[33:20] sorry about that.

[33:21] technical difficulties.

[33:24] good afternoon chair, vice chair and commissioners.

[33:28] my name is kelly cha. I'm here to present the, agenda item number two on amendments

[33:32] to planning code chapter 1786, or,

[33:36] commonly I'll be referring to sb

[33:38] 17 nine amendments.

[33:43] oh, so just to provide, some reminder,

[33:49] the sb 79 was enacted, back in october 2025.

[33:53] establishing an effective date of

[33:56] july 1st of this year.

[33:58] and, the state law basically allows higher

[34:02] density, height and floor area ratio

[34:05] in designated transit oriented development area code areas

[34:09] to encourage more housing near transit.

[34:13] and oakland adopted

[34:15] its local exclusion ordinance back in march this year.

[34:19] and this ordinance temporarily excludes

[34:23] certain parcels and pod areas using three different categories

[34:28] of exclusions, which I will, detail a little bit later.

[34:32] and in june we have received comments from both state

[34:36] each city,

[34:37] that the california department

[34:38] of housing and community development,

[34:40] as well as metropolitan transportation commission mtc,

[34:46] stating that oakland's ordinance and related map needed

[34:49] to be amended it to bring them into full compliance.

[34:54] since then, staff has,

[34:56] coordinated with those agencies and,

[34:59] prepare the prepare the amendments to the ordinance.

[35:02] and we are here today, at the planning commission,

[35:06] to present these staff recommended amendments to,

[35:09] bring the ordinance to full compliance.

[35:11] and upon that recommendation from the commission,

[35:14] we will be moving forward with the, cd committee and city

[35:19] council hearing this month and next month.

[35:23] so this is just showing, the density standards that's

[35:27] that was included that is included in sb 79.

[35:30] so there's tier one and tier two stops and these are allowed

[35:34] maximum height density and floor area ratio.

[35:38] and for oakland we have used these three exclusions.

[35:42] so the first one was any parcels where oakland's zoning allows

[35:46] at least 50% of the residential cap capacity

[35:50] in of sb 79 standards, and that includes

[35:54] both high and low resources, resource areas. And,

[36:01] let's see, the second exclusion is any parcels,

[36:05] that qualify as, low resource areas, when existing

[36:09] zoning already provides at least 40% of residential capacity.

[36:13] so that's, that's the two d zones.

[36:15] and this particular exclusion actually applies

[36:18] to the entirety of these zones instead of, individual parcels.

[36:24] and the third one is that parcels that are local register historic resources,

[36:27] and that includes lands landmark historic districts and

[36:31] some potentially designated

[36:34] historic properties with some conditions.

[36:41] and so staff presented the planning code and related

[36:46] zoning map back in the city council, with all these, three,

[36:50] all the areas eligible for exclusion.

[36:53] and back in march, actually,

[36:56] the council made specific amendments

[36:57] to remove certain areas,

[36:59] and that includes, sort of east of lake merritt

[37:01] as well as the area surrounding coliseum bart station,

[37:05] to encourage more housing development in those areas.

[37:08] and as I have mentioned previously,

[37:10] we have received some comments from these two agencies.

[37:13] on june 10th, we received comments

[37:16] from mtc basically saying that, their map.

[37:21] so mtc has created and prepared a regional sb 7079 map

[37:26] for to assist local jurisdictions like oakland,

[37:30] for their implementation.

[37:31] and they have informed us their half mile buffers,

[37:36] for the tod zones.

[37:39] they were a little bit a slightly different from oakland's adopted maps.

[37:42] it's because of,

[37:44] there are some differences and, of use.

[37:47] so we, they have used a little bit different,

[37:51] different access points, for these transit stops.

[37:56] but the changes are negligible.

[37:57] so it wasn't up to much of a concern.

[38:00] and, and in addition to that, they also requested,

[38:04] for new transit stops to be added.

[38:06] and that's all from, uptown.

[38:09] the transit center stops.

[38:12] and two days later, actually, on june 12th, we received,

[38:16] comments from the state hcd and state, basically,

[38:22] informed us that the oakland's local exclusion ordinance is not

[38:26] fully in compliance with sb 79, and the primary reason

[38:31] is that the state each city considers any parcels with

[38:38] zoning that allows residential or commercial use alongside

[38:41] with another use to be, a mixed use

[38:46] zone making is subject to sb 79 standards. So,

[38:51] before the ordinance, actually,

[38:54] considered open space and, industrial parcels ineligible.

[38:58] so we had to make them, eligible, basically.

[39:02] and because open space and industrial

[39:04] zones actually allow some commercial uses,

[39:07] they were saying that we need to actually amend those.

[39:10] so, and in addition,

[39:12] in addition to that, they have requested city

[39:14] to align our map with the mtc version

[39:18] and also ask for some clear, clarification

[39:21] on clear earlier.

[39:24] and so,

[39:26] to address these feedback, to and bring oakland's

[39:30] ordinance to into full compliance,

[39:34] these following changes have been made

[39:37] to both ordinance and the zoning map.

[39:40] and so the first one is that we removed ac transit

[39:44] 10 to 20 eighth avenue stop.

[39:45] this is the clerical clerical error that hcd has mentioned.

[39:50] and so this is something.

[39:51] so in march, city council has made some amendments

[39:56] to remove certain zones and parcels from exclusion.

[40:01] and this one was actually removed,

[40:04] but it was not reflected in the code.

[40:06] so we're just removing that particular

[40:09] bust up from the code.

[40:11] and we also removed open space and industrial zones

[40:13] from, the list of ineligible sites.

[40:17] so this is reflecting state ex comments.

[40:20] and also as part of that

[40:24] amendments in that particular list,

[40:26] we have added, that phrase, this phrase parcels over which

[40:30] the city of oakland planning bureau does not have

[40:34] a zoning authority. So if we don't have any permitting authority like,

[40:38] state parcels or some of the port

[40:41] properties, then those are ineligible. Now.

[40:47] and to reflect those, text amendments, zoning,

[40:50] that was also updated to designate open space, open

[40:54] space parcels from ineligible to excluded

[40:58] if they fall within an adopted exclusion or covered if not.

[41:03] and that same sort of

[41:07] rationale apply to the industrial parcels.

[41:10] so if they were excluded,

[41:12] within the adopted exclusion area,

[41:15] then they were designated as excluded.

[41:18] the only difference is that we are proposing that,

[41:22] those industrial parcels that were in the areas

[41:26] that were removed from the exclusion.

[41:29] so, those are at the area surrounding

[41:32] coliseum bart station and then the, 14th avenue stop.

[41:36] we're still, recommending them to be excluded,

[41:39] so that we can comprehensively look at it,

[41:42] as part of the alternative plan process.

[41:45] and since there are some land use compatibility issues,

[41:50] so we're proposing that that should be excluded, not

[41:52] the entire t.o.t.

[41:54] so this is,

[41:56] the map that we have included, I apologize.

[42:00] so thank you for, accepting those updated maps, but it's basically showing,

[42:04] the parcels that are now excluded

[42:06] that were before, ineligible.

[42:08] so those orange field parcels were before

[42:12] ineligible industrial parcels.

[42:16] now will be excluded with this adoption.

[42:19] with this amendment.

[42:22] and in addition and then also we have adjusted the zones

[42:28] and parcels within to align with the mtc regional sb 79 map.

[42:34] and we also added for, additional stops

[42:37] in the planning code section, as well as the zoning map.

[42:41] those are included as attachment f in the report.

[42:45] it it, it shows the summary of the calculated calculations

[42:50] that, they actually go over 40% of the residential density.

[42:55] so they are excluded as well.

[42:59] upon receiving a recommendation

[43:02] from the planning commission today, we will be moving forward

[43:06] with, the city committee on the 22nd of september

[43:10] and then to city council on october 6th.

[43:13] and, anticipate the adoption of this amendments

[43:16] on october 20th.

[43:19] and this is a staff recommendation.

[43:22] it's a little bit long.

[43:23] so I'm just going to summarize.

[43:25] the staff is recommending

[43:26] the planning commission to consider

[43:27] and make them into the city council.

[43:29] that amending amending oakland planning code

[43:33] chapter 1786, to address the comments that we received

[43:37] from two agencies and amending the code,

[43:41] the same chapter to exclude additional additional industrial

[43:44] parcels, previously designated as ineligible to excluded

[43:50] and to make a related oakland zoning map updates

[43:54] and making appropriate ceqa findings that includes.

[43:58] sorry, that concludes our staff, staff presentation.

[44:02] and, we're ready to answer any questions.

[44:06] we have, strategic planning manager laura kaminski here, as well as,

[44:09] our deputy director at mercy to answer any questions.

[44:17] thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I'll open it up to commissioners for clarifying questions.

[44:20] commissioner rink, I just have a quick question.

[44:23] have you run these changes by hcd or mtc,

[44:27] to see if they're, if they agree that this fixes the issues

[44:30] in their letter or does this go back to them when it's adopted?

[44:42] yeah. So we've had, quite a number of meetings with the state

[44:44] housing, community development department staff

[44:46] and they have said yet that these changes would address

[44:50] the comments in the letter

[44:51] and would bring us into full compliance.

[44:54] thank you.

[45:05] thank you. I have a question. Could you remind us about

[45:06] how this connects to the general plan phase two?

[45:10] I remember when we talked about this earlier this year. We had

[45:14] discussed having the exclusion sunset.

[45:17] can you remind us how this process fits

[45:20] with the phase two?

[45:25] yeah. So we are as part of our general plan update, looking at,

[45:28] you know, meeting the requirements

[45:29] of the alternative plan for sb 79.

[45:32] so we are in the process of if you know, the stuff

[45:36] that's already been released

[45:37] as far as a draft land use framework actually shows

[45:40] you know, higher densities

[45:43] around the bart stations as well as along international boulevard.

[45:45] so changes of the land use

[45:47] to allow for these higher densities

[45:50] that we would be able to meet the alternative plan for sb 79.

[45:54] and so and then,

[45:57] the intention right now is we're going

[45:59] through all the comments that we've heard from the public

[46:01] during the process, and we're working at the actual

[46:05] draft of the elements.

[46:06] so the land use and transportation element,

[46:10] and we anticipate that that will be in early january, released for then comments

[46:13] from the public.

[46:15] and so that will have some further refinement

[46:16] of the proposed land uses and densities as well.

[46:21] to, you know, for comments.

[46:23] and then the we're anticipating it to be,

[46:27] hopefully it moves forward and you know,

[46:31] we get the all the comments we need

[46:33] that we would then make changes based on the comments.

[46:37] and then, it falls when we anticipate

[46:40] going to council for final or planning commission

[46:43] and council for final adoption.

[46:46] and then as part of that we

[46:47] are also working on zoning code amendments with that.

[46:51] and so we're anticipating we will be making,

[46:55] quite a few zoning code changes,

[46:57] both map and, density allowances,

[47:01] when we actually at the,

[47:03] at the adoption time of the general plan.

[47:05] because as an example, right now

[47:07] there's a proposal for the draft lenny's framework,

[47:10] to eliminate detached residential as a land use

[47:14] category and creating higher densities and, in those areas.

[47:18] so obviously we'll need to reflect

[47:19] that in our zoning as well, that that will match.

[47:22] and so we're hoping that a lot of these,

[47:27] those changes will actually formulate the alternative plan

[47:30] during that process.

[47:34] thank you.

[47:36] any other clarifying questions

[47:39] from commissioners before public comment?

[47:43] okay.

[47:44] let's move to public comment on this item.

[47:47] we have one speaker.

[47:49] jack, did you still want to speak on item number two?

[47:52] okay.

[48:00] william jefferson.

[48:04] oh, right

[48:05] over the human fence from 6230 claremont.

[48:09] I think it be useful to see what

[48:12] the sb 79 densities,

[48:16] how they compare to the, densities currently.

[48:20] for example, I know that sb 79 doesn't apply

[48:25] to the 6230 claremont application

[48:27] or the application of the trader joe's site,

[48:29] because those both filed their, sb 330 preliminary applications

[48:33] prior to july 1st of this year when sb cynthia

[48:37] and I went into effect.

[48:38] but, I have, done calculations for both of those

[48:43] for to verify,

[48:46] that what the developers have claimed is valid.

[48:50] let me say on the trader joe's site, they, claimed 415 units.

[48:56] they qualify for that with your densities

[48:59] and the cn two zone for a 95ft building.

[49:02] of course.

[49:04] then they piggyback on the state density bonus law

[49:07] that takes them up to,

[49:10] well, it takes them, allows them

[49:12] waivers on everything, and they go up over 300ft.

[49:16] now, they didn't know, I guess, about the gross to net conversion,

[49:19] which would bring them up to over 550ft.

[49:22] are you sure that you really want to apply that?

[49:26] I think that you if you do, if you think that's valid,

[49:29] you need to adjust your densities downwards

[49:32] throughout the city to take into account

[49:34] that you've made them unreasonably large.

[49:36] once the gross and that is applied,

[49:38] I'd like you to think about that.

[49:39] I'd like to see the way your densities pre

[49:43] and without sb 79 apply to what happens with sb 79.

[49:47] thank you, thank you.

[49:49] that was our only speaker.

[49:52] thank you.

[49:54] okay, I will open it up for comments

[49:56] and any further discussion from commissioners.

[50:08] quiet group today.

[50:10] I mean I'll just say I mean, I obviously want the city

[50:13] to be in compliance with hcd.

[50:15] so I mean these these changes make make sense to me.

[50:17] I read through the hcd letter, and so, you know,

[50:21] we have to take that kind of compliance seriously.

[50:24] so I support these changes.

[50:28] you know doing that I support these changes as well.

[50:30] but, the recent public commentary about the density

[50:34] bonus changes is something that I was wondering about as well.

[50:37] do you have any thoughts or comments on pre and post sb 79,

[50:43] and how how that might impact some of these projects?

[50:47] I mean, 500 plus feet.

[50:54] I mean, I don't know that I can say offhand about the the heights.

[50:58] I mean, sb 79 does have a height.

[51:03] allowance in it that it talks about and then but it does.

[51:07] actually, sb 79 does allow you to do a density bonus project on top of sb 79.

[51:11] so, that might be,

[51:14] where would it

[51:16] attorney question of how that works out exactly.

[51:18] but but that it does I mean, sb seven does allow you to do

[51:23] density bonus on top of what sb 79 is,

[51:27] is that's something that we have to do,

[51:29] or is that something that we could still in the future

[51:34] not regulate but but

[51:36] but just or tinker around because some

[51:40] some areas may be more heavily impacted than others.

[51:43] and the question is,

[51:46] is it always the best to go as high as you can, or is there

[51:49] flexibility for oakland to adjust that?

[51:53] or is it just because it's state law now?

[51:54] it's just not allows for us to do.

[52:00] this is michael branson. I'm going to attempt to answer your question

[52:02] from the legal framework.

[52:04] so the as the speaker alluded to,

[52:07] neither of those projects are using sb 79.

[52:12] my I'm speaking a little bit off the cuff here, but the

[52:16] the trader joe's project is very close to the bart site,

[52:19] so it would receive the largest, allowance under sb 79.

[52:23] that said, the oakland zoning is quite generous

[52:26] on that site as well, and that's why

[52:28] you see in the proposal that you're seeing,

[52:30] the other project is closer to the half mile band,

[52:36] which I can pull up the specific requirements

[52:39] if that's helpful to you.

[52:40] but I think,

[52:43] you know, I don't know.

[52:47] okay. Stop. Can we have the presentation back?

[52:51] thank you.

[52:57] that.

[52:59] sorry.

[53:00] okay, great.

[53:01] and so we're talking about bart.

[53:04] we're talking about bart. So we're looking at the tier one half mile,

[53:07] which allows for 65ft.

[53:10] but sb 79 also allows for pairing with density.

[53:13] bonus. That's written into state law.

[53:15] that's not part of any, local city

[53:18] requirement.

[53:21] I don't feel like I've answered your question fully,

[53:23] so please feel free to follow up, because that was this.

[53:27] yeah. These projects,

[53:29] these projects are not using sb 79 because I guess they were before

[53:32] it got into effect.

[53:33] but I know the public commenter

[53:35] mentioned projects potentially 500 plus feet.

[53:38] so is that is that mean once now that sb 79 is in effect

[53:42] and all the density bonus is

[53:44] can be applied on top of each other?

[53:46] I mean, it's there's no more flexibility on

[53:49] the city's side to

[53:52] I wouldn't say it, rain in some of these heights, but

[53:58] is it is it what it is now, or is there still for us

[54:00] the opportunity to?

[54:04] I mean, what I would say is that, you know, part of us

[54:07] working on the alternative plan

[54:10] is to look at, you know,

[54:11] a more nuanced approach than what sb 79 is.

[54:13] and so right now in, you know, the rock ridge area,

[54:19] there were not exclusions we could apply to that area.

[54:22] so sb 79 is in effect, that as

[54:25] part of the alternative plan, there may be some variations of,

[54:29] potentially, you know, higher heights and densities.

[54:32] the closer you get to the bart station,

[54:34] then some of these areas may be further

[54:36] away, might be lower potentially, than what sb 79 is showing on here.

[54:40] so that's where you can get into some of that nuance.

[54:42] but we still are required as a city by sb 79

[54:46] to have at least the equivalent density allowance

[54:49] in the whole half mile area, so that density has

[54:53] to go somewhere within that half mile area.

[54:55] so if you like I said, if you lower one area,

[54:57] then it has to increase in another spot.

[55:03] yeah. It's just very it's a very interesting

[55:05] state law because it just

[55:07] looks at this scenario.

[55:10] but then it doesn't necessarily take into account

[55:12] local nuances and whether going as high as you are allowed

[55:17] to do is really the best fit for that specific space.

[55:21] but so I was just wondering

[55:22] if there's any ability to have that nuance,

[55:25] but it doesn't necessarily sound like we do,

[55:27] which is unfortunate, but, thank you.

[55:31] I just want to note to

[55:33] you said that it would allow for up to 500ft,

[55:36] and I think the speaker mentioned 500 units at the heights are up to 95ft.

[55:39] and then

[55:42] if you apply the gross and it would be over

[55:44] 5 to 50ft on what's allowed,

[55:47] the, it's not

[55:50] okay, okay. But.

[55:54] I'll, I'll speak to the public commenter afterwards.

[55:56] I understand that position.

[55:57] I'd like to understand it a little bit more,

[55:58] but the height requirements under,

[56:02] our local requirements for I think that's in the

[56:07] there's some, there's some reuse, there's some ccs

[56:09] that they've kind of cap out,

[56:10] except for immediately around bart at the 95ft mark.

[56:14] again, the trader joe's sites different

[56:18] and then under sb 79, it would go up to 95ft

[56:21] and you can get density bonus under sb 79.

[56:24] you can ask for height waivers, but, it's restricted only,

[56:29] so that you can't ask for a height

[56:31] waiver if it's, in excess of the local height limit.

[56:35] so there are some restrictions

[56:36] on getting height waivers under sb 79.

[56:38] although we do have the ability to to have local height limits

[56:41] then still it sounds like okay. Yes.

[56:44] but I will note under the density bonus law,

[56:46] which is what's being applied currently,

[56:49] the way they could ask for waivers to the height limits.

[56:53] okay, so that's why the projects now are taller

[56:56] because they're asking for waivers to in order to accommodate

[56:58] the density that's allowed for the density bonus project.

[57:02] okay, so what is, know, maybe we don't have to go into that.

[57:04] this. But maybe at a future meeting.

[57:05] I would love to hear what the maximum.

[57:08] oh, I think your questions are.

[57:11] correct me if I'm wrong.

[57:13] they seem to be more about the projects and maybe the general plan

[57:16] phase two, and less so about sb 79 in particular.

[57:20] so we probably should agendize a topic related to kind of

[57:23] looking at that topic more holistically.

[57:26] it was nationally was this put projects in general

[57:28] that will come back under sb 79

[57:31] or specifically about those projects,

[57:32] but I think it would be helpful maybe in the future,

[57:35] to maybe have a more in depth conversation about

[57:39] sb 79 or what it actually means to potential future projects.

[57:44] okay.

[57:44] yeah.

[57:46] thank you.

[57:59] thank you for the presentation.

[58:01] I don't really have any further comments.

[58:04] I think we had a really robust discussion here earlier this year about this item.

[58:08] and then it went to council and there were some

[58:10] some of what we recommended was adopted.

[58:11] they added some extra things in and I understand this

[58:14] item to be

[58:18] you know, pretty administrative, trying to right size

[58:21] and adhere to the comments

[58:22] from cd and mtc to come into full compliance.

[58:26] so I, I don't have further questions on the item today,

[58:29] and I'm happy to, move the recommendation forward.

[58:34] I think as the phase two of the general plan continues

[58:38] and we have more conversations about, land use items and,

[58:43] and the zoning code,

[58:45] maybe we can continue the conversation that commissioner randolph

[58:49] has started. And I look forward to to having that piece because I think,

[58:55] yeah, there is some sensitivity

[58:56] that we need to have in different parts of oakland,

[59:01] especially around gentrification and displacement.

[59:05] and the flip side of that process of exclusion

[59:09] that we've seen,

[59:10] so I'm looking forward to having that conversation,

[59:13] as part of the phase two of the general plan.

[59:20] so let's go through to the chair

[59:22] if we can make sure in your motion to include the,

[59:26] I think, the updated map or is that not needed?

[59:30] it's not needed. It's not.

[59:31] yeah. The, the,

[59:33] parcels that were at issue were the ones

[59:36] that were being excluded. And that's shown on the other attachment.

[59:39] yeah.

[59:43] thank you. Do I have a motion.

[59:45] can I move to, forward staff's recommendation

[59:49] to the city council? Do we have to read everything that's not sufficient for me.

[59:53] that's my motion.

[59:54] second.

[59:57] commissioner rink.

[59:59] yes, commissioner. Lee.

[1:00:01] yes, vice chair. Randolph.

[1:00:03] yes, chair.

[1:00:04] aarons. Yes.

[1:00:08] the motion passes.

[1:00:12] thank you. And thank you.

[1:00:16] all right. Moving on to appeals, which I believe we have none of,

[1:00:20] so I will move us on to commission business.

[1:00:22] and our first item is the approval of the minutes

[1:00:25] from the july 15th, 2026 meeting.

[1:00:29] do I have a motion to approve the minutes?

[1:00:34] move to approve the minutes.

[1:00:39] I forgot what was the date again.

[1:00:42] it was july 15th. I moved to, approve the july 15th minutes.

[1:00:46] a second second by randolph.

[1:00:50] the minutes did someone second.

[1:00:52] oh, sorry.

[1:00:55] commissioner reinke.

[1:00:57] yes, commissioner lee. Yes.

[1:00:59] vice chair. Randolph.

[1:01:01] yes. And chair aarons. Yes.

[1:01:06] okay. And then I have correspondence,

[1:01:08] which I don't think we have any of,

[1:01:10] but I do have I, vice chair randolph, did you have an item?

[1:01:14] yeah, I thought it was at the end,

[1:01:16] but I think when there's commission business, just I guess

[1:01:18] overall question, that's not on the agenda,

[1:01:20] but I warned director gilchrist that I was going to

[1:01:24] mention something or just ask a general question

[1:01:26] that doesn't need to be answered right now,

[1:01:27] but there's nothing for them

[1:01:28] to come back, I think for the for the commission.

[1:01:31] I'm not sure if other

[1:01:32] commissioners have, but I have received a fair amount

[1:01:35] of questions and concerns about just the idea of data centers

[1:01:39] in oakland coming to oakland being an oakland,

[1:01:42] and the more I looked into it,

[1:01:45] and I appreciate all the, the answers that were or,

[1:01:49] the questions that were answered by city staff, but it is

[1:01:52] it is not clear to me

[1:01:53] currently if there's really an

[1:01:54] an existing cp category or zoning code

[1:01:57] that captures the concept of what a current day

[1:01:59] use of a data center actually is.

[1:02:03] just a quick database search shows that

[1:02:06] there are already existing data centers

[1:02:07] operating in oakland under existing use permits.

[1:02:11] either light industrial, commercial or a previous,

[1:02:15] you know, laboratory or data center use.

[1:02:18] the question I really have,

[1:02:19] where in the administrative review

[1:02:20] are some of the public concerns and questions to address

[1:02:24] that have been raised?

[1:02:25] and these concerns range from impact to community,

[1:02:28] bordering residents and businesses,

[1:02:31] and the environment specifically,

[1:02:33] if you can talk about noise, water impact, energy use,

[1:02:36] air quality, impact on our power grid, that might not be, you

[1:02:40] know, ready for for high intense data use, data center use.

[1:02:45] and then from my conversation with city staff,

[1:02:47] there seems to be no current use specifically for data center.

[1:02:52] so there's no way for the city to really adequately track

[1:02:55] of what it currently is, where it could be coming in,

[1:02:58] and what an actual approval process could be that is more

[1:03:01] transparent and and responsive to some of these concerns.

[1:03:07] I'm not saying that I am. You know, I'm personally against data centers,

[1:03:09] but I think there just needs to be more transparency,

[1:03:13] for future projects.

[1:03:14] and so currently

[1:03:15] I was told that there are several

[1:03:18] different kinds of functions and operations that are commonly

[1:03:19] referred to as a data center

[1:03:21] and based on the specifics of any given potential proposal,

[1:03:25] different regulations and standards

[1:03:27] for city review could apply.

[1:03:30] generally speaking, the city expects that any business

[1:03:32] proposing a major project in oakland

[1:03:34] that could affect residents would include in their approach

[1:03:37] a robust and equitable community engagement process.

[1:03:39] but that might not always be the case.

[1:03:42] obviously, the city cannot speculate on scope needs for

[1:03:46] some of these projects have been in the news

[1:03:48] since no formal plans or permits have been

[1:03:50] or applications have been submitted.

[1:03:54] but I think there's just a lot of confusion and concerns and ideas of what

[1:03:57] a data center is.

[1:04:00] yet there are many different times that have kind of a large spectrum of external impacts.

[1:04:04] so I would love to maybe learn at a future, commission meeting,

[1:04:11] what the city's maybe planning to do about potentially adding a specific category

[1:04:15] that captures data centers more appropriately for us to be able

[1:04:19] to track where they coming in, how they're being used,

[1:04:23] and having a more robust conversation of what that type of use maybe

[1:04:27] should look like in our city, because there still

[1:04:29] have concerns about gentrification.

[1:04:31] where in the city are they going into

[1:04:33] an old west oakland has been, cited as a resource, but,

[1:04:38] what is the impact going to be?

[1:04:39] so, that's something

[1:04:41] some of the concerns and thoughts I've had,

[1:04:43] I know other cities have specific categories,

[1:04:46] you know, in their zoning codes and planning codes and

[1:04:48] on ways to more,

[1:04:51] equitably.

[1:04:52] I guess, manage the potential growth.

[1:04:54] and I know we have a really strong

[1:04:57] environmental justice component to all of our codes.

[1:05:01] and overall, priorities.

[1:05:03] and I don't want that to be lost when it comes

[1:05:06] to these data centers coming into our communities.

[1:05:09] thank you.

[1:05:12] so we'll take that forward

[1:05:13] and potentially come forward as a,

[1:05:15] you know, discuss about potentially

[1:05:16] bring it forward as an informational item.

[1:05:18] but, can take it up with the director and, deputy director.

[1:05:22] thank you.

[1:05:24] okay.

[1:05:25] thank you.

[1:05:26] okay.

[1:05:27] any city council actions?

[1:05:32] I don't have anything

[1:05:33] to report. No.

[1:05:38] all right. And with that, I will adjourn today's meeting at 4:04 p.m..

[1:05:41] and our next meeting is currently scheduled

[1:05:43] for september 16th.

[1:05:46] thank you so much.

[1:05:48] technically, it's the 16th, but it's

[1:05:52] sorry.

[1:05:54] it's canceled. And the next meeting will be september 23rd. Right.

[1:05:56] which would be a special meeting.

[1:05:57] right, a special meeting.

[1:05:59] thank you.

[1:06:42] okay.

[1:06:43] let those folks know.

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript