Oh.

Um welcome everybody to the zoning update committee.

And um call the meeting to order.

And uh the chair wants to go ahead and speak.

Thank you.

Welcome to the October 22nd zoning update committee meeting.

Uh could the secretary please call roll.

Chair or Commissioner Sandoval.

Here.

Chair Aaron.

Here.

All right.

Moving on to um committee matters.

I think we have no items.

So moving on to agenda discussion.

I believe we also have no items.

So moving on to open forum.

We have one speaker, um, Mav or Maeve.

I'm sorry if I pronounced that incorrectly.

You have two minutes to speak on this one, and then you'll have two minutes for the other one when we get to that one.

You're welcome.

Hi, everybody.

I'm Maven Carter Griffin, and I'm the co-founder and uh records creative director of the Wood Street People's Collective that previous to 2020, we had been the thing for a model of how to deal with curbside community.

And we were very clean and we had policies and programs, we threw a rave for fundraising, and we're all just individual local residents of that area.

Um it befell a lot of congestion.

Um the city gave us a lot of people, and we went up to 300 people very quickly, and then there was the break from COVID, and there was nobody that we can communicate with to keep it under control.

Um, what I'd like to say is that somehow in planning, it would be good to consider how to regulate the curbs.

And I have a couple ideas about that.

Part of it is grading, going up and making a grade, giving people individual uh signs or stickers or permits, you know, that would be on their structure.

And then if they are following a certain pattern of uh, you know, cleanliness and organized appearance, something that's beautiful and attractive, then there's not that much of an issue.

Um we availed ourselves to the businesses in the area and would work for people.

If you had a problem, we would fix it.

If there was garbage in front of your place, we'd clean it up, we would organize the garbage piles that would come around.

But uh, fortunately, our reputation right now is crap, excuse me.

But uh I'm still unhoused, and I don't mind as long as I'm working with people and and bringing my knowledge and experience to a common ground for us all to become equal.

And uh there's not a lot of equality, and I think that the reason why unhoused people are so sloppy and kind of lazy-fair about the way they deal with stuff is because they have no hope.

And we did have hope for campus where we would be certified to be at the curb.

And that's what I would like to bring to table, and also we could use permits.

You know, you could get a permit to stay in an area, and you have to live up to a certain standard while you're radically self-sheltering and being independent.

Because the shelters are very dangerous and they're not very um friendly.

So thank you.

We have no more speakers.

Thank you.

Um, could staff follow up with the speaker for a way to for uh comments to be responded to after the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, moving on to new business, our one item.

Thank you.

Alright, hello everyone.

I'm Timothy Green.

I'm a planner three in the Strategic Planning Division.

Today's staff are proposing a planning code amendment package to alter conditional use permit requirements or CUP requirements as we call them.

So today I'll give a brief project overview.

I'll discuss key themes addressed by the proposed amendments, and I'll provide staff's recommendation.

So the CUP approval process is often lengthy and expensive and affords a high level of discretion to city decision makers.

This can inhibit the opening of small and neighborhood serving businesses, which can result in less vibrant commercial districts and reduce tax revenues.

Additionally, it hampers the implementation of parks improvements and maintenance by the city itself.

Mayor Lee has established a permit reform initiative included as part of her 10-point plan for Oakland, from which this proposal was initiated.

The primary focus of these amendments is to reduce the number of activities subject to the CUP procedure, thus allowing these uses to be permitted outright or outright or with a reduced CUP requirements.

The zoning amendments in the Broadway Valdez district adopted in May served as a pilot for this project, and now we're expanding this effort citywide.

So the proposed package amends the following chapters of the planning code, definitions, use classifications, and the following zones OS, RD, RM, R U, CN, CC, CR, B, HBX, M40, CIX, IG, IO, S1, and S15.

Additional amendments are proposed for the S16, DWS, DOTN, DBV, DCE, DLM, DCO, and DDT zones, as well as the special regulations and findings for certain useful classifications, off-street parking and loading requirements, telecommunications regulations, conditional use permit procedure, and special use permit review procedure for the OS zone.

So the following five slides outline key changes to the permitted and conditionally permitted activities in zoning districts.

The bulk of proposed amendments reduce the regulatory barriers to permitting commercial and civic activities in commercial in the commercial zones.

One of the key triggers for a CUP for these activities is the square footage of the proposed operation.

For example, in the CN zones, many proposed activities currently require a CUP if they're over 7,500 square feet.

This proposal would shift that threshold up to 10,000 square feet, which would result in significant time and cost savings for businesses proposing operations between 7,500 and 10,000 square feet.

Relatively small size thresholds for a CUP, such as in these CN commercial districts, can make it hard to fill larger building vacancies.

Therefore, the proposed planning amendments would raise many of these CUP thresholds by 20 to 50%, depending on the activity in the zone.

Group assembly includes a variety of businesses that facilitate public gathering, generally having a floor area of at least 5,000 square feet.

Such activities can serve as anchor destinations, attracting patrons to a commercial district from throughout the city and region.

The activity generated from these venues can support other businesses such as restaurants, bolster the reputation of a commercial district, and promote the city as a center for arts and culture.

However, they also have the potential to generate elevated noise levels that can disturb neighboring residents.

Currently, the planning code regulates this issue by requiring most group assembly activities to receive a CUP.

The proposal aims to create a more predictable permitting process by increasing the square footage before a CUP is required and instead establishing performance standards in certain zones.

So the proposal now a CUP would only be triggered if the use is proposed to be outdoors or if it exceeds 10 or 15,000 square feet, depending on the zone.

For projects that don't trigger a CUP but propose to use amplified sound, and operational noise plan would be required.

This would document potential noise generation of the project and describe any mitigation measure required to meet existing noise performance standards.

Traditionally, one of the reasons to require a CUP would be to require this North noise study and add conditions as a result of it.

But by requiring this with the permitted use as a performance standard, allows staff to still have these requirements without the need for the more lengthy CUP process.

Artisan production was newly added to the planning code in 2023.

This classification includes activities such as painting, drawing, sculpture, small-scale jewelry production, photography, fashion design, art galleries, and small-scale food production.

This proposal will add artisan production to most commercial zoning districts, as well as certain industrial and residential districts as appropriate.

Mechanical or electronic games are arcades providing pinball machines, video game devices, or other similar games.

Such arcades can serve as key activity generators on commercial corridors.

Additionally, they serve as third places, particularly for youth, by providing for social opportunities outside of home and school.

Regulation on these activities varies significantly throughout the city's zoning districts, and the proposal will allow them to be permitted by right in most commercial districts, as well as certain industrial and residential districts as appropriate.

Medical service and animal care.

These are neighborhood-serving units, uses that can generate activity on a commercial corridor, but they can contain sensitive operations that should be screened from public view.

In order to maintain vibrant commercial storefronts while allowing these businesses to operate, ground floor transparency requirements were developed first for the new downtown districts, then refined for the Broadway Valley Des zoning update.

In those districts, the relevant businesses must provide street fronting windows for reception lobby and waiting areas, while treatment rooms may not face the street.

The current proposal expands these requirements to include other pedestrian-oriented commercial districts.

The Lake Merritt zones have been amended amended to maintain the highest possible consistency with the surrounding downtown zones.

This will ensure clear and consistent regulation throughout all of Oakland's downtown.

Of note, daycare facilities, preschools, and elementary schools with more than 50 enrollees would require a pickup and drop-off management plan.

This regulation ensures regulatory consistency with the adjacent downtown zones.

All right, and we'll move on to parks and open spaces.

Parks are one of the city's most important resources, requiring thoughtful stewardship.

Our current permitting framework aims to accomplish this by requiring a rigorous public review process for proposed projects.

However, this results in a trade-off that results in high costs and lengthy approval timelines.

The proposed amendments aim to balance these competing goals by reducing costs and delays while maintaining public review commensurate with the impacts of a given project.

So I'll go through just some highlight highlights of changes.

A couple amenities are proposed to be directly shifted from prohibited to permitted by right, meaning the uses would only go through the parks and rec and a staff approval process and not be reviewed by planning.

Namely, concessions would be newly permitted in active mini parks and linear parks.

These limited changes would allow for activation of parks by providing concessions now in any type of city park.

Meanwhile, many basic park amenities would be changed from minor CUP to permitted.

Examples include permitting pathways, basic utility infrastructure, and kiosks in all park types.

It would also streamline permitting of restrooms in all parks, with the exception of resource conservation areas.

Some activities would be shifted from prohibited to minor CUP.

That would mean that instead of being banned, it would mean that planning approval would be granted by staff and then go through the parks and rec approval process.

These changes would allow for installation of low impact recreational amenities, particular, particularly in athletic field parks.

However, requiring a minor CUP would maintain thoughtful analysis of proposals, particularly in regard to limiting expansion of impervious surfaces and parks.

Additionally, cafes would be conditionally permitted in most parks, which would help to activate those spaces and provide revenue for their maintenance.

Restrooms and maintenance sheds in resource conservation areas would be shifted from a major CUP to a minor CUP, allowing for these basic facilities to go through just one public hearing by the Parks and Rec Advisory Commission or PRAC instead of two with the Planning Commission also reviewing.

This could shorten approval timelines by months.

Many activity types would be changed from prohibited to major CUP.

These changes would allow for installation of more impactful park amenities such as waterplay features, restaurants, and alcohol sales, while maintaining a high level of public review to ensure they don't cause negative impacts.

These would require both PRAC and Planning Commission approval.

Other key changes to the open space zone include clarifying that maintenance in kind replacement and small projects adding less than 100 square feet of new impervious surface is not a change in use.

Permitting small stormwater facilities and public art installations of less than a thousand square feet in all parks.

And large facilities would require a CUP or be prohibited depending on the facility and park type.

And prohibiting athletic fences in mini parks, linear parks, and resource conservation areas.

And more limited amendments are proposed to residential and industrial zones to allow for a wider variety of uses as appropriate.

And as I'm wrapping up the discussion of the zoning districts, I'll just note that these were kind of the highlights in some of the bigger things, but there's changes throughout the activity tables that can be reviewed in the attachments.

And other miscellaneous cleanup and administrative amendments would be made to the following chapters showed on the slide that weren't dealt with in the previous conversation.

So the tentative timeline for this project is as follows.

On November 5th, the full planning commission will consider the item along with the recommendations provided by PRAC and by the ZUC here today.

Upon planning commission's recommendation, the item will be heard at CED on November 18th, and by the full city council in December.

Assuming a 60-day implementation period, the amendments would go into effect in mid-February.

So we would like to read in the following recommendation, which has been edited from that published in the agenda.

So staff requests at the zoning update committee recommend that the planning commission conduct a public hearing and receive commissioning public comments on an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the planning code to one, amend Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the planning code to A, adjust regulations for permitted and conditionally permitted activities and facilities for the purposes of providing greater opportunities for ground floor s ground floor activities and ease the permitting burden for commercial, civic, and low impact industrial activities, and B, make related miscellaneous cleanup and administrative changes, and two, make appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings.

And that concludes my presentation.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

There's a lot of content in there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um thank you for your presentation and um great job to the planning department for working hard to help streamline this.

We all want to support, you know, streamlining uh to specifically to help small businesses, et cetera.

Um one question clarifying question I had was um how many CUPs approximately uh in the last three to five years say were for small businesses versus larger projects, and typically how long did that process take?

Just trying to gain some context here.

That's a great question.

Uh excuse me, planning commissioners.

This is um Edmanasse, I'm the deputy director of planning.

Excuse me.

We'll have to do a little research.

We can come back and get at the planning commission and report on numbers, but um a minor CUP typically has been taking um eight to twelve months on average.

It is down now over the last uh six months because of uh um a drop in our our permitting uh volumes, but um that's over the last three to five years that's been the average is eight to twelve months.

Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you.

Yeah, but and we can get numbers for you um at the planning commission here.

Okay, that might be a question that comes up from other commissioners as well, so it might be good to have, yeah.

Sure, okay.

Thank you.

Um another question I had is um related to open space and parks and the changes allowing cafes.

Um are there controls in how much of the parkland can be commercial and what those hours would be and how that revenue from that commercial activity might tie back to um park maintenance.

So um that's really in the purview of the park and rec advisory commission and also our park and rec um department.

So in planning, we don't you know oversee that and um still even with I guess to emphasize because this came up at the park and rec advisory commission as a question of concern because I think from even the commissioners about the concern of unpermitted, you know, carts and food trucks and other things that are in the parks, and um, yeah, that is um not something that really the planning code, right, is going to control.

So what is being allowed now is that the parking rec advisory commission as well as parks and recs can you know still permit, you know, in these parks these types of you know, like a food trucker or like a cart that wouldn't have been allowed previously, but per their regulations they're supposed to still get a permit to do that through parks and rec advisory commission or through the parks uh department, and so really whether we permit it or don't permit it, you know, that still doesn't really control whether someone still may be doing it without getting a permit.

So I'm not sure if that's the kind of where you're going on that, but that was definitely something we heard as a concern that there's a lot of people that are doing this without permits, and I think there's um a lot of comments about how it's being enforced, but that is not really something that's the planning code is gonna determine.

And I think something to to really highlight that that came up in that that practice meeting as well is kind of understanding exactly, because it is kind of confusing about like how the approval process are shifting by saying oh, something went from being a C a major COP to being permitted, for example.

The planning code is really about the planning department and the planning commission's um review of potential activities.

So this is the planning department saying that we want to take a smaller role in the approval process for parks um investments.

Um it doesn't say just saying something is permitted by the planning department by right permitted by the planning department, um doesn't doesn't really apply to whatever the parks and recs um approval processes are.

Okay.

Um more question.

Um so then um kind of back to the streamlining for um businesses and then kind of new 10,000 square foot threshold.

Just wondering, will the streamlining apply differently for smaller local businesses?

I'm thinking about like fee reduction or expedited review or anything like that as um or versus like larger chain or larger businesses.

So when we um charge our fees for permits, we have to charge the fee that it costs us to the time that it's taking staff to process the permit.

So fees are charged the same to everybody because that's also state law is that we can only charge somebody how much it's costing us to process that permit.

Understood.

I think I'm just thinking about ways to help support small businesses more, and if there's any way to think about that creatively in terms of fee waivers or anything like that.

Well, fee waivers would have to fees would have to be paid out of the general fund then to cover that.

So we cannot take fees from the planning and building permit fees to to pay because then there's a problem with state law essentially because we can't charge one business more money to pay for another business's permit.

We can only charge what is costing to cover those costs for that particular permit.

So that would have to be something that would have to be taken up outside of the planning and building.

Maybe Mike can speak to that.

I didn't mean to to interrupt you.

This is Michael Branson, deputy city attorney.

Um I was just gonna add that I I think because of those limitations on having cost recovery fees, really the most targeted way to reduce the fees for certain businesses is to reduce the amount of review that has to go into the permit.

So I think that's that is in part why there's focus on you know moving things from the CUP to um to a permitted or a minor CUP.

It's not just the time savings, but it does result in different fees being applied based on those permit categories.

Thank you.

Yes, and we do also hear a lot about um in in our engagement, we've heard a lot about you know, businesses renting a space and needing to rent the space first and then applying for their permit and maybe requires a CP and they're paying rent for a month without operating their businesses.

So I think um, you know, shortening those timelines.

I think I think these these reduced costs that hopefully will come from this will be felt more greatly by someone in a small business as opposed to um a larger corporate business that could uh maybe wouldn't feel the the change as much in the cost.

Thank you.

Um I was wondering if you could share a little bit about lessons learned from the Broadway Valdez updates that happened earlier this year.

I know that that was sort of a pilot for um this suite of changes.

So if you could share yeah, anything that worked well or things that you have changed from those earlier updates this year.

Um, sure.

I think um, you know it's funny, it's it was just adopted in May, so I think it was it was more a pilot in terms of us kind of getting some practice and engaging one smaller kind of business community.

Um, but it has it has been very well received by the um kind of the landlord and business community in Broadway Valdez.

Um there's the new um, what's it called, the North North Lake Oak Oakland um district that kind of came as as part of this effort.

So there um there's kind of a new kind of um a lot of a lot of attention on that district right now.

So yeah, and I would add just I think to what Timothy's saying, some of the code change, so the example of the animal care.

So I think previously we had almost in every zone a conditional use permit for of that, essentially.

I think part of that was thinking that, and say with also medical service as well, that often those uses might not, you know, they want to block off their windows in the front, and then it kind of doesn't engage in the area and that concern, but that's why with by having these requirements that they still that they put the lobby in the front where you would have the windows and still allow for the the use in the back.

And also we did limit the square footage of the size, but looking at more like you're like a one medical as an example, that you know, where it's a small, more retail almost style medical service that does generate foot traffic and so forth, as well as you know, most vets are not that large as well.

So that these are things that could fit into a commercial center, bring more activity, also fill the vacant spaces, but um, but not you know, like block off the windows.

So it's it's a way, so I think it's kind of an evolution of looking at how we used to regulate things and how we could maybe um as I think to the point of putting certain performance standards into the code with the permitted uses so that we can now allow them by right and still have those restrictions because before you might have said oh, as a C UP it would be approved, but you gotta have as a condition have this transparency of windows in the front.

Well, now we just say it's permitted by right, but you have to have the transparency in the front so that way we don't have to require the separate CUP and we can still achieve what we want.

And so I think that's really the things we've been learning as we've been doing this are what are ways we can eliminate as much as possible CUPs, but still get some of these conditions we normally would have applied into the permitted process.

Thank you.

Was there any other feedback from the PRAC?

I didn't get a chance to watch the meeting.

So yeah, I know you included the staff report that went to that commission.

Um, but did they have any other input?

I know they voted to approve it unanimously, but were there other topics that came up?

Um I think there was um I think there was some confusion about how the approval process works and helping them, and it is very confusing, helping them understand that it's more about how planning interacts and not changing their their review process.

Um so that was a major topic of conversation.

Um I know in some of the the briefings we had there was concern particularly around uh resource conservation areas, uh making sure that you know that those are adequately protected, um, making sure that um we're we balance we kind of balance as you as you brought up um the kind of economic opportunities of having a cafe or a restaurant and a park with the you know kind of being more of an auxiliary use maybe of a of a park, um, so kind of balancing those, but it really I think their concerns were were very much allayed by by us helping them understand that the approval process changes are really only on the planning side and not the parks and rec side.

Yeah, and I will add, I mean, they actually were very enthusiastic about some of these changes and being able to move park projects faster.

Um, and then we also did hear from I'm not gonna remember the name of the nonprofit.

I think there was a group that works, uh yeah.

Off the it's it's the the Friends of Oakland Parks or something to that that effect.

I'm I'm forgetting the actual name right now.

Yeah, but they were actually there and very excited about the changes, especially some of the changes of new activities that are were prohibited, such as I think water features, because they're saying they've been wanting to have something like that, and it's just been a prohibited use.

So they actually were very excited about the the changes and things that maybe could now be accomplished that we're not able to, they weren't able to try to accomplish before.

Thank you.

My last clarifying question is on the additional section or chapter 17.116 about the parking.

Yes.

Looking at that, my understanding, I just want to make sure that I'm understanding it correctly, was just removing the re the word required from it because of other changes where the city doesn't require cannot require off site parking yeah so it was really focused on making sure that our code throughout it has consistent language around parking um and yeah removing you know really shifting since we're shifting from kind of a mindset of having required parking to to not really requiring that but still needing to regulate parking and kind of shifting that mindset to how how we're but there um how we're approaching that but no no substantive changes were made in in that chapter.

Thank you.

I think you okay yeah I just want to add yeah it's the we um since but required by state law and other changes we've made um voluntarily we removed a lot of required parking but we still have parking proposed and with the um provisions kind of um being built originally around the requirements for um the regulations on required parking we were finding that we had um limited regulations that applied to parking that was that was uh um supplied by an applicant but not required so the the regulations still apply if someone is going to build parking on a site so we had to remove the word required now to still have regulations that that apply for dimensions and and um and other regulations that apply to the the design of the parking yeah so thank you.

Okay.

Thank you I think that concludes our clarifying question so I will open the space up for public comment.

We have two speakers um Sonia and Maeve and you each get two minutes to speak.

Hello everyone uh my name is Sonia Carabel and I'm here with Unite here local two the union representing hotel workers in the Bay Area.

Here in Oakland our members work at the Oakland Marriott the Courtyard Marriott the Moxie, the Kissle, Homewood Suites, Claremont Hotel, and more and we most of this propo this um permit streamlining proposal is an admirable effort to support small businesses on ground floors and revitalize our streets there's one piece that we think really goes beyond and has nothing to do with that goal and that um we strongly oppose removing the requirement that hotels in Oakland get a major conditional use permit.

That is an aspect of this uh this plan that we uh believe is unnecessary uh and that we are opposed to new hotels have wide ranging impacts on our city including social costs associated with low-wage jobs many hotel proposals have been very controversial in Oakland's recent past the city council voted in 2018 to require major conditional use permits for all hotels making the approvals appealable to our elected representatives on the city council so that our community could have a stronger voice on hotel development reversing that that city council action would remove that possibility for many hotel projects please remove this change so that the Oakland community can continue to have a voice in hotel development thank you.

Thank you.

Okay hi uh Maven Carter Griffin again and um let me just tell you I'm I walked in here and this is very exciting.

I am not I work with homeless people or people experiencing unhouse conditions and what one of my goals is uh equality equity civil rights and I think it's a civil rights issue.

Now what you don't know about Wood Street is that we're all business minded people started and affected building these elaborate structures that kind of started from me doing a protest.

I built the curbside loft and called it Curb Urban Living and uh it caught attention and it brought people and we had tourists and they would come through.

And we wound up getting into two movies, one called Lead Me Home, which was um uh you know it went to the Oscars and it came, it didn't it didn't get the Oscar, but it would we were in the background for that.

We were uh a location.

We were location for a lot of things because we had that urban gritty, but we were yet friendly and approachable and clean, you know.

The front was clean, there wasn't any nasty going on there.

Our elder leadership is very firm about the way people conduct themselves and uh the shelters that that came and took over when we were supposed to be running a campus to teach people how to start businesses, not how to get your ID and how to get the stuff that was progressing into the type of housing that really is not working for most of the unhoused people.

Um the workspaces are more appropriate, I would think, and I just wanted to bring that to your table.

Um we need more artist housing, about sixty-five to seventy percent of the people that live in the unhoused community are creatives, and if they were provided space to actually open their minds and be able to do more, and of course, recycle is huge and salvaging and stuff like that.

So I'm I'm constantly thinking about how to beautify the situation until we come up with solution because there needs to be a new type of housing.

You know, I call it portable and affordable, and it has wheels on it, and you can you know come in and park or whatever and do things for the neighborhood, and and if it works out, then you can stay, and if you don't like it or they don't like you, you move away.

So it's not so stationary and and not so messy.

Um what I'm doing is I I'm following the ten principles of Burning Man, and I mix that with the 10 points of the Panthers, and we've come up with our own ethics, we call the ethos.

But it's about being proactive and being a part of the community and being given that space and that chance.

And if you you're graded off, like if your place looks like it's trash and you don't like look like you're respecting your neighborhood or being very productive, then you can be uh you know, process to get help, the kind of output you might need or the type of housing that might be more suitable for you.

But we have a lot of people that are very interested in their independence and are needing to be able to start businesses and have space to do that.

So kiosk like uh businesses like I call it lemonade stands, but uh you know, we had people making jewelry, selling, you know, beads and things like that.

We have people that make bikes from scrap bike pieces, we have people that were you know selling items that they find in these trash piles, which were significantly diminishing the piles by taking out the items that were usable and transferring them into the to you know for trade.

So that effectually kind of cut down on crime.

Um we had a whole different way of of uh doing transactions and stuff.

So it's just the way communities started.

Sorry, I could go on and on, but I just wanted to bring this to the table because I'd like you to get that.

Nobody ever thinks about the unhoused except for how nasty it is.

And we're not going to solve housing and problems like that overnight, so just bringing it to the table.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

And with that, I will close public comment.

I'm hoping staff can respond to the comments uh about hotels in this update.

Because I didn't see that in the package.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and maybe please the subcommittee.

Um we will be working with the unite here to address the concerns that they've raised through the um period between uh this hearing and bring it to a full planning commission.

Um my sense is that the original idea was in moving them to moving the category of the transient um uh facilities to a minor conditional use, that there might have been some opportunity to balance off the period of time you you asked before about how long it takes for these conditional use cases to go through.

And um uh planning uh bureau director Manasseh referenced um the minor CUPs about eight to twelve months.

With the major CUPs, they also take a considerable amount of time, but we've got to balance that against the broader interests of the program and the project.

And uh we take very seriously, what uh concerns have been voiced, and this is something we will be looking at very closely between now and the time this is brought before the full commission.

Thank you.

So just so that I understand uh if we uh approve the staff recommendation in in front of us today as it was read into the record.

Um I guess it could the proposal that staff bring to the next full planning commission meeting could be slightly different than the one that we're seeing here today, and that's what would happen.

Defer to the city attorney to make that pronouncement.

Yes, staff can make changes between the UC and planning commission.

It's good practice, obviously, to let the planning commission know what the changes are in between those two.

Um, so we would we would look for that in uh in the staff report or in the oral report.

Yeah, we'll certainly make that clear, but we do want to work with uh unite here on this and and other constituent interests and the comments that we've heard uh from both speakers.

You know, we want to take everything into account that's the purpose of the session is really to have working conversation to flesh out concerns and see how they need to impact or guide what we'll be bringing forward to the commission of the whole.

Thank you.

And another follow-up uh for the city attorney.

So we could also amend the recommendation as it was read into the record with a statement saying that staff will work on specific topics, or is that too convoluted?

You are welcome to include in your recommendation a general comment or a specific comment um related to this issue or any others, um, just to make sure we're all on the literally on the same page.

The change that's being discussed is on, I believe, a second to last page in the packet, so page 145.

It's chapter 171 through four.

Um, it's the definition of major conditional use permit.

It lists various uses that are automatically included as a major conditional use permit.

Uh the proposals to strike transit habitation commercial, which is hotels from that list, which means it automatically defaults into a minor CUP category.

So you could offer any recommendations related to that language in chapter 17134.

Thank you.

I will open it up now for general comments, and if you have any further questions for staff as well.

Uh thank you.

So um one kind of question and comment that I've been thinking about is uh, you know, I'm really appreciate again the work that's gone into this, and I'm all for streamlining um the approvals process.

Um I just wonder if this one size fits all approach regarding the threshold for the 10,000 square feet is um my worry is that it might not reflect neighborhood character differences, and my understanding is that many small businesses in the CN districts um they already fit within the existing thresholds because they're more like the five to 7,000 square feet businesses, so this wouldn't necessarily help say a business like um hair salon or a cafe, um if like a larger business could potentially outbid them in this process.

So I guess what I'm wondering is if there should be consideration about maintaining those lower thresholds for neighborhood districts, neighborhood commercial districts, or like how we can look at this kind of more sensitively and more geographic related to, you know, like a larger corridor versus a neighborhood district.

Yeah, so um, so can I?

Oh, sure, go ahead.

Um, yeah, so I think while yes, we're we're trying to be supporting small businesses.

I think part of the concern we've also heard in general that it's just hard to fill these vacant spaces.

So I think it's also just trying to look at in general, how can we make it easier for these vacant spaces to be filled?

And so by making a larger threshold, um, even if it were to be maybe not a small business, and maybe a bigger business, I think from the vitality of helping that district, it may still be very helpful, especially this is something that we found in Brawleyvel does when we worked a lot on the idea of retail anchors and often a retail anchor that might be even a chain can help bring people to an area and then they visit the other smaller businesses that are around it and surrounding it, and actually helps make it more vibrant, and that's actually what I think was happening.

Like when the target as an example was in Roleville Dez, which is has unfortunately closed.

Was it was helping bring people to the area and then helping people visit the other smaller businesses around that are um more locally owned businesses.

So I I think in in general with the threshold, we are trying to just make it easier to fill the vacant spaces and just help our commercial um areas that are real are struggling right now.

Yeah, and uh just to respond to the um one size fits all concern.

I think just I'll just show you a little bit about like how we came up with these numbers.

Perfect, thank you.

Um so throughout the code and in the sand zones and a lot of the other zones, there's there's different limitations throughout that um have different requirements.

So for example, in in the CN zones, I'm looking here, there's one limitation related to 7500 square feet.

Um there's a number, a different one for 20,000 square feet.

So there's different ones in here already for different types of activities to kind of recognize that different activities have different size scales, um, and so what I what I did is I kind of looked through these and I looked at kind of well, what would a 20 to 50% increase in that threshold um entail for this?

And so it wasn't, I didn't just say, like, oh, in all, you know, all the commercial districts, it's all just 10,000 square feet across the board.

I tried to scale it by doing some sort of percentage increase from the existing uh regulation.

And there were some instances where in our in-staff discussion we decided no, we're actually happy with with where it is right now, and we're not gonna make that change.

Um, so that's so that that was kind of the the thinking uh the thought process as we developed it.

Thank you.

I appreciate the context there.

I was just looking into kind of what some of our other peer cities were doing, and it really does seem that you know, outside of some like you know, like downtown San Francisco say they're really struggling with like large open large ground floor retail spaces, and you know, their threshold is is higher, but many other cities seem to have these smaller thresholds.

That's kind of what was um spurring my question, really, is just thinking about you know, and I don't necessarily know the success rate there right now, also.

I mean, it's a tough time in commercial real estate in general and retail, um, but uh that's just kind of where I was where that is coming from is just really wanting to make sure that we preserve our small local, you know, Oakland-grown businesses.

Um, so yeah, that's just where that's coming from.

Thank you.

Um, so yeah, I want to echo comments of thanking staff for your diligence and um specificity here.

I know that these changes are uh really vast and take a lot of time and focus to find in the code.

So I appreciate your work on that and and thank the deputy director and director for coming on a day where we get to dive into this in detail.

Um, I am happy to see that you know these updates really limit discretion, help to standardize, but also provide more flexibility and in a structured way.

I think that these updates will you know lead to more walkability and livability, activation of ground floors, and I there are improvements that people want.

You know, people want water pads and they want cafes, and um want to feel like they live in a city where there are people around them and that there are things to do in vibrant public spaces.

So I'm excited to see how this um turns out.

Um I am concerned learning just now about this hotel piece, so I'm glad that staff will work um to make sure that that uh it doesn't have any unintended consequences.

Um, I think just one comment.

I I know that it doesn't fall under the purview of the planning department because it's not in the planning code, but I do remember that that this came up with the ballers at Raymondi Park wanting to know how the revenue from the park would be used, um, and uh yeah, just lifting up again um commission Commissioner Sandoval's question about the profits from cafes or other sales, kind of outside of the enforcement piece, whether or not people are getting permits, but on sales that do happen.

Does it go into the general fund?

Is it set aside just for parks and rec?

Does it go just directly to that location?

So I think that would be helpful if you could get that information from parks and rec staff, just the formula they use or the philosophy they have on that.

That would be great because I could anticipate that would come up at the next meeting in November for the full commission.

I think that those are all of my comments.

I'll just I guess add that I am glad that you are adding in updates to the master fee schedule so that the city is capturing the cost it takes for staff to process these applications, but like you shared in your presentation and the staff report that these fees are often cheaper than uh the whole CUP process that currently exists, and that it will hopefully save applicants time being able to get their applications process faster.

Um so with that, I um I guess we'll make a motion um for us to consider.

I don't think we have a the presentation, which included new language.

I don't think we have the presentation, so I don't know if that's possible to pull back up or how we should do that.

I do have oh you kept it.

Would you like me to read the whole thing again?

I'd like to fall.

It's okay.

If if um Commissioner Aaron's has it, I think that's okay.

Okay.

Um I'd like oh I'm sorry.

Oh no, no, you if you want to read it, go ahead.

No, no, I think you need to read it.

Okay.

Um I make a motion to recommend that the planning commission conduct a public hearing and receive commission and public comments on an ordinance, amending Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the Planning Code 21, amend Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the Planning Code 2, A, adjust regulations for permitted and conditionally permitted activities and facilities for purposes of providing greater opportunities for ground floor activities and ease the permitting burden for commercial civic and low-impact industrial areas, and B, make related miscellaneous cleanup and administrative changes, and two, make appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings, and I will add refine chapter 17.134 based on comments made today.

Commissioner Sandoval, yes, Chair Aaron.

Yes, all right, thank you.

Um that was our one business item for today.

So I will move us to um adjournment, which I think is that um the meeting is now concluded, and the next DUC will be scheduled and duly noted as needed.

I don't know.

I don't know if that's not anything because I wouldn't need to be an angle, and then I think I didn't run