Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the October 15th, 2025, Planning Commission, meeting.

We are expecting one more commissioner, so we will wait at least a few minutes to uh give them an opportunity to jump on it.

Okay.

Welcome everyone to the October 15th planning commission meeting.

Um let's do roll call.

Commissioner Josie Ahrens.

Here.

Commissioner Owen Lee.

Here.

Commissioner Alex Randolph.

Here.

Commissioner Maurice Robb.

Here.

You vice chair and Natalie Sandoval.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Great.

Um do we have a director's report?

No director's report today.

Uh informational report.

No information reports today.

Any committee reports?

No committee reports.

I believe your next committee meeting will be ZUC, zoning update committee in next week.

I'll say a couple of weeks, but I can't remember the date off the top of my head.

Okay, it's next week.

Next week.

Yeah.

Uh any commission matters.

And this is for the commission to raise any questions or um discussion items.

Thank you.

Wanted to check in on the item I requested last week about having standardized staff reports for uh major variances related to alcohol permits.

I thought you were gonna check in on another question that I was prepared to answer.

I do have another item.

Excellent.

Well, on the reports, you know, we believe what we're doing is standardize and when you this body will consider the case that came in front of you at the last meeting at some point in the future, that wasn't continued to a date certain, so it'll come back when it comes back.

And there will be discussion at that time about the ways in which we believe our reports the the way we conduct our analysis is standardized, but that the requirements and the findings in different places aren't necessarily um the same.

They might be different or the conditions might be different in different places.

Um or discussion at the time that that report comes back to you where you raise the issue, if that's acceptable.

Thank you.

Right.

So my understanding is our strategic planning team is working on some responses.

Uh I was hoping I'd have a response for you today, but I didn't see anything come through.

Uh so we will hope for a response maybe at our next meeting.

I'm seeing a nod from the deputy director.

Uh, but they are working on responses.

My understanding is they're working with other departments.

Um HCD, that's housing community development at the city of Oakland, as well as talking to the state.

So I believe that's why it's taken a moment or two in order to come back to you and respond to your your questions.

Thank you so much.

Please pass along my thanks to planning and HCD staff.

I know this is an extra task on top of their work, but my intention is to to make things easier for all of us in the long run, and I appreciate their time and effort right now.

I will pass that along.

Thank you.

Yeah, to follow on the uh liquor license application process.

Would that hearing once we see that application coming back be the appropriate time to have a conversation about potential or process for zoning changes around criteria or would that have to be a separate meeting?

Yeah, that's a really good question.

You often hear us, you've been here long enough to hear us say please don't try to change policy with a case, right?

Uh and so while it is true that cases which are analyzed against existing policy are separate from the establishment of policy.

Uh certainly if you have comments about policy and its application, uh, that report would be the time to raise those.

And you can use your commission matters item on your agenda to raise any questions or requests for the Bureau of Planning.

Great.

So then maybe in anticipation of a potential application coming, uh I would love to see if what the process would be to, because one of the criteria of liquor licenses is proximity to schools.

And there are certain applications that have business hours after school hours.

So is it still prudent to list it as a disqualifying criteria if the business is operating at a time that the school is no longer open?

So it's the proximity is not necessarily as relevant as, for example, a liquor store that's open, you know, 24 hours or during school hours.

So I guess that's the question that I would like to kind of maybe get some information back or potentially discuss at that.

Yeah.

So I'm hearing a policy question, which, and let me try to translate it into strategic planning division speak so that when uh they go over the minutes from this meeting and the tape, they understand what we're what we're talking about.

So I believe you're raising questions about the finding the requirement uh to be located that ABC, sorry, alcoholic beverage facilities be located a certain distance from schools, and if the uh location selling alcohol, if it's hours are after standard school hours, why you're asking why we might apply that requirement and if uh the city would consider um foregoing that requirement, changing that requirement in the future.

That is accurate.

And I will note I'll take that back to strategic planning and uh I imagine that uh the response will be along the lines of just to manage expectations here, that's something that we can take under consideration.

It may not be in the immediate future for one, just because they have a lot of state-mandated uh policy uh development that they are working on and they need to meet uh a number of deadlines.

So that might be something that moves a little bit further in the inbox, a little deeper in the inbox than what they're bringing to you over the next few months.

Uh in addition, those are city council decisions.

So they would absolutely come to this body for any recommendations, but it would be up to city council to make those decisions.

Uh but I will bring your request back to strategic planning for their consideration and and the deputy who who's not going to respond here, we would never respond to specific policy requests.

We've heard you and we will consider that and come back to you with a preliminary response as to how we will proceed and then um whatever happens after that.

Go ahead.

Now I appreciate it.

And I'm sure the applications are gonna come, you know, next meeting or we meeting after that.

So there's no rush.

I know there's a lot of stuff to do.

Right.

And I will note that if if strategic planning believes that that is um, you know, a high priority item to move some change to our alcoholic beverage.

This is completely hypothetical, alcoholic beverage uh policies forward to city council.

That will still be a slow process just because of the the way democracy is delivered at the local level means going through lots of hearings that have lots of um, you know, long runways in order to schedule.

Uh so we would never, just to be really clear, and I believe you agree wholeheartedly with this, we will not hold up that application that you were reviewing a few weeks ago for any policy.

We will come back and explain uh we will conduct analysis and sure that we've conducted analysis of the project that you saw against existing policy.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just a congrats to Commissioner Randolph and Commissioner Ahrens for having their terms renewed.

Happy to have you still here.

And I guess a reminder to the public that one can apply to be a part of the Planning Commission.

And we're currently looking for two spots, I believe, right now.

So there is a need on the commission for anybody who's tuned in and interested.

Any other commission matters?

And if you don't mind, I will add to that that for those of you who do tune into planning commission or watch the tape late at night.

Your choice, there is a button on the planning commission page that allows you to apply to become a planning commissioner.

So anyone can apply, and we make it as easy as possible.

That button does not just exist on the planning commission page, it is on every board and commission page for the city.

So you can easily apply to become a planning commissioner.

Thank you.

All right.

Do we have a city attorney's report?

No city attorney's report.

Okay.

Do you have any speaker cards for open forum?

No, we do not.

Okay.

Nothing on the consent calendar.

That is correct.

So we'll move on to agenda item one.

Right.

And this is an item that was continued from September 17th, 2025 planning commission meeting agenda.

I believe I can't remember why, but it was continued from that date.

The address is 1205 Franklin Street.

This is a proposal for a major variance to allow self-storage or mini storage industrial activity.

And at a site located in existing building in the central business district.

The case planner is Heather Klein, who will make a presentation.

And I believe the applicant is here to make a presentation as well.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair Sandoval and Commissioners.

Heather Klein with the Bureau of Planning.

The item before you is an application at 1205 Franklin Street to convert approximately 7500 square feet of existing second floor and third floor office space to self-storage or a self or mini storage industrial activity.

This activity is prohibited in this zone and requires a major variance.

Major variances require consideration by the Planning Commission and harder and more specific findings for approval.

As for background, the building was built in 1912 as a theater.

It was remodeled in 1946 into the Tribune Press Building.

The building is historic, both as a contributor and as individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

In 2004, an application was submitted to rehabilitate the interior and convert about 45,000 square feet of the building's inner core to self-storage.

At that time, a major variance was also required because the use was also prohibited.

The major variance application was reviewed by the landmarks board and eventually approved by the planning commission because it met numerous land use and historic elemental plan policies.

Most importantly, those regarding putting a vacant historic national registered building back into productive use and providing pedestrian oriented uses and activity at the ground floor and upper floor perimeters to strengthen the vitality of the area.

In 2016, the previous zoning manager determined that a proposal to convert the driveway aisle to self-storage.

This was off of Franklin Street, could be handled administratively.

In 2022, the applicant submitted an application to convert the ground floor retail as well as the second floor and third floor office spaces to mini storage.

The commission denied the project, largely due to the findings in the staff report, and that project was not appealed to city council.

Staff has now reviewed the new proposal, which only includes the conversion of the upper floor offices to mini storage and determined that again the proposal does not meet the general plan policies objectives, the specific plan policies, or the required major variance findings.

Specifically, there is no practical difficulty or unique hardship due to topographical circumstances as the site's flat and it's covered by an existing building.

The initial developer proposed the office spaces surrounding the interior storage specifically to buffer that use and provide active space as noted in the staff report attachments.

And that initial developer did not consider the office use as a hardship.

Second, there is no practical difficulty or unique hardship here due to physical circumstances.

Having inside bathrooms or kitchens is not a unique hardship or difficulty of physical circumstance.

The spaces proposed for conversion have been rented before, and I actually think there's at least one of them is still rented now, before implying that these are viable spaces.

Third, a determination that market or economic conditions meet the threshold of a hardship sets a really dangerous precedent for the city, as we have a lot of taken commercial spaces all throughout the city, and specifically for Oakland's historic buildings, which were likely built without these like in-space amenities like kitchens or bathrooms.

Granting of these variances is essentially a spot rezoning and must be well considered.

Further, it should be noted that a new category had to be created, and the jobs and housing impact legislation due to the limited number of employees.

And so, as such, this really type of use doesn't receive or give a lot of business tax revenue meaningfully to the city.

The owners of similarly zone downtown properties have not been granted major variances.

So, as such, allowing the variants would be considered a grant of special privilege.

The previous 2004 variants was granted in part because the building was considered at risk for demolition.

With an extensive rehabilitation completed under the Secretary of the Interior standards, which utilize federal tax credits.

This is no longer the case.

We have a viable, beautiful historic building.

The variants, if granted, will adversely affect the character, livability, and appropriate development of abutting properties in the surrounding area.

Successful commercial areas do require proximity to other similar uses, and they draw people and foot traffic to the area.

And without this adjacency, the area becomes uninviting, and the rest of the 12th Street's ground floor retail will be at risk of just becoming some other use less viable for retail or pedestrian.

And a case in point is the part of the block with the UCA office of the president, which has no active space on that side.

The proposal is contrary to adopted plans which envision a pedestrian-friendly downtown, flexible commercial and cultural uses, 20 floor hour activity, and respect for architectural integrity.

Further, the proposal is contrary to the downtown Oakland specific plan or the DOSP, which had extensive input from this body, residents, and other advocates for over nine years.

The DOSPIN related zoning text amendments, a vision of walkable urban area with an intense mix of commercial office and housing to reinforce and enhance our city core.

A self-storage industrial activity is prohibited and it was not considered an essential need during the adoption process by people who participated.

Further, the applicant had an opportunity after the commission's last decision to deny the project in 2022 to lobby decision makers to allow this use downtown, and this did not occur.

The DOS specifically envisions affordable, accessible spaces for artists, nonprofits, community organizations, and incubator businesses.

And these second and third floor spaces, we think continue to be suitable for that type of use.

Finally, industrial space, both permitted and conditionally permitted, are located, we think at least less than two miles away from downtown, and they can support the anticipated need of storage for new towntown residents and new buildings.

So in SEM, the applicants' argument that this is a hardship to require these spaces to sit vacant with no business revenue, and therefore a major variance to be granted, we think is very short-sighted.

Major variances are meant to address very specific and very unique situations, not general ones like economic factors.

Of the seven required factors, two were in applicable, one we made, and four we felt we could not make.

As detailed in the staff report.

Furthermore, city staff, the residents and business owners again have spent a long time developing a vision for this area, and this use is incompatible with that vision and inappropriate for a downtown site.

And as such, we're recommending denial of application.

However, if the planning commission wants to support the proposal, staff requests that the planning commission provide specifics as to where we aired in making those four findings that we found unsupportable and provide detailed reasons for support so that we can return to the commission at a later date.

I'm available if you have questions.

Do we want to go to the applicant's presentation before questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you, Heather.

You're welcome.

Okay, Top presentation, please.

Thank you.

I think I have an arrow here.

First of all, thank you, Heather.

And good afternoon, Commissioners.

Thank you for having us here today.

My name is Kyle Winkler.

I'm with Tidewater Capital, and I'm here on behalf of the ownership group of Tobo Five Franklin.

We're here to discuss the proposed major variants to expand the self-storage use in the building, a use that we believe aligns with both the physical constraints of the building and the needs of the surrounding community.

First of all, just a little bit about Tidewater.

We're a local Bay Area-based real estate investor and developer.

And Oakland really is at the truth of the heart of our work.

Over 60% of our portfolio is in Oakland.

We developed the Moxie Oakland Hotel.

We own and operate the Eastmont Town Center in East Oakland.

And we've completed two multifamily entitlements in downtown Oakland, nearby the site, and in West Oakland, and then own some commercial assets across the city, including 1205 Franklin.

And we take our responsibility in Oakland seriously, and we are invested in its recovery.

The site is located on the northwest corner of 12th and Franklin.

It's in downtown, a block off Broadway.

It's across the street from Chinatown and just near the Black Arts and Movement Business District.

The building is surrounded by a rich use of mixes, including residential office and retail, all of which we feel drive a demand for accessible local storage options.

This is really a unique building, and I I wanted to take some time because it can be disorienting what's happening in the building.

So I'm gonna take it floor by floor, but uh in the basement, that is exclusively um self-storage use.

Uh the ground floor, predominantly self-storage use with the uh retail and green wrapping 12th Street and a portion of Franklin.

Uh the second and third floor are nearly identical, predominantly self-storage, and then also the commercial office space wrapping Franklin and 12th.

This is the area in red that we're here to speak about today.

And then uh the building steps back on the four floor with uh exclusively self-storage.

So all in all, it's a little over 81% of the building is self-storage.

Uh I wanted to take some time to talk about some categories of feedback that we heard from the last um attempt at the major variance, apologies.

Um we'll go we'll go in more detail, but I'll talk about these quickly.

First, the loss of ground floor we throw was a big concern.

We we kind of tried to pull that mid-meeting, and it created a lot of confusion on process and procedure, so that's been removed.

Um, a lot of concern, understandably, over the impact of the historic windows.

Um, we've created a circulation path and set any storage units five feet off the historic facade.

We can talk more about that.

Um, last hearing there was an open building permit that created confusion.

We've resolved that with DBI that was associated with another address that's attached to the parcel that we had not realized was an open building permit.

There was some confusion around the BAMD.

That's been further mapped, and also we've undertaken some engagement within the BAM.

That's the Black Art Music Black Art and Movement Business District nearby.

Certainly concerns around industrial uses downtown, and then the ability to make findings, which we'll have John from Ruben and Junius speak to.

Speaking of the design modifications, just want to reinforce that we are not modifying the ground floor retail.

We are keeping that pedestrian experience alive, exactly how it is today.

And then looking at the second and third floor, just reiterating the design that we've come up with here.

I think there was lack of that information that we came to you last time, which I think created a lot of concern, concern around the storage units backing into the historic windows, being able to see storage and people's belongings from the streetscape and impacting or affecting the historic nature of those windows.

So we've created this area highlighted in yellow, which is a five-foot circulation path on the behind behind the windows.

So that's really serving two purposes.

Addressing the concern of the windows, and also that's creating the circulation path from the vertical transportation to get to the potential eventual lockers.

Speaking of the Black Arts and Movement Business District and some community engagement we've undertaken, while you know, through the DOS, the band was further delineated and mapped, and this property is not there.

We still wanted to undertake that community engagement.

We're proud to have gained support of some local businesses you see there in the letters you saw in your pack, the email that I sent last night.

You know, we also went out and gained support of other key city stakeholders, including the downtown uptown business improvement district.

And then given the adjacency to Chinatown, we were able to present to the board of the Chinatown Improvement District and get their support up for this major variance as well.

And while John's going to speak to our ability where we feel we can make the findings, we can't as building owners look past the reality that we face here.

And while this can't be utilized in a planning analysis or a planning context, which we respect, it's a reality that we are living as building owners.

And you know, the reality is that you know the image you see on the screen here represents 20 of the Class B office buildings in the CBD.

They're about two million square feet and they're about a million square feet occupied.

So, and this has been consistent since COVID.

There, you know, we've had an unprecedented event in COVID that has really decimated the leasing in downtown Oakland.

And I think that, you know, being 50% occupied, there's over 500 vacant suites of the size that are offered at 1205 Franklin.

And in that coupled with kind of the shallow and odd configuration nature of the suites, we really feel that this space has become obsolete for that use.

And that is probably the reason that we're trying to find other opportunities to potentially activate the floors.

I also wanted to compare and contrast just the the perception versus the reality of what we're talking about, and the perception of self-storage use in kind of the classical planning sense is what you see here on the left, which is really defined as a windowless industrial building.

Um, you know, that's really a dead space that's kind of no eyes on the street, and it that it is really not community serving.

Um we feel that's in stark contrast to the true reality of what's taking place at 1205 Franklin.

Um we agree this is a beautiful building.

We want to be great stewards of this building.

Um when you look at that image, you know, it is not windowless, uh, has incredible transparency.

Um, you know, I I when you drive by it, I think of it as a storage building, quite frankly.

And um ultimately, you know, we have a lot of walk-in customers, we have a full-site um full-time on-site manager, and you know, when checking in with our property manager, you know, we serve a diverse community, uh, diverse um type of needs in the community.

Um, you know, we have a lot of small businesses renting lockers here, predominantly small uh contractors and handyman servicing the downtown core.

Um we have neighborhood residents who have come in through the influx of residential developed over the last five, seven years, and then also we we do have a meaningful amount of unsheltered residents that are occupying lockers in our building.

Um, and I just bring that up just noting in the staff report that it meant uh there was a policy within the environmental justice element that noted that we were not uh meeting that policy.

So just want to just compare and contrast these um two images.

And lastly, I just want to bring this thought because it wasn't apparent, and it's very it's not intuitive to to when you think about changing a commercial office floor to a self-storage use, that it could be create more vibrancy for it.

And bear with the AI generated images, I apologize.

Um, but you know, when we have non-income producing floors, it is incumbent on us as the owners and for our investors to minimize all costs and all ongoing costs.

So, what that means is we're turning the lights off, we're putting the window shades down, we're not letting any of the heat load get through the window or the cooling load get through it.

Um we're just trying to minimize cost, which I think is understandable.

Um, I think if this were to be granted and this was um constructed, you know, by putting that perimeter circulation path and lighting that so that that um folks can get to their lockers, it actually creates a really vibrant experience from the outside, um, which I think can help improve improve public safety.

I think it could contribute some of the um goals in the DOS about being a 24-7 city.

Um and really I think I think it it's not intuitive, but I do think there is some benefits to um to that change of use.

Um, and I'd say, even lastly, that this really rang true with the Chinatown Improvement Council when we when we shared this with them.

Um, so with that, I will turn it over to John to speak to the variance findings.

Thank you, Commissioners John Kevlin here with Ruben Junius and Rose on behalf of Tidewater.

Um, what you're gonna what you're hearing from us today is that this building is uniquely appropriate for the proposed variants.

Despite the staff report's reference to the DOS not permitting self-storage uses, we are not suggesting that storage should have been permitted by that plan, or it should be uh generally uh permitted in new buildings uh or where it doesn't exist today.

Rather, what we are saying is that we have the one existing building in downtown that is mostly operated as storage, which presents unique challenges to this building only, and that's why we feel the major variance is uh appropriate here.

Um so let me walk through the findings of because that's been such a focus here.

So the first two are kind of the most critical, which is the hardship combined with the unique uh uniqueness of this building, so practical practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship based on physical uh standards.

Uh the building is 81% self-storage today with over 600 renters, making it practically impossible, certainly economically infeasible to convert the building to another use permitted by zoning, both because it's already been established, the infrastructure is there, and we've got this isn't just a couple of tenants, it's many hundreds of tenants.

Uh and as such, there's just this modest amount of office space left over that cannot easily be rented nor made more leasable by making this an office building with a larger floor plate or other amenities.

The second finding, which is I think really the key is that the owner is deprived of privilege enjoyed by other owners of similarly zone properties.

In other words, this is a very unique situation to this building.

Other commercial buildings in downtown can easily pivot to adjust to new market realities.

And in fact, they are uh create more amenities for office tenants.

That's a very uh important move that many of these office building owners are going towards.

They have the ability to create more flexible office suites, bigger, smaller, to meet tenant uh needs.

Uh, and then of course, they all they have the opportunity to always convert to residential as well.

So a typical commercial building in downtown has all of these ranges of options to uh activate and make their building uh uh useful, um, whereas this building does not because of the really limited physical circumstances.

Um the variants will not adversely impact the surrounding area.

There's virtually no change to the existing operation as viewed from the street, with the exception of what Kyle mentioned.

Uh, and in fact, we'll likely improve building aesthetics while where we won't have blinds down so that we'll have open windows uh and it'll also be illuminated at night, further indicating the the activeness uh and the investment in this building that's not a dead building.

Uh the next uh uh finding no special privilege granted inconsistent with the purpose of zoning.

The building is a legal nonconforming use, uh, and allowing a modest expansion to make the mil building more product uh productive is certainly not inconsistent with the code, and that's why we have this major variance process, which is a unique process for unique circumstances.

Uh and finally, the project conforms with um the and is consistent with the general plan.

We cited several findings that uh calls for uh supportive amenities downtown uh for to serve uh uh commercial establishments uh in the area as well as residences.

Uh the uh general plan also calls for uh diversity and flexibility in commercial uses downtown as well.

So uh we feel like there are uh general plan policies that uh will support this this modest project.

Almost done.

Uh so uh importantly, this requested variance is significantly more modest than the original 2004 variants that was granted for this building.

That variance allowed the majority of the building to be converted from industrial to self-storage use.

At that time, the building very easily could have been converted to uses permitted under zoning, which was office, retail, institutional, or residential.

Uh, but the 2000 variants still determine that the uniqueness and hardship criteria were met, in part due to the large costs involved with restoring the building.

And I think this is what goes into the commission's consideration of these variances, which is it is a uh uh a trade-off.

Uh there are public policy goals that are served by this major variance in addition to meeting the findings, and that's exactly what the commission found in 2004.

Uh in other words, economic conditions were a significant factor in improving that variance in exchange for a public policy goal restoring the building.

Last point I want to make is despite this being considered a major variance under the planning code, it's only called major because it is has to do with use.

In reality, the the permitted use of the building.

In reality, the conversion of is uh of less than 7,000 square feet in this building, just 12% of the total floor area.

So it's really modest change in in this building.

So we thank you for your consideration.

Uh respectfully request you approve the variants, and we're here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, do we have any questions for staff before we go to um public comment?

Clarifying questions.

Go ahead.

Um push staff.

I mean, I have a question.

Well, should we do staff?

Okay, staff, yeah.

First of all, thank you for the report for the staff report and your findings.

I really appreciate the work and thought you put into it and the comments you made during the presentation.

A question I had, you mentioned that you are um correct me if I heard it incorrectly.

You are very concerned about the potential loss of nonprofit or low-cost office space for artists and nonprofits in the neighborhood.

Why are you specifically concerned about this building versus the large amount of alternative office space that is would still be available downtown?

I think that the what we were citing was a general plan policy.

It was actually a DOS policy.

So the idea is that there are Class A spaces, there's Class B spaces, there's Class C office spaces, right?

And we feel like this is probably a Class C office space.

Um, and that those are generally smaller.

They have, you know, not as many amenities.

They're tucked away in, you know, little spaces, but they are accessible to nonprofits, artists, cultural organizations, and part of the envision of downtown was to create this cultural, really vibrant hub, and those type of uses are integral to that.

So do we have other types of class C office space that are empty?

Yes.

Am I specifically concerned with all of them?

Sure.

I think we'd like to keep all of them for those type of uses and let the class B class A spaces be for those larger, you know, commercial developers, those bigger businesses, et cetera.

But I think having the mix of those type of smaller businesses, those incubators, those non-profit businesses with the other commercial, isn't important for that vibrancy.

So I think these spaces are viable for that.

We got um a uh public comment uh during this process, um, wondering what's gonna happen to her in her space.

Um, I don't know if she's still there or not, but she works for a non-profit.

So I think it's it's a general comment to answer your specific question.

I appreciate that background.

And then who determines what classification the commercial space ABC is that is that the planning department during application process is the the developer owner of the building, who determines it's a general term and it's not in the planning code.

It's generally uh real estate um professionals.

Okay.

But it has very specific meetings, I think.

You know, it's like the Clorox building, you know, Salesforce, that's that's a class A space.

Yeah, I do have a limited understanding of the different levels and what they mean, but just wondering who actually determines it.

It's not it's not the planning department.

And then finally, do you do you or the city have any understanding or a knowledge of the percentage of vacancy in downtown or in that neighborhood for class C?

I do not.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I question for staff also actually.

Sorry.

Um, I just wanted to confirm.

So the the preservation of the perimeter office is uh was a condition of granting storage use in the first place.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

On all the floors.

That's correct.

Well, the ground floor retail, um, and then the second floor and third floor office.

Yes, um, and it seems like there's maybe a pivot to a bigger emphasis in their argument now that um I could be wrong, but it it's there's like a pivot to uh this is um maybe this is not as present setting because it applies only to us.

We have a unique situation that most were the only building that has primarily storage use.

And I wonder if you wanted to respond to that, particularly since it seems like it's a unique situation of their own making that uh was conditioned on preserving these these um other um office and resale uses on the perimeter.

Um I do think that it is a condition of their own making.

I do think that um we would be concerned with applying this idea of a major variance to all of the other vacant uh retail and commercial spaces um that we have in the city, um, that they that an economic factor, not a topographical, not a um unique circumstance in a physical sense.

Um that that could be used in the future.

Um and the the spaces themselves, despite not having the amenities.

They do have access to stairs.

They do have access to elevator.

They're not particularly narrow.

They're fairly, I mean, wide.

Um, they're long.

Um, so it's not like they're, you know, we're talking about a hundred and square foot office.

We're talking about, you know, 7500 square feet of space.

About 3,000 square feet on each floor.

Uh I have a question too for you, Heather.

Um, in the staff report in the comments related to the environmental justice element and compliance to that, there's a comment around the um the proposed storage is not identified as providing many storage spaces for unsheltered um individuals.

And I'm wondering it sounds like the um applicant is providing some storage uh in of that type and wondering if their proposal was changed to say something along the lines of providing more storage like that.

If that would change uh staff's interpretation of their application.

I think so one um in their application materials we did not know that.

Um that was not brought up until today.

Um in the staff report we referenced the um idea of the lockers because it's really the only time that um that type of mini storage or the storage of belongings is discussed specifically in plans um you know or guiding documents and you know in talking with strategic planning staff the reason that that ended up in the housing or sorry the downtown plan was really um it it came out of discussions during the DOS adoption with uh uh homelessness advocates and the idea behind it was that you know those persons experiencing homelessness that if they were going to employment or accessing service they'd have services they'd have to leave their belongings and that they could be confiscated they could be um you know victims of theft and the idea behind the lockers would be to provide safe spaces for them to have their belongings um the zoning that implements the uh DOSP doesn't give an exception for lockers it doesn't have number of lockers that you need in a project it doesn't give a percentage of lockers that you have in a project it was really meant to be an accessory activity to either an office building or a civic building sort of more public spaces where somebody could come in and out and grab their stuff um store their belongings and then leave a mini storage um activity is still prohibited um and if somebody for example wanted to propose a whole building with um you know lockers for the unsheltered that would still be a major variance so it was meant to be accessory got it thank you there any more uh clarifying questions for staff or the applicant go ahead yeah I have some questions for the applicant um so staff mentioned that there's a current resident in one of your office yes.

Yeah so I'm curious about um you're we we're discussing like the financial hardship portion of it and I'm curious to hear more about the financial hardships when you have someone applicant oh well not applicant but someone a resident already in there or occupant I'm sorry occupant already in there um I'm just curious to hear more about like the financial hardship when you have an occupant there and like and what's going to happen to that occupant.

Sure.

Yeah uh thanks for bringing that up um so in between the two um hearings we did meet with that um office tenant um they're kind of our larger office tenant um you know they they express actually a desire to modify or move quite frankly during those conversations.

We ended up um coming to an amical agreement on a lease amendment with them um it it kept them in the building, um, but it established procedures of if this does get approved and if we do proceed with the variants, then the steps that we would do that that would where they were treated fairly inappropriately, and there was wasn't financial hardship um to that tenant.

Um I would say we haven't had that same outreach from our other tenant, which is smaller.

Um, but I would say we'd commit to having that those same side same kind of arrangement because like I said, like we are a local developer, we want to treat our community and our our tenants appropriately and fairly.

And it wouldn't be fair for them to experience hardship because we're trying to change the use.

So that's that's certainly a commitment on our part.

Thank you.

Um so how much of the space the office space is currently leased?

Is it all of it?

No, no, it's two tenants.

I think it's maybe a little over 2,000 square feet.

Of the almost 7,000.

7,000.

I we we don't anticipate you know, lease renewals or or lease renewal, especially with the larger tenant after that lease amendment we just we just signed.

Okay.

Also, um, just thinking of the city staff's um comments about um small businesses and nonprofits.

I'm just curious like what efforts have been made to lease that space to other nonprofits or small business owners.

Yeah, I mean, I think you know, since since we bought it, we've made tremendous efforts like we do across our our whole office portfolio.

Um we've had a leasing broker on this building the entire time for the office, um, who specializes with these kind of spaces.

Um we've had bi-week I I don't play in that space just to be clear.

We have another uh person who runs that, so I'm speaking broadly.

Um bi weekly meetings, we've had targeted outreach, we we've targeted um those kind of groups because that we think that would work.

Um but unfortunately just hasn't materialized and kind of full occupancy there at all.

And I think I really do think there's just the massive amount of class C and B space that is available.

I just think that we're there's superior offerings um probably at equal or less rental rate given the market conditions as well now.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I assume I should just keep standing here.

Yeah, thank you for that, and thank you for the presentation and appreciate your coming back with a change proposal and listening to the concerns that the commission raised a couple months ago, almost about over a year ago.

Um I do have a couple uh a couple questions.

One is I know you mentioned that there's currently two tenants, uh so about two thousand square feet off the seven thousand square feet are rented out, and there's still vacancies.

What is what is the percentage of vacancies versus current leases?

Do you do you have that or how many additional office spaces could be rented out that are currently empty?

Three office spaces.

So there's five total.

Five total and two of them are rented out.

Yes.

And what uh what are these two offices?

Are there a nonprofits?

Are there commercial or they're just yeah, it's the nonprofit tenant we just mentioned, and I think the other one is uh psychologist um in the smaller suite.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um and then um do you classify this as a class C or class B?

What is what would you consider?

There's uh honestly I've heard another term of class B slash C.

Okay.

So I've heard that hybrid.

I've heard I've heard that hybrid mentioned by our leasing broker.

Okay.

And then do you have uh I know you you included a graphic of overall vacancy of commercial vacancy in the downtown area.

Do you have an idea of how many class PC or class C office spaces are currently available in the proximity?

Uh I don't I don't know.

I looked at that that one graphic we have shows uh availability in class B by size, and I referenced that there's there's nearly five hundred um vacant suites within that class B portfolio of 20 buildings of the size that we offer um within 1205 and you know, that doesn't include any of the class C, which I'm guessing has many many hundreds as well.

Great.

And then um you mentioned in maybe there's a question for you, but in your variance findings slide, that you do believe that your application is consistent with the general plan.

Can you maybe go into more details on how you think it is consistent with the general plan?

Sure, thank you, Commissioner.

And to start uh this response, just to emphasize the idea of a general plan and specific plans are to set general policies for the direction of the city.

They're not rigid requirements or um or um, you know, the the they're not like the planning code where it says you're allowed to do this and not allowed to do this.

There are a number of policies that guide the future of the city, and in many circumstances, there are policies that cut can cut uh different ways or con conflict with each other.

So I just make that point.

So the the ones that we in particular have called out policy um I C C 1.8 in the land use and transportation element, providing support amenities near employment centers, policy IC1.9, locating an uh industrial and commercial area infrastructure.

Um uh make sure uh commercial areas retain uh viable existing uses, improve the marketability of existing vacant or under underutilized sites, encourage future use and development of these areas with activities consistent with the goals.

Uh objective I C3, and by the way, Commissioner, I know I'm just speaking this to you uh to the degree the commission's interested in consider continuing this conversation.

We can continue to work with staff on this, but I'm let me just go with through the ones that I have here.

Um ensure that Oakland is adequately served by a wide variety of commercial uses.

Um uh policy I C 3.6 uh encourage the expansion of private business services uh within Oakland.

Um so those the this is just my my note.

So essentially policies that are suggesting the the diversity of of uses downtown and in particular uses that support our principal commercial and residential uses downtown.

Okay, great.

And then how many um additional storage units would this add?

I know it's in reported, we just want to have it in public comment.

Yeah, we haven't advanced the design of the locker configuration that much yet.

We we really don't want to go too much further until we get sure through this process.

Um, you know, I would say with that five foot walk pathway introduced, um, maybe there's 60% of that is lockers, so maybe like 80 or 90 lockers is what I'm guessing.

They're gonna be of a kind of an irregular shape because you know you'd probably want the center circulate the circulation to go through the center and have lockers on both sides.

Whereas here now we're we're putting um kind of lockers like between the wall and the window, so they're gonna be kind of of a deeper nature.

And then how many of your current lockers are rented?

Is it is it are you at full occupancy or I think we're in like the mid 90s is what I heard.

And is it pretty typical for it sound it sounds like storage?

Yeah.

Okay.

And you're the only one in the downtown area.

The closest one is what the one in West Grand and the Yeah, at least in the downtown CBD for sure.

Okay.

I think um.

And then do you do you have nonprofit rates for for storage lockers or rates for unshelters, or is everybody pay the the same price?

Uh we we have different rates for different lockers.

I don't think there's a special special classification for different individual renters.

Um we have some uniquely like very small lockers that I think have been gravity, you know, some um population gravitate to, um, but there's no special rates for different individuals.

Is that something that you consider?

Uh I don't know if we if I we would have to talk further on that.

I I don't know, understand the question a little bit better, I think.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, a couple more questions.

Um so you said that two of potentially five spaces are currently leased.

So I'm curious to hear how long have the current occupants been leasing, and how long have the other spaces been vacant?

Uh I believe the nonprofit tenant is three years into a five-year lease, and I believe the psychologist has been a long-term tenant.

I don't know how backdated that is.

Um I am not familiar with how long the spaces, the other vacant spaces have been vacant for.

So just to follow up on that, when you purchased the building 2018, I believe it was, or 2017, fully occupied office space, and what about the ground floor retail as well?

Fully occupied.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

There's no other.

I have one.

So the retail space is currently not oncopied, is that correct?

Uh there's four retail spaces.

Um one is vacant, the one that's furthest down towards Broadway.

And then there's a nail salon, and then we have a tenant that leases both.

Um who subleases both of them out.

And could you clarify a little bit on the lighting scheme?

Your beautiful AI generated image there.

Um, you know, it's not typical, or it can be typical for office buildings to keep the lights on.

That's as part of enlivening uh streetscape.

Um what would actually be the plan if this were to be approved in terms of keeping the lights on 24 or at during dark?

I I think we would be happy to work through the design on that.

Um in collaboration.

I think the idea would be, you know, typically when you design the circulation lighting, um there's just some minimum lighting they need to provide, and probably it goes off if nobody's on there.

But we would happy be happy to keep that on if that was allowable, but per you know the planning commission.

Um I think there it would be a generally, I come from a construction background, a pretty straightforward lighting design to do that.

Um, and I think we could present a couple different concepts.

I think if there was collaboration needed, um and if that was desired.

Thank you.

Are there any uh clarifying questions before we go to public comment?

Commissioner Erns.

Thank you.

Um, some of my questions have been already asked.

Um, so I think just the remaining one is if you have information about how the rent on the office units in this building compare to the rent in other nearby buildings.

I would say we're we're openly trying to lease um probably at a discount to market the vacant spaces with no traction.

And I would say, given when the leases were signed, that we're probably the leases now are above market, um, so there would actually be a discount um in other buildings for the existing tenancy.

And have you considered making upgrades to the offices to modernize them for potential tenants?

Um we haven't.

We I don't know if that's what's really holding this back is kind of modern upgrades.

I don't know what those would be.

I mean, I think some of the things that we get knocked on on tours is not having um, you know, on-site security, which the building can't really support, not having amenities like um conference centers or gyms.

There's really just no space for that.

Um, those are some of the knocks that we get.

So thank you.

I just want to confirm that you said that about 90% of the storage units are rented.

Um I think that this was a question we had asked in in October 2023.

Sounds like that is what you said, but I don't know if you were confident about it, but I want to make sure that that I'm hearing it correctly that it's about 90%.

Yeah.

Um, I think those are all my clarifying questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there's nothing else, then um we'll go to public comment.

All right.

So we have three speakers, and apologies for mispronouncing your names in advance.

Uh we have Aswan.

Assan.

Javia.

Okay.

And then Michael Cobruno.

And then we have um Paucho Cochinga.

Coachingway.

Conchingwe.

It was kind of hard for me to.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Okay.

So anyway, you have two minutes, and please state your full name for the record.

Two minutes.

Okay.

Um my name's Asan Jasmine.

Thank you for having me.

It's my actually regarding me my first time at a planning uh commission.

And um, which is pretty sad because I I've opened three businesses here in Oakland.

Um, and I'm sitting here, I had something prepared to say in support of Tidewater.

Uh, but after watching um the conversations that were had, I it I'm kind of blown away about how this conversation has had there's so much nuance that was not actually in context because I was in the uh during the pandemic, I worked with um Tidewater uh the beginning of the pandemic when we had all these uh vacant buildings, and uh they were one of the developers that actually created access for us to put populate the retail spaces below, gave me a lease.

Um I was the one who brought the not the nonprofit tenant who's currently in the building when she was actually uh uh mis displaced by her previous tenant.

Tidewater made uh not only uh gesture to create access for us uh for her to have that uh space, but also gave us an opportunity to buy the the outer portion of the building to to be to have some ownership here in Oakland uh as a community.

And that conversation, you know, we continued it, but it it uh turned into um uh her being uh lease a leaseholder.

But uh uh uh in regards to what staff said, I I totally aligned with that vision, and my company endeavors was actually what we tried to do was actually something like that to create these um, take all these uh empty spaces and put uh nonprofits in them artists and and that's what I approached Tidewater for that building specific building.

I said, hey, this is empty.

Uh this this is a art culture center in downtown Oakland.

It's empty.

Why can we not populate it with nonprofits and artists and all these different um community members?

And uh, and that vision is great, it's just it's not as easy as it uh as it sounds to make that happen.

Um, a lot of resources were not available to artists during that time in COVID.

Um, but the one of the bigger hurdles was developers not having the done.

I'm sorry, your time is up.

You can complete your last statement.

Um I just um Tidewater has been uh very much a uh uh anchor in supporting small businesses in Oakland and allowing us to have space when there was none, and so I I just support what their uh efforts are because if it keeps the building in their hands and allows the retail tenants on below to stay there, then I support the expansion of the uh storage units.

Thank you, great.

Thank you, Michael Corbruno.

Um good to be back.

I was a planning commissioner for seven years and chair for two and a half years, and I wrote a letter along with the former another former chair, Jim Jim Moore, um, just about uh this project because I think it's really important to as a commissioner to look at this from a different perspective.

I think staff has to look at the letter of the law.

I think your role is to look at the spirit.

Uh you heard some of that today.

There's a lot of considerations I think that you have to take into account.

Um, you know, there's a lot of variants.

I think I probably had a dozen variances in the seven years I served here, and they were everything from liquor uses, alcohol uses which you're dealing with right now, to you know, monopoles.

We even had, you know, expansion of funeral uses.

Those are pretty big things.

When you look at the context of what this is, of really how minor it is.

You heard it's 7,000 square feet.

I looked at this building, the ground floor of this building is 23,000 square feet.

So it's less than a third of the ground floor of what city hall.

So that's really not gonna change the character of a neighborhood by taking it from 81% and adding 7,000 square feet to a building uh and a building that's not being occupied and not being used.

So I would put it in that context, and I think as your role as a commissioner, you also have to look at other factors.

I mean, we heard about economic factors which are real, but also, you know, I would look at the loot.

I mean, the loot talks about an economic downturn to look at flexibility uh and to look at diversity of uses during that time, which I think is what this is.

And um, as you heard, this is also a very unique use.

This is the only building that has this.

So I think those are considerations when you're thinking of the spirit as a commissioner.

This is really, I think what we're talking about here.

And one last thing that I would say that I don't think Tidewater can say.

I served on this commission for seven years and 12 years, I just wrapped up on the port commission.

I've dealt with a lot of developers and a lot of people who are invested in this community, and there are not many left.

There are very some of the biggest named developers in this town that were around when I sat up there are no longer doing business in Oakland.

And Tidewater, as you heard, is still very committed, not only in the downtown, but in Eastmont and other parts of this city where no one else is doing business.

And the message you would send, I'm sorry, your time is up.

You may complete your last stage.

Poncho, is he still here?

Okay, so he left.

So is our final speaker?

Okay, so close public comments um and bring it back to the dais for discussion.

Commissioner Robin.

Well, first off, I want to say thank you, staff and both Tower Water for your presentations.

Um, I will say, um, and hearing all of the details and looking through the drawings.

Um yeah, have a couple comments.

One is that I feel like as far as the whole thought of a bad precedent being set, I feel like that was already set when the variants happened in 2004, the original variants.

So I feel like this is a very unique situation and um there needs to be a bit of flexibility.

Um the other comment is actually more for the design, like that five foot setback.

Um I feel like for a storage building, given like the floor to ceiling heights, that five feet needs to be closer to 10 feet.

Because otherwise, with the floor to ceiling heights, it's gonna look like that wall is literally up against the windows.

So that would be my only two comments about it.

But once again, thank you all for the presentation.

Yeah, a couple couple c uh comments as well, and maybe then one question if we can bring the applicant back up to discuss that five feet versus ten feet.

But um maybe my overall comment is I I also share share the view that yes, this is a very unique building and very unique circumstance, and I don't think that it would necessarily send a big precedent.

I mean, the mass vast majority of the use of the building already is storage.

Um the office space is just not being used.

I think there's a lot of other probably more appropriate buildings in that area that office can be used for, um, in regards to nonprofits and others and artists.

I don't think that necessarily moving into a building that only has a very small amount of very, very small office spaces where the majority of the building really is just storage lockers, is probably not very appealing to potential tenants.

So I I don't feel bad if we allow this um major variance because the building is already perceived as, I mean, even from the outside, uh, you know, just walking around even before this project, I never knew that this was actually an office building or part of an office building.

I always assume it was just a storage building.

Um, so uh I don't believe that this is a drastic change.

I think the drastic change did happen in 2004, um, and the additional changes that were allowed um, you know, in the building, and here we are today.

I also believe that 2025 is different than 2022, or even you know, 2004 or 2015 or 2016.

So we are in a very unique place that Oakland is in right now where our downtown is struggling.

There's a vast uh amount of ground floor retail space and office space available that you know, people are just not coming back.

Um, you know, we are doing businesses differently, and I think those are the karma conversations we're having while we're, you know, moving into phase two of the master plan and how we can reuse some of our empty spaces and kind of having a more of a neighborhood flow, how we can re envision downtown.

I know the downtown specific plan almost took 20 years, and a lot has changed in those 20 years.

Uh, and a lot of effort by the community and by the staff was put in there.

But as I said, I'm always coming back to the idea of that this is kind of a different um example and circumstance, and I do want us to find a way.

I'm inclined to find a way to allow um this major variance to be moved forward and approved.

Um the last piece I want to say is that, and I mentioned that at my last uh at the last conversation we had when I think maybe the two of you weren't there yet.

Is that I see it in my storage building that is only about three blocks away from me on on West Grand.

I've had storage locker over over the last 20 years in the Bay Area.

And I always see that a large percentage every time I go to my storage locker is used by the unhoused um neighbors.

Um they play such a critical role in the neighborhoods where we have unhoused neighbors because they need to have a safe, dry, secure place to have all of their belongings.

And I appreciate the staff mentioning, well, there are storage facilities two miles, three miles away, but two, three miles is a long way to walk if you don't have a car, or a long way to take if there's no bus system that runs there.

You can't even take certain things on the bus.

And you can't really take a lot of the stuff on a bike.

So being in walking distance of where our unhoused neighbors live um and spend their day um is very important.

And you know, there were moments where I was at my storage locker at two or three in the morning because I you know had to pick something out or drop something off.

It was a flying out the next day, and it's still active.

People are staying there in the middle of the night to use their facility to live out of their yeah, out of their storage locker, to put things back and forth.

So I I appreciate the the comment around the 24-7 activation because storage lockers are 24-7.

They are being most of them are uh being utilized 24-7 by by neighbors and folks out there or people who work all day, uh, who work in nightlife, who come you know, get off work at two or three in the morning.

They need to get something out of the storage locker.

Um, so uh I appreciate I appreciate that.

And then my the final point is I also appreciate that you listened to our comments and you made some changes, preserving the retail space.

I think it was very important to us and and to the community.

The fact that you did community outreach and got support from your from your surrounding neighbors.

Um and the fact that you did um move some storages further back and actually create a five feet walkway.

I think that was a big priority for for the commission last time you had, I think we spent a significant amount of money of our uh amount of time of our comments on that.

Um I'm not sure if ten feet is is viable because I I mean that cuts into the amount of lockers that you could offer.

So through the chair, maybe we can um have a comment from you about is it possible to increase the five foot or is the five foot the minimum that you were able to do to still have a viable business.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that comment ever since since you made it, and if there's a way that we can figure out a way to um accomplish your objective, but maybe not just have an arbitrary instead of five is ten because you know, these floor, I'm I'm just trying to read the drawings that are printed small.

I think they're about 17 feet deep, so you know, we're really cutting into the ability to um you know have a more meaningful storage locker is my real concern there.

Um I don't know if there's if there's a way to establish what that objective is of what you're trying not to experience or because I mean one thought I had to be honest with you was could we have the walls a little shorter and then that it'd be like more of an angled.

I don't know if that helps.

I'm just trying to I don't know what you're trying to experience of like not having the more verticality of that wall that makes sense.

Um sorry, those are just some thoughts that I had to mention.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, my comment about that is more so from the exterior.

Sure.

So the concern from the exterior, this is a historic building.

I would guess that's probably going to be a blank wall, right?

Uh yeah, the kind of like white and white metal, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so likely a blank wall, draw wall.

Um, so I'm thinking that just visually what it's gonna look like is with those floor to cellar heights, just a five-foot depth, it's literally going to look like that wall is pretty much right behind the window.

So that's the reason I'm saying that is it, and it doesn't necessarily have to be 10 feet, but try to, I think, increase it with with whatever's feasible.

But uh five feet isn't really sufficient.

It's visually, it's not gonna look so well from the exterior.

That's that's my concern about it.

So increase it, I mean I think we can we agree on that.

Um, we can agree on that.

Uh what I was thinking is, you know, like the the visual from the street to the third floor will be different than the visual from the street to the second floor, just given it's higher up.

And my thought was if the if so these storage lockers don't go all the way to the ceiling, just to maybe that maybe that's a good clarifying question.

These are they're like a prefabricated metal, lightweight metal, they're not drywall with with doors in them.

So they don't have to go full height to the to the deck.

So one thought is like maybe they come in a standard size, maybe they can be a little bit shorter.

Um to accomplish that versus pushing them back.

I think we do have some ability to push them back.

I'm just I just scared get scared committing to a number of 10, and then all of a sudden we do that, we crunch the numbers, and it's like that wasn't feasible.

This was all for for nothing.

Uh is my concern.

Yeah.

Um that's understandable.

I mean, obviously, I don't want to give a number that's like sure where it just defeats the whole purpose of adding the storage units, but like I say, it just visually, that's what I'm thinking.

If you can increase it, then I think it should be increased from five feet.

Just knowing that five feet isn't it isn't sufficient as far as the the visual that it's going to provide from street level.

Uh yeah, I think we can I think we can do that.

I think we can advance increasing the five feet.

Okay, yeah, like I say, it doesn't necessarily have to be ten feet exactly.

Yeah, but try to move as much as you can.

I respect that, yeah.

Commissioner.

Thank you.

Um so I did go by the building before this meeting, and a number of the blinds are open, understanding that they change every day probably, but I was able to see some plants and other papers and lamps.

Um, and I was also able to look in up to the third floor to be able to see ceiling lights in one of the uh uh office units, which I assume are more than five feet from the window, and so it was nice to be able to see that you know that there were some people in there beyond just sort of a five-foot um pathway.

I think also, you know, five feet isn't actually that wide.

So if you're moving storage boxes and other items, like is that going to be something that's gonna work for the tenants?

Um, because the recommendation for a sidewalk width is a minimum of four feet um for access.

Um, so if you're thinking about when you've been on a tight sidewalk, you know, that's not actually that much space.

And so for the functionality of the tenants, I'm in agreement with Commissioner Rob about the look from the outside is gonna still be up onto a blank wall.

Um, and that because this is an industrial use, it is not actually an active use.

Um, if 87% of the building is already storage units, then there will be a lot of people coming at 24 hours all the time, as you know, you share it.

Commissioner Randolph, um, and that will be some activation there, but the point of office is that and retail, which I'm glad is being preserved on the first floor, is that you have eyes on the street, um, and that you have people who are gonna be on site able to um contribute to walkability, levability, vibrancy of uh of the building and the block, and as an industrial use, you just don't have that.

So my understanding that the argument that the applicant is making is that you need the 7,000 square feet of storage so that this building is economically viable.

You are making an assumption.

If you want to use a 90% occupancy of your current storage units, that with this additional 7,000 feet, you'll have 90% occupancy for these units.

My understanding is you're saying that that additional rent and income from those additional 7,000 square feet of storage units is what is gonna make this building viable.

That is the assumption that we need to contend with to understand and make a decision on if we want to change the zoning based on their argument that they need to make more money to make the building viable for them.

For me, I am very concerned about the precedent that that sets, because as we discussed two years ago, this is an industrial use in a part of town that is not zoned for industrial use.

Um as commissioner Lee pointed out, a condition of the 2004 variants was that there would be office space to keep this area vibrant.

And again, thank you for keeping the retail on the first floor.

That that was addressing concerns we had last time.

Um but I think the precedent that it sets is that any landowner can come, office owner, et cetera, and say, I'm not making money on my property, I need you to change the zoning.

I don't think that that's a good idea.

That's not how we should do planning.

That's not how we should um use our discretion.

I I do find that extremely concerning, and that was an issue that I had last time.

Um storage units are not deed restricted.

The applicant could say that they would rent them all to unhoused people or all to nonprofits.

There is no mechanism in place for us to require that they do that.

They also share that you would probably not have special rates for different populations, so without even you know, a verbal agreement that they would be renting out to unhoused people, um, and that is not what they've given us.

They have not given us a verbal agreement that they would do that.

That would be an assumption that you could do that, or that you could rent to nonprofits.

Again, there's nothing that we can do to hold them accountable to having those storage units accessible to people that need them.

Um, and so I am concerned around that piece.

Um so I I am not comfortable granting the variance um for those reasons.

The change in the 7,000 square feet is uh is so minor.

I think the argument can kind of go both ways, like this isn't that big of a change, or um yeah, I'm not I'm just talking in circles, but those are those are my main concerns that I I do think it sets a dangerous precedent.

This is an industrial use, and I'm not comfortable moving forward.

Yeah, um I share all those concerns.

I think, you know, the argument that it's not that big of a change because it's primarily storage units storage use already is not a very compelling one for me.

I mean, the reason that it's mostly storage use is because um there was this condition that allowed it, which required the perimeter to be preserved as office and retail.

So, you know, it's uh to me it's it's problematic to come and say um uh, you know, we'll we'll change the storage, but we'll preserve we'll we'll agree to this condition and come back again and say, well, you already agreed to let us do most of the the building, so why not get rid of um part of the the condition?

I mean, I think that there's there's a bigger precedent here, which is that when a developer promises something or building order promises something to get special treatment, has to mean something.

There has to be an expectation that that condition is gonna be followed.

Um, you know, they can make it another promise now that they're gonna try to make the hallways bigger, try to make the you know, give storage units the the um houseless people, but you know, in the first place, um, there has to be some expectations that conditions can be followed.

I mean, particularly you know, when you have dozens of people or hundreds of people who are a part of, you know, whether it's um creating a specific plan or you know, um, you know, whether it's we're talking about Brooklyn Basin, whether we're talking about downtown specific plan, whatever the situation is, um, when whether we're talking about a development agreement or a major variance approval.

Um, when there's promises that are made, um, they should be followed and um whether or not the permitting uh permitted zoning and uses is consistent with marketing conditions, not something for um to be uh addressed through a major variance.

Um there are other processes for that.

So um I'm not comfortable um granting this.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um I will weigh in, I know uh Commissioner Randolph has another question as well, but um I just wanted to thank the applicant for taking some of the considerations that were brought up at the last meeting into consideration and coming back.

Um I do think there were some thoughtful changes uh, especially keeping the ground floor spaces, which um are also hard to keep activated.

And you know, I also went by the space and it's you know, they're they're not there's a tenant in there in that corner space, but it's not necessarily activating the street.

Um the nail salon is obviously there were people in there, which was great to see.

Um, and similar to Commissioner Aaron's, it was nice to be able to look up and see that some of that office space was occupied.

Um, it is a tough time out there for office, and this goes for like many, many, many, many major cities and Oakland in particular.

Um, I have seen precedents from other large cities where there's been a collaboration with the city in order to, you know, help lease spaces.

Um there's lots of programs for ground floor spaces, uh kind of temporary activation permits and you know, uh short-term leases.

Um, so I would like to hear from the city in uh a little bit of my understanding is that none of there's city of Oakland does not have something like that in place yet.

Um, but I have also there are um precedents in other cities as well that help to lease these smaller spaces to nonprofits and you know um smaller businesses, uh, but that's not something that's necessarily easy for uh a developer or owner who is not typically catering to those audiences in some of their other assets.

So um I'd love to hear maybe if you don't mind Catherine to talk a little bit about what the city might have as a resource.

Sure.

I don't know, so any resources would be provided through our economic and workforce development department.

We refer to them as EWD, and I know they're working on a number of initiatives to support business owners throughout Oakland and in particular in the downtown.

So I'm I'm speaking to their initiatives and not planning.

So I I hope I don't err.

Uh, but EWD has been working um approaching council and their sort of mid-process seeking a three million dollar uh set of tax rebates for Oakland businesses to try to support Oakland businesses staying in Oakland.

Um, so that's a uh it's for certain business types and not necessarily just for the downtown.

I don't know what business types, but again, it's an effort to keep uh businesses out in Oakland.

Uh in addition, uh working EWD working with planning recently, um, move changes forward that you were part of to remove CUP requirements in downtown for nightclub and alcoholic beverage sales uses uh to uh allow for easier permitting for nightclub uses appropriate to downtown where we don't have lots of residents to you know be concerned and complain about noise and other um conflicts with that type of use.

And so now we have a very streamlined permitting process for those nightclub entertainment uh style uses in downtown, and that's a recent change you were part of making.

And then finally, um the EWD is working uh on a an application to enhance the existing ambassador program, and this isn't really specific to supporting businesses as kind of secondary to provide some uh, you know, music festival type uses in downtown throughout the warmer months, May to October, uh, trying to both enhance the ambassador program and add to it with some cultural uses to attract uh people to the downtown and encourage more pedestrian activity in the downtown both things.

So EWD is working tirelessly to enhance the pedestrian experience and public experience of downtown at this time.

Um most of that is is um cool initiatives that are in process.

Thank you for that.

Um if possible, I don't know if I can do it here, but I'd love to request an informational report.

Just as we see more projects in downtown, I'm guessing this is not going to be the first project we're seeing that is requesting a change of use.

Um so that would be helpful to know what's in the works.

Yes, and I will uh repeat that I'll let Christy Johnston who helped provide some of this information earlier.

Um, I'll let her know that you'd you'd love to hear what she has to say about um the efforts they're making towards supporting uh both retaining existing businesses and attracting new businesses.

In addition, uh I will note that they've been to council recently.

Uh as recently as I'm gonna lie about the date, October 3rd.

I see a report dated October 3rd, but I don't know if that was an actual council date.

Um, but it's available online.

And what I can do is um send the chair at least a link to I can send a link to the entire planning commission.

It outlines some of their recent and ongoing efforts.

So I'll make sure to get that to you.

And I believe that's probably on tape because it was presented to council.

We'll say recently, maybe not October 3rd, but recently.

Thank you.

Um I think that context would be helpful just because this is downtown that we're talking about, and downtown revitalization is just such an important topic for us to consider.

Um, it's clear that downtown Oakland has a ways to go.

Um, so we must consider the decisions that we're making today and whether that's going to contribute to the vitality of the future of Oakland's downtown.

Um, I understand that storage has its place, it really does.

Uh obviously 90% um leased right now.

Um, but I worry that in the future this is not contributing to the vitality that we're really hoping for in downtown.

Um, and particularly as we're thinking about not only attracting office tenants that are gonna, you know, be bigger office tenants that are gonna have big leases and they'll get all the amenities from some of the newer buildings, but continuing to support the smaller businesses in downtown, which really make Oakland so special.

Um, but I think that part of that the city, I would love that's why I want to hear how the city can help support some of those um leasing activities.

Commissioner Randolph, you had comment.

Yeah, uh thank you for that.

I mean, I I appreciate all the comments and I share the comments around making sure we have enough space for nonprofits and artists and you know, promises kept, yeah, promises made or promises kept and holding developers, you know, to account when they make a promise when they come in front of the commission and you know come back a couple years later and want to, you know, have a change to the original plans.

I just feel like in this specific case and in the world that we live right now, promises made 20 years ago are just not necessarily based on reality anymore.

I mean, we have to face that downtowns and specifically downtown Oakland is not what we envisioned 20 years ago.

Um, and the promises that we that developers make might not hold up anymore 20 years ago in the new reality, where a majority of nonprofits that I know and work with have either eliminated their office space or reduced the office space that they need because the majority of their workers don't want to come in the office anymore and they prefer working from home because they have childcare needs, they have family needs, they have a parent to care for, they have other flexible office hours where they work different hours.

They don't have to be in the office at the same time anymore.

So it might not be that the nonprofits are not there anymore in downtown Oakland.

They might not just need the office space that is being offered anymore in today's world.

And if we keep operating under the idea that if we build it they will still come eventually when people move back into the office world that world is not going to come anymore.

I mean we see it even in private businesses and large corporations who are reducing their office footprints because half of the workers only come into the office two or three times a week.

The needs of 20 years ago when this was approved with the promise was made it's just not where we're going to be anymore in the future from now on.

And I think it is unfair to a new owner and to an existing use to hold them to promises that were made in a different world.

So I appreciate the comments and I share them I do feel like in this specific case um it is okay for us to set that precedent because the precedent that we are relying on no longer exists.

The nonprofits no longer use that space the way that used them and I think the additional use that is going to come into the downtown area is realistic of the current use of what people need and want in downtown.

We have all these new residential buildings and modern buildings that don't have any storage space.

If you rent any of those condos or studios or one bedrooms there's almost no storage space in any of those buildings neither in the garage neither in the you know common areas it's it's used for gyms it's used for conference rooms so if you're working from home you have a space you can take meetings they don't think about storage.

So yet again we there's really this big need for storage in downtown that has not been considered.

And it goes same with you know some of the requirements that we're having when the new buildings are being built around ground floor retail I know since I joined the commission what three years ago I've talked about the issue with ground floor retail that we're requiring residential buildings all over the city to to put that in when they build these buildings and similar to the one where I live it will never be rented out but yet we have a vacant retail space on ground floor um that is not contributing to the vitality of the neighborhood.

Thankfully in this case they do have retail tenants that are contributing to the vitality of the neighborhood and that's why I appreciate that you kept the ground floor retail but I think you know it's up to us as a commission to also understand what the current existing realities are and where the city is moving towards and understand that yes there's existing zoning laws that thankfully the staff has to apply and in their determinations but then there's also the flexibility that we have as a body to make those tough decisions when the reality does not meet the law or the code.

So I'm still inclined to find a way to provide this major variance in this specific case I don't think it sets a precedence that everybody's going to come in front of our commission now and says oh we need to convert our entire building from commercial to residential we need to do this and that's we can do that on a case by case basis you know cities like San Francisco allowing commercial buildings now to go fully residential.

Not sure if that's viable because maybe in 10 years we need office space again and then they might have to go back.

But I think in this specific case that is from is in front of me right now I am inclined to find a way to to offer this major variance.

I don't know if it's appropriate to do poll it sounds like the majority of the commission is not inclined.

So maybe we I'm I don't have to make a motion if it's not going to go anywhere but I would love to to see if there's a way.

Commissioner Erns.

Thank you.

Yeah I I appreciate your comments and uh I appreciate you sharing your rationale I I will say you're right that the downtown and this building is not as it was 20 years ago because 20 years ago this building was going to be torn down.

I mean this part of downtown Oakland was so empty that a historic building was slated or could have been completely removed because it was such a depressed and unactive and unlivelely space.

Um and so that's why at that time that major variance was granted was because the city said we would rather have it be an industrial use, which is not usually permitted in a commercial residential area to save this building.

Um and I'm glad that they did that because it's it's a wonderful building and I'm glad that the storage units that exist now do exist and they're being used and there is a need for that.

But um there is a lot more vitality downtown now.

Um I know it's not where it may maybe was before the pandemic and where we'd like it to be.

Um but you know, over the summer, many employers, including I believe the city of Oakland started requiring their um employees to come in more days a week.

I think it's four days a week now, maybe not three days a week.

Uh not that not that you're counting.

Um and I and I will say it's a lot harder to convert uh non-residential building into a residential building.

I think that it gets thrown around a lot in development worlds and requirements around airflow and windows are very stringent and require major changes to floor plans that are sometimes just infeasible with the way the offices have been built.

Now I know that this is an older building, but um requirements for windows and bedrooms mean if you have like the elevator and the bathrooms in the core of the office building, you would have these really weird long sort of triangular units that go out from the core of the building to make residential space viable and legal with airflow um and windows, and sometimes it just doesn't work.

Now I'm talking about newer buildings that have that core of elevators and bathrooms, and then I don't know exactly the floor plan of older buildings and this one in particular well enough to know how feasible it would be to tra change it into residential, but I do wanna say I think that that gets thrown around a lot is like, oh, other tenants could just redo their whole building and we don't have that option is I think it's actually very hard to do that, um, to change that use.

Now, if a commercial building wanted to change into a residential building in downtown right now, that's zoned for that because it's a commercial and residential area.

So I'm sort of reiterating some of my earlier points, and I appreciate where you're coming from, and we may just disagree on this.

Um but uh I think that for the use right now it's just not enough of an active use.

It's not a permitted use.

Um, and I want to be able to make sure that we're setting downtown up for success.

And I know there are a lot of arts nonprofits and others that are activating ground floor, like in the building at 20th and Broadway.

There's new art down there at um MacArthur Bart.

There's new art on um the ground floor retail space.

And so I agree with Commissioner Sandoval about wanting the city to support more active uses, more temporary uses, and I think that there are arts organizations out there that may receive funding from the city or may not, but they could also be contributing to that.

Commissioner Lee.

Yeah, Commissioner Randolph's points are very well taken.

I think uh it's true that um uh, you know, when we look at promises, make we need to look at how long time has passed, how how conditions have changed.

Um, you know, whether the the developers changed.

I think those are all um very good points.

So I want to thank you for your comments.

Um, you know, I still think though that uh the um and I think it's true that there are some ways that um we need to look at how to adapt um uh downtown to current conditions uh or perhaps temporarily, perhaps in in the longer term, um, and that um as a commission we have to you know look creatively at at ways that that we can do that.

So I think all your points are are are good ones.

I think um on this particular case though, uh I think the rationale for the the original original condition um still holds true.

Um the um i'm i'm not that persuaded about um uh some of the the the arguments that the developers made, and I think there are some guardrails in terms of you know what we um can and can't do is as far as major variance approvals.

I mean, you know, if if we had no guard rules at all, there's there's lots of things I would love to do.

As as far as planning rules.

Um but um but yeah i just want to appreciate what what the comments that you made i think they're really good points you made thanks any other comments okay well with that would anyone like to make a motion i don't know how do we do this because i'm actually in agreement with commissioner randolph so it seems like we're a little split on this one so that's why see if we could maybe do straw to see what me before I think of a before we think of a whole motion I mean maybe see if where the commission actually is that possible uh I don't it is possible and yet I think if anyone is prepared to make a motion uh the commission should work to make a motion first and if a motion isn't forthcoming uh then move to um some other approach so I don't think you've I haven't heard um enough discussion over from where I'm sitting to know that there's not a motion forthcoming um if you don't mind uh through the chair Brian Mulrie from the city attorney's office like generally what'll happen is someone will make a motion and then there's a second and then we call the vote if there is a second if there's not a second then that motion will fail.

And so it sounds like there could be competing motions here I would advise that someone make a motion and see if there's a second and then we can take a vote.

If there isn't a second then that motion will fail um can I just so could I make a motion to affirm the the staff recommendation to um not allow the major variants not grant the major variants.

So there's I hear a motion by Commissioner Lee.

Second so and apologies are you citing the motion in the staff report we struggled to hear you kind of jump to conclusions there.

So if you could just state the motion again and then um Aaron's if you still wish to repeat your second I don't know the the correct uh wording but just to uh affirm the staff recommendation um to deny the major variants that's adequate thank you second and there's a second by commissioner aaron so there's a motion uh can uh there's a motion and a second the motion is the staff report recommendation we'll call vote please all right commissioner airens yes commissioner lee yes commissioner randolph no commissioner rob no the vice chair sandoval yes motion passes uh three to two and this decision is appealable to city council within 10 days thank you and moving on that was our last agenda item is there any uh appeals no appeals any commission business approval of the minutes.

Uh we do have the draft minutes from October 1st, 2025.

A motion to approve those minutes.

I move to approve the minutes from October 1st, 2025.

Second.

Motion by commissioner airens and a second by commissioner randolph.

Roll call vote, please.

All right.

So Commissioner airens?

Yes.

Commissioner lee?

Yes.

Commissioner randolph.

Yes.

Commissioner Rob.

Yes.

Vice chair sandoval.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Those minutes will be posted as approved to the web page.

Any correspondence?

No correspondence to the Secretary.

Any city council actions?

Uh again, just a congratulations to our two commissioners, Commissioner Ahrens and Randolph for being reappointed.

And I believe uh your the your terms are now, your second terms end in 2028, if I recall, May 2028.

So uh thank you so much for your continued community service to the City of Oakland.

Thank you.

And with that, I will adjourn the meeting at four fifty-two.

Thank you.