Good afternoon, everyone.

Uh, and welcome to the November fifth fifth planning commission hearing.

My name is Christopher Tan.

I'll be acting secretary for Catherine Payne as she's out today.

Um we also to note, um, don't have Commissioner uh Vice Chair Sandoval present.

So we will need to um select a chair pro tem for to run this meeting.

So is there a motion on the floor for anyone to volunteer as chair pro tem?

I move to nominate myself, Josie Aaron's as chair pro tem for the this meeting.

Awesome.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, Commissioner Lee Owen Lee.

Commissioner Alex Randolph.

Yes.

Commissioner Maurice Rob.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Um, next on the agenda, I guess is roll call.

So I know it's kind of awkward, but could we get a roll call again on EFA?

All right.

Uh Commissioner Owen Lee.

Here.

Commissioner Alex Randolph.

Yeah.

Commissioner Morris Rob.

The Chair Pro Tam Josie Aaron's here.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

So we will move into commission business.

Is there any agenda discussion?

Yeah, I just have a maybe point of order information on whatever the correct wording is.

I know we're still waiting for two appointments to the commission, and we don't have a chair currently.

We only have a vice chair, and when the vice chair is in here, we have to be joining.

I think it would might be making sense for us to think about voting for a chair and a vice chair.

Maybe we can revisit it once we have new members joining.

But I think just procedurally, at least for the next couple months, it seems like we're going to be operating under this system.

So I think it would be good for us to actually have a vice chair and vice chair, if that makes sense.

I don't know.

Maybe the team has a different thing.

Well, I just want to give you an update.

I'm sorry, can you state your full name for record, please?

Edmanasseum, the deputy director of planning.

Um it's my understanding that uh reappointment of council member rank is on the rules committee uh tomorrow on this Thursday.

Uh and if and if forwarded it would go to uh council for reappointment.

So that would still leave one vacancy, but um we would at least have uh, you know, potentially the the chair that used to be uh I mean the council member that used to have the commissioner that used to have that role back on the commission.

So uh that's the that's the latest I know.

I haven't heard we haven't heard uh whether there's uh um a pipeline um nominee for the one full vacancy, um, but we at least have six members with reappointment of councilmer rank, council member, excuse me.

Planning commissioner.

Thank you.

Well, that's great news, and never never mind.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I'll just add that I believe Commissioner Sandoval just has uh an excused absence today, so she will be back hopefully next time.

All right, moving on to director's report.

Um yes, deputy director.

Yeah.

Uh thank you very much.

Uh Edkin uh Ed Manassey, Deputy Director of Planning.

Uh, this is more just a point of uh the what where we've um we've heard from a recent um hearing you had on an alcohol license that um you had some questions, concerns about uh the um uh buffering regulations relating to schools.

So I just wanted you know that we've heard that and um uh we can do some research to whether that is something required by ABC itself or our other state law uh see if we have any flexibility and then um look to to reexamine it at some point in the future when um we have uh you know the staffing capacity and and an appropriate um package right now.

We don't have there's there's nothing, frankly, there's nothing in the near term where we're gonna have capacity to revisit our alcohol regulations.

We have a a full workload going out probably most of this coming year with the general plan update and and this and other packages um already in the pipeline already.

Um but just wanted you to know that we heard you and we'll um do the appropriate research to find out if we do have any flexibility to reexamine that.

All right, thank you.

And then um, I don't know if uh you want to give any update on.

Yeah, I was actually just one where this is this should be under commission matters as opposed to the director's report.

I just wanted to do proper process, so yes, I believe it should go under commission matters.

Um so we can call you back up in a second.

Thank you.

And thank you, deputy director, for the update about the ABC license.

I appreciate that you have heard our concerns and um we'll come back at a later date with an update and we appreciate that you have a full workload.

Um I think we had also had a comment about just the structure of the staff report itself, wanting that to be consistent.

So I hope that that might be a quicker uh process.

But thank you very much.

And with that, I will move us on to informational report.

Which, sorry, there are no informational reports.

Thank you.

Okay, um committee reports.

We do have one committee report since we last met, which was that the zoning update committee met on October 22nd to review the conditional use permit streamlining package, same package that we're seeing today.

And the committee voted unanimously to move the staff recommendation forward with uh minor change to refine chapter 17.134 based on the comments at the ZUC meeting.

I believe that's our only committee that has met though since our last full commission.

Can you repeat that section?

17 point Oh, yes, chapter 17.134, which hopefully staff will mention today in their presentation.

Okay.

With that, I will move us on to commission matters and invite Laura Kaminski to come back up.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, uh good afternoon, uh, commissioners.

Uh Laura Kaminsky's strategic planning manager.

Um, so um just in response to the questions that were posed by the commission about the um vacancy rates for the moderate affordable housing units um in the city.

Um we've had discussions with our housing department because they are the ones who do monitor and for the enforcement of our affordable housing requirements of affordable units.

And unfortunately they said that this time their software system, I guess the way it's set up does not differentiate between different affordability levels.

So they are not able to determine that at this point in time.

Um I think they will look at in the future when they're maybe making changes to their software, looking at other software, if when and if that happens, at trying to look at that being able to be possible, um, but right now it's not possible for them to determine that.

Um for the looking at other cities of what their for their annual progress report and how they um look at non-deed restricted units, that's something we have started to look into.

We start looking at Sacramento and we're trying to look at other cities as well, but we're still in that process.

Um, and I'll, you know, we'll concur add on to what Ed Manassi was saying earlier is that we do have very um, you know, issues right now with staffing and a lot of uh priority of projects such as the general plan that's going underway.

Um we're also looking at updating our short-term residential rental program, and the annual progress report is actually coming up and other things.

So we're we're having to balance, you know, staff load with our ability to do the research.

But we have we have started looking at it and trying to get a sense of what other cities are doing.

Thank you for the update.

Do any commissioners have questions for staff on this item?

Maybe just question about workload and looking into it but not knowing if you're going to be able to necessarily do it.

So for for the next report, is it just you have to start collecting the data and send excent surveys, or what would be the concern around staff load, like adding that additional information into the next, I guess, progress report or next year or so the year after.

Is it just that there's additional data collection needed, or you just need to change processes or well, I think one is just having the time to be doing the research to see what other cities are doing and understanding like what all they have to do in order to be able to report non-deed restricted units, what are the requirements that they have to show to the state to um be able to do that.

You know, right now we actually, because as you probably may or may not be aware that the in order for us to even count our non-deed restricted ADUs, there was a first the state housing department said that um we could not use there was a survey done by MTC, and at first they said we couldn't use that survey for affordability levels, and then they changed their minds that we could, we can only do it for the first two years.

So we had to conduct our own survey to try to determine what the affordability levels are for counting ADUs, even as um different affordability levels.

And um our first savor survey we did.

Um we didn't there was I think the was some confusion in the way some of people responded to some of the answers.

So we're actually going to be conducting and coming up soon another follow-up survey.

So we're having to spend staff resources time on that to get that information.

Um, and so it was just it seems like at least from what we've seen is that they the state does look at it through a pretty strict lens as to if you're gonna try to claim non-deed restricted that you got to show evidence of how you're coming to that conclusion.

And so so those are the things we had to look into right is okay how are other cities doing this how could we do it and also what kind of staffing then would be needed to do that on our and is that something we have to on a regular basis be looking at um are they still maintaining their affordability levels or not and that's something we also want to discuss with and we've had some discussions right with our housing department because they would be the ones most likely having to do that monitoring and do they have the staff resources to do that.

Go ahead thank you.

Thank you I do have a follow-up question.

So thank you for the info on vacancies and for checking in with HCD staff about that.

I know this is a area where your work sort of overlaps and it takes that extra collaboration to answer some of our questions sometime.

So thank you for doing that.

I had also asked in July when I had last brought this up about um rents for different deed restricted units at different levels of affordability and had also received a mixed answer about whether or not that data were available.

So I you might not have the answer right now but I'm wondering if that if rents by affordability level is something that is available because I think that would be a helpful piece of data to also have to evaluate the question we have about policy around moderate rate deed restricted units.

Yeah I guess I didn't I think when I we looked back at the recommendation from commission or the questions that wasn't one of the questions that was asked in the at least from the that came from the commission.

It was we did we discussed it and I was not the only person to bring it up.

Okay I did I guess we missed that in the minutes I'm not because those are the only two that that I answered that I had had um okay so I don't we we'd have to see if we can get more information I guess it if can you I don't know if I understand the question.

And through the chair this item isn't agendized as a um specific staff report so uh we should be minimizing the amount of um new discussion we bring up.

Thank you for that um yes it was in the July 18th email I sent to staff at the planning department and HCD where I asked for data about rents and vacancies and that was also a priority for the commission.

Um was that something that the commission had voted on because my understand I don't have the notes from the meeting directly in front of me but my takeaway was that I was not the only commissioner interested in learning information on rents.

Um so I can find that and follow up with you.

But that was information that we had requested and I was not the only commissioner to request it.

So and I understand that this is not agenda so um I will move us on if there's no other questions or I just just quickly I I mean I also um uh had asked for the information that that I was also interested in that information I don't remember who else spoke up but yeah I it sounds like from now from the conversations now we know it's not a new agenda that maybe that that as a new commission business that's something that we might want to learn about in the future um if you can come back at a future date with with maybe some more information.

Okay, I think I might need more clarity of what it is.

The question is, yes.

Yes, but um do you want to know Jordan, did you want to say anything else?

Um no I mean you can make a request for a new agenda item um either through it does not have to be at this meeting, also.

Commissioner Cher, do you want to maybe phrase the question and ask for future background information or agenda item of what the commission was?

Sure, yes.

So um I I can find the notes from the meeting where Commissioner Lee and I asked for this information in my email following up from that on July 18th that no one responded to.

Um I requested and I'm requesting again now data on rents in deed restricted affordable units by affordability levels.

Um so I appreciate hearing about the vacancy and that that's data that HCD doesn't have right now, but in the future with a different software, they might be able to have that.

And I'm guessing that rent data is something that HCD will have or not have.

And I know that that's not maybe in the planning department's purview, but my request is to see data on rents at different affordability levels.

Maybe since the email was memorializing the questions, you could just forward, might be easier just to forward the email.

Yeah, and I guess I'm not sure you mean by different affordability levels because this rents are set at the affordability levels of what's required.

So are you just wanting what actually is required from the the because if you're very low, lower moderate, what those rents are?

Just to chime in really quick, I think we can um take note of the question and make ensure that the questions included in the set of this meeting's um minutes and staff is happy to work offline too to address this.

Um just because this item isn't again agendized.

Um, we we're happy to work with uh you offline and make sure that those uh those that question is specifically in the minutes going forward.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I will move us on to city attorney's report.

There's no city attorney's report.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving on to open forum.

There is no open, no, no speakers open forum.

Thank you.

Um, moving to the consent calendar, there are no consent calendar items.

And moving us to public hearings.

Yes, the first and only item on the agenda today or for public hearing is the citywide planning code amendments to address regulations for permitted and conditionally permitted activities and facilities for purposes of providing greater opportunities for ground floor activities and to ease the permitting burden for commercial civic and low impact industrial activities and two related miscellaneous and administrative changes consistent with the recently adopted uh Broadway Valdez downtown Oakland and 2025 omnibus planning code amendments.

Um before the commission goes into discussion for this, I just want to note that there was a minor modification to the staff report as submitted by the case planner.

Um so we um I would suggest uh taking a motion from the commission to accept the minor modifications.

Thank you.

Is there a motion on the floor to accept the minor modifications?

What are the minor modifications?

Have they been shared?

Oh, there you go.

Sorry, I forgot to mention they were placed in front of um you guys, yeah, the dice.

And the case planner is here to also elaborate on that during their presentation.

So for the sake of moving us along so we can hear more about the proposed modifications.

I move to amend the proposal with, could you provide the just accept the modifications to the staff report and proceed?

Then um that would be great.

I move to accept the modifications to the staff report.

Second.

Can I get a call?

Um uh Alex.

Okay, so it was motion by Aaron.

Um, Chair Pro Tim Aaron's and seconded by uh Commissioner Um Randolph.

All right, Commissioner Owen Lee.

Yes.

Commissioner Randolph.

Yes.

Commissioner Rob?

Yes.

You chair Pro Tim Aaron's?

Yes.

And with that, I invite staff to make the presentation.

Great.

If K-Top could pull up the presentation, please.

Hi, I'm Timothy Green.

I'm a planner three in the strategic planning division.

Today staff are proposing a planning code amendment package to streamline the conditional use permit or CUP requirements.

So today I'll give a brief project overview.

I'll discuss key themes addressed by the proposed amendments.

At that point, then I'll go over the amendments newly proposed since the ZUC meeting, and finally 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 inhibits the opening of small and neighborhood serving businesses, which results in less vibrant commercial districts and reduced tax revenues.

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

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.

The zoning amendments in the Broadway Valdez district adopted in May served as a pilot for this project, which now extends this efforts to citywide.

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, HBX, M40, CIX, IG, IO, S1, and S15.

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

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

For example, in the CN zones, many proposed activities currently require a CUP if they're over 7500 square feet.

For a specific example, uh Donia restaurant on Piedmont Avenue was subject to this requirement.

They paid over $3,000 in planning fees and waited over two months for approval.

With the proposed removal of this threshold, this square footage threshold for restaurants, the same project today would likely cost um less than $100 in planning fees and receive approval in less than 10 days.

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

Moving on to group assembly, this includes a variety of businesses that facilitate public gathering, generally having a floor area of at least 5,000 square feet.

This includes activities such as yoga studios, theaters, nightclubs, banquet halls, and fitness clubs.

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 allowed before a CUP is required and instead establishing performance standards in certain zones.

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 the 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 noise study and add conditions as a result of such study.

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.

Moving to artisan production, this was newly added to the planning code in 2023.

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

This proposal would 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 home and school.

Regulations on these activities vary significantly throughout the city zoning districts as these proposed regulations would permit these activities by right in most commercial districts, as well as certain industrial and residential districts as appropriate.

Medical service and animal care are neighborhood-serving uses that can generate activity on a commercial corridor, but that 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 downtown zoning districts, then refined for the Broadway Valdez zoning update.

In those districts, the relevant business must provide street funded 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, including the CN zone.

And for example, when the Grand Lake Veterinary Hospital proposed an expansion project, they were charged over $4,000 in planning fees and approval took over four months.

With the proposed amendments to animal care regulations, the same project today would likely cost less than $100 and receive approval in less than 10 days.

And the Lake Merit zones have been amended to maintain the highest possible consistency with the downtown zones.

This will ensure clear and consistent regulations throughout 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.

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 cost 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.

A couple activities are proposed to be directly shifted from prohibited to permitted, meaning the uses would only go through the parks and rec approval process and not be reviewed by planning, namely concessions booths would be newly permitted in active mini parks and linear parks.

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

Meanwhile, 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.

This would mean that instead of being banned, planning approval could be granted by staff.

These changes would allow for installation of low-impact recreational amenities, 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 these spaces and provide revenue for their maintenance.

Restrooms and maintenance sheds and resource conservation areas would be shifted from major CUP to minor CUP.

This would allow 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 would 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 that they don't cause negative impacts.

Other key changes to the open space zone include clarifying that maintenance in kind replacement in 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, while large facilities would require a CUP or be prohibited depending on the facility and park type.

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

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

Miscellaneous amendments would be made to certain use classifications, particularly related to satellite recycling centers, electric vehicle charging stations, dry cleaners, and research and development.

Other miscellaneous cleanup and administrative amendments would be made to the following chapters shown here: the RD zone, the special regulations and findings for certain land use classifications, off-street parking loading requirements, telecommunications regulations, and conditional use permit procedures.

Today's staff is proposing various amendments not presented to the ZUC.

First, upon the ZUC's recommendation, transient habitation commercial activities are now proposed to remain as a major CUP.

There are also a handful of administrative corrections, which are noted in these staff report as footnotes.

Finally, we were proposing amendments to Section 17.136.030, small project design review.

Staff has determined that the best way to review certain projects with new supplemental plans would be through that process.

Therefore, we propose adding the following language to that section.

And five group assembly commercial activities that do not trigger a conditional use permit, but do require require review and approval of an operational noise plan as specified in the individual zoning district regulations.

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

We're planning for a 60-day implementation period, which would mean that the amendments would go into effect in mid-February.

So staff requests at the Planning Commission requ uh recommend that the City Council conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt an ordinance one amending Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the planning code to 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 activities, and B make related miscellaneous cleanup and administrative changes and two making appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings with the following revision in section 17.136.30 small project design review, add provisions for community education civic activities and group assembly commercial activities as written and presented by staff in the November 5 2025 PowerPoint.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Rob.

Thank you for your presentation.

It goes back to the operational noise plan.

So I understood this correctly, it's 15,000 square feet.

Is that what you say it like less?

What was the threshold was that the threshold?

Typically it depends on the zone.

What we're generally proposing is that either 10,000 square feet or 15,000 square feet, depending on the zone.

If you have a large venue, uh venue that size or larger, you would have to do a CUP.

If your venue is below that threshold, but you are proposing to use amplified sound in your operations, it would just be reviewed as a small project design review, but you would have to provide this operational noise plan.

Okay.

So thank you for clarifying that.

So my questions were how did you all come up with that range as far as the square footage?

Also, what does that operational noise plan entail?

Like what is what are the requirements around it?

Um yeah, so the 10 to 15,000, uh, I mean, we looked comprehensively throughout the um planning code at where um square footage thresholds are triggering CUPs.

Um and just kind of based based on staff staff review, generally tried to increase those by 20 to 50 percent as appropriate.

Um, and that would that went on the same for group assembly.

Um, because their group assembly typically had um was typically um conditional use permit already, but had slightly different regulations for higher higher uh thresholds.

So just kind of um adding adding those kind of um, I guess making it more clear what those thresholds um should be.

And thanks for uh clarifying that part.

Um, and are there specific requirements around operational noise plan?

Yes, so an operational noise plan is um is something that we um already typically require and request.

Um currently um it's something that comes in through the CUP process or as part of the standard conditions of approval.

Um generally what it measures is is noise, um, how how noise um is what kind of noise is happening at the property line of the building, um, and comparing it to we have um a section in the planning code with noise standards.

So comparing comparing the noise at the property line to our existing noise standards, and then um suggesting mitigations.

So maybe um, you know, changes changes to the to the doorway or kind of sound typically soundproofing type uh mitigations.

So it would be um uh the same kind of plans that we're already reviewing.

Um it just wouldn't be attached to a CUP uh review process.

Yeah, and uh Edman Asi, Deputy Director, um and during the um during the the ramp-up time after the the um amendments are adopted, we'll be you know looking at our um forms updating um our website, uh Sela and such, and we'll probably have to create some kind of supplemental form or informational handout to give applicants guidance about what an operational noise plan is, what are what they have to study so that they'll they'll be given that right at their initial application and um so they can prepare that um uh sort for appropriate review and approval um and also post it on the website.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Well, one additional question that just came up.

Does this um is there a way to um check this throughout the entire process?

Because I'm just thinking of going through construction and those various things.

Is there something where maybe it's a building co-thing that it gets checked later on down the line to make sure that they're following what they're supposed to do?

Absolutely, yes.

Um I'm sure many operational noise plans will include some additional insulation or um a sound wall uh installation that will be done as part of tenant improvements, and then so we'll have to make sure that is done according to that plan, and even perhaps maybe some testing prior to um building final.

So we'll have to clarify all that as far as the informational uh supplements will create.

Thank you.

Yeah, the whole thing's made it makes sense, just wondering if there's a way to make sure that this is also following through like down the line through the construction process and inspections and those sort of things, because someone could move forward with this and or give the plan and not follow what they're supposed to do.

Um yes, we um our our planning planning approvals and our building permits are linked in the system.

So the um the folks in the building uh bureau reviewing any projects would have that documentation showing that that this is this is something they need to adhere to as they're going through the building process.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Randolph?

Yeah, I have a couple questions.

First of all, very very exciting.

I'm very very excited when I read some of these things.

I'll leave some of my highlights for my comments and discussion later.

But um really appreciate the mayor's vision on this and staff taking it on and and making some of these changes, simplifying the COP process and kind of bringing our rezoning loss into the 21st century.

So a lot of good stuff um hidden in here, but um a couple of questions specifically around the changes that are good, but making sure that the changes actually trickle down to communities and businesses that that usually are not necessarily always served or know how to participate in the process or even know that these improvements are happening.

Um maybe that might not be a question for you, but maybe for the rest of the city, maybe you're you're partnering with other city agencies, but uh will there be any outreach or technical assistance uh to help small and immigrant entrepreneurs or underserved communities navigate the new um by permitting process?

Because it's it's good that it's there, but I I fear that there's only certain businesses or or neighborhoods that will know about these changes, but then once that maybe need it might not know that there's a much better process in place.

Yeah, so actually um we've been working with our public information office, and they're looking at I think we were trying to look at putting out a press release, I think this week maybe that was actually talking about some of the changes that already been made in the downtown and the Broadway does, and also we're going to mention about these additional changes coming up as well.

So that is something that we are trying to look at a lot more about getting the word out about what we're doing because it doesn't help like if somebody thinks it's still the same process as before that they to start a business, they're like, Well, I couldn't do it before, so like I'm not gonna try now because I think it's still not allowed.

So I think we want to try to get the word out as much as possible, and that's something we're we're working on trying to get the messaging out and uh obviously always open to any additional ideas of places where we can help get the word out and and let people know about these changes because we want people to take advantage of them.

That's the whole point of doing them.

Yeah, and understanding that you know you don't have a lot of staff time to run around Oakland, but maybe I would encourage partnering with the chamber and some of these CBOs, you know, based in some of the communities, specifically like East Oakland, West Oakland, you know, Eastmont, uh, et cetera, where there are kind of merchant corridors that are not necessarily the most active right now that are kind of a little um the press that I think need investment, local investments.

I'm sure there's a lot of businesses or entrepreneurs in those neighborhoods that have not been looking into using those vacant storefronts.

And I know I've been yelling about vacant storefronts, you know, since I joined the commit uh commission three years ago.

So this is yet another tool that you're creating that will hopefully remove those vacant storefronts.

Uh, and based on that, and kind of what the other discussions that we have here earlier is do you have any metrics or reporting mechanisms that will track which communities or corridors benefit most from reduced C UP requirements to make sure that there's an equitable um use across the city, and if there's isn't that maybe two years or a year down the line, you're like, okay, well, there are parts of the city that are not taking advantage of this.

I mean, I know that's data collection yet again, but are you well?

It's well, we're not now, but I think it's actually a very important exercise.

Um, we'd have to look at um we have data specialists in the in the department that um we can bring this question to.

But um we're looking at um, we we have a number of internal dashboards that we've been using to track our own performance.

We're also in the process of looking at kind of public-facing dashboards that will report back to the community on um on kind of you know the high-level products that we produce as a you know as a department.

Um number of housing units and amount of commercial new businesses and such.

And a lot of that will have a graphical interface to actually map out where these things are.

So um I think that's an interesting um proposal.

We'll have to bring it back to see what it would take.

But um the timing is right for that comment because we are again looking at kind of uh our public-facing uh inf information in dashboard formats that we can look at for our zoning clearances.

That's basically what it was like.

You know, looking at kind of um before and after the where the zone clearances are happening and compare it to you know prior to approval and going forward.

Yeah, I mean, just to make sure that you know, we benefit all areas of Oakland, and as I said, it's it goes back to education.

And if you see as part of this data that there's gaps in certain areas of the city that maybe, you know, you can then kind of really focus on it.

Specifically when you're talking about or deciding what to do with the general master plan and community hubs that you potentially creating in West Oakland and East Oakland, some of these underserved communities.

I mean, I would love to see how these community hubs or community serving um investments you're making as part of that plan, can put probably inner interact with this specific change and making sure that businesses in those areas where we have community hubs or making those investments are actually taking advantage of the changes that are good.

Um, another question um, and I guess it goes back to this is that I know I want to make sure that there's maybe a plan for periodic review of the impacts of these reforms, maybe every every two or three years or four years, uh, and then when you're making sure you you collect that data.

Uh, and then um will the will the planning department or city ensure coordination with public works and uh PRAC so that reduced CUP oversight doesn't lead to gaps in accountability.

So I know that when you streamline certain things and you you remove the requirement of going to the commission or going to some of these oversight bodies and get approval, that's a good thing.

But then some of the fear sometimes is that there are projects that could be approved because they're following the process correctly that one the community didn't know about uh and then is surprised.

So are there any like are you bringing like a report once a year to the commission or periodically it says, okay, here are the projects that have been approved under this new project?

You sort of space open space.

Open space, um businesses.

I mean, it would be interesting for the commission and others to I think to see how many businesses were actually approved under this new process that wouldn't have been or that would have had to go to the commission for approval, because you're making some of these changes having to go through um you know COP or non-permitted use, and now you're going just to kind of administrative approval.

Okay, um I'll look into that.

Um it's gonna it may be uh difficult to kind of uh tag those uses that um and track them, you know, um in that kind of specific way, but we'll see if that's feasible.

Um one thing I did want to note though about open space zoning.

There's been some confusion.

We heard it at PRAC and um among even open space uh staff, uh about what what exactly the the role of of the planning code has been in the regulation of open space over the last 30 years since the adoption of the Oscar in the nineties.

Um the the um the plan code regulations of open space were almost exclusively designed to regulate physical changes to parks, changes that result in new physical footprint, changes of impervious surface, what have you.

Not necessarily how the parks are programmed, um ephemeral uses like uh tents or activities or use of such like that, but there's there's concern about uh like for instance the um change from food vending concessions and such that might kind of open up to more unregulated uses in Lake Merit that has a lot of um uh pop-up vending without um but that is that is wholly different than how the zoning code talks about like concessions that's more a physical building, small kiosk where um an RFP is cre allowed for a vendor to operate that, you know, in a role that a lot of parks in America and Europe have traditionally had in their parks.

So regulation of mobile food vending is outside the zoning code, and um it it has its own regulatory process and staff uh um dedicated to its its enforcement and um uh the um park and rec um staff still has 100% authority on what happens in their parks as far as programming and and such.

So um we're not really expanding what happens but lessening the procedural steps to uh you know to uses that have minimal to little physical changes to parks.

So that's what we're trying to take ourselves out of that particular process, but it still has to go through whatever process they determine internally and with uh with the PRAC as a sounding and approval board.

Great.

Uh and a couple more questions.

Um I appreciate the staff's response of NIFS on the transit happenation in one of the community meetings.

Um as we continue to simplify the COP requirements.

Um I like to understand whether staff has considered similar safeguards for other sectors that that significantly affect Oakland's workers or housing market, such as you know, logistic hubs, food production, residential conversions.

Uh, how do we ensure we're streamlining responsibly while still retaining appropriate public oversight where community or labor impacts are are high?

And and one area, for example, that comes to mind to me when I read kind of the report and the staff report, um, was artisan production categories that include shared kitchens, catering, small food manufacturing, um, specifically ghost kitchens, um, like those could put impact noise order, um, you know, ventilation, safety, like have have you considered other areas or was that just one area because that just happened to be a very vocal, important group raising concerns about some of the challenges that they might be experiencing.

Go ahead.

I think the the artisan production, I think, is uh is more limited than we also have a um uh what's the industrial one?

Yeah, sorry.

We have custom manufacturing, which is an industrial use, which is for more um, I think more intensive uses that would have more impacts.

The artist in production is meant to be more if you're an artist and you're producing some art type and you're also um gonna be selling the art on location.

So it's kind of a it's a commercial activity that we created a while back because before, you know, these things were falling under the custom manufacturing for someone just to make some art and then want to sell it, which we thought was you know much more um over the top for what types of use was actually being conducted, and we heard uh from artists a lot of wanting to have an you know more areas to be able to do this type of use in the city, and also because of the vacancies we have in a lot of areas that this could be something that could fill those vacancies and provide um you know activity in the area and also help out the artists at the same time.

So that was the main purpose for that activity being added.

Okay.

And then one final um question, um, yet again, I appreciate the proposal that distinguishes between low and high impact park uses.

Um, but could you maybe elaborate on how the city will evaluate when a park cafe or water future crosses the threshold from minor to major?

Like, is it just building a new structure to open a cafe?

And you know, I know you said that the programming and use of the park is not is still under the purview of the department, but like when does the cafe come become too big?

Or is it, you know, the ballpark that the ballers created?

Is that would that be in major change in use of the park that would not be under the CUP?

Um, so they would still have to go through an approval process.

Like what what would be what would be considered a major versus minor park improvement or change?

Specifically around restaurants, alcohol sales, park features.

Yeah, so there are different categories in the so there's a different category that's for um the concessions versus a restaurant versus I think in the alcohol.

So right now, the way it's already proposed in the code is some of those would be permitted without a C UP required.

Some are still a minor C UP and some are still a major CUP, depending on what it is.

So that is defined.

And I think what we were trying to look at is to Ed's point is to think, especially like you know, some examples is even to do a park bench was a CUP in right now.

So, you know, so then that means park and rec staff have to like present a site plan to planning staff that shows where a bench is gonna go, and you know, it takes quite a while for that approval process.

Like we're also trying to prove residential projects at the same time, so maybe that takes priority, so that bench has to wait.

In the meantime, the community members want that bench and they're like, why is it taking so long just to put a bench in?

So these are kind of the things that we are trying to weigh.

And it and again, I think as Ed was saying, it's not that they're still not necessarily a public process.

So some of these things as like an example of a a trail um my understanding and talking with park and rec staff, is that something they would review, have a proposal and then they bring that to PRAC still.

So there's still that public process of PRAC, and people can go to the PRAC meeting, and you also have the PRAC commissioners that are weighing in on that.

But the the thought was do we also have to go to, you know, on all of these items have to go to planning commission and then PRAC, because that's what was happening is almost all these things go not only here, they also go to PRAC as well.

So now you have two public hearings plus planning staff review plus park and rec staff review, and some of these things we just thought were pretty excessive for what the use type actually is.

And do you anticipate because of the streamlining and improvements that hopefully your overall staff time will be reduced so you can actually focus on some of the other more major important things and questions that the commission has that you need to answer?

Um yeah, I mean that's definitely part of it.

I think with all these CUP changes, so I mean, there's multiple benefits, right?

So the small businesses and these, it's also helping with even park and rec staff time that they have to spend on these as well, and then obviously planning staff, because if we're having to review all these CUPs that take months to approve, then that means we're maybe not being able to work on that housing project that's coming along, or that other small business that maybe does need to go through a CUP because it there are maybe some safety issues that have to be, you know, looked at and added as conditions of approval and so forth.

But that's where we really think it's not that CUPs or conditional use permits are bad because they are needed when you're talking about health and safety concerns and maybe there's traffic impact issues or other things that you want to look at, and those are necessary.

But what we try to do is look at those things that we didn't really think that that was necessary to rise to the level of a conditional use permit and in those types of findings, as well as um what we tried to do, which is we're trying to do a bit more, as we talked about is sort of have these where you still have to do some performance standards.

So, like the I, you know, the concept of the group assembly with the noise study.

So why you know before we did that noise study with a conditional use permit?

So do you have to make it a conditional use permit just to get for the purpose of the noise study only, or can we do it the way that we were trying to do it now?

So it still is some additional work than than not doing the noise study, but it's definitely a lot less work and time and less expense than doing the full conditional use permit.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, just building off of that last piece is was that sort of the thinking behind these two additional amendments that came today was to make sure that maybe some analysis that needs to happen would still happen in specific cases.

Yes, and um staff had been discussing various options um of how how to operationalize uh operationalize this change where we can have these supplemental reports, um, and it's kind of it's this this kind of concept of shifting away from CUPs towards more performance standards.

I think we're still kind of figuring out and and testing.

Um, and so that this was kind of a a um recent, a very recent decision that this is what we currently think is the best way to operationalize this.

And one other thing.

Uh with with a small project design, we we can attach standard conditions of approval.

So it um it provides a more comprehensive uh set of safeguards than something that's uh zoning clearance or a design review exemption.

Um and it it has a fee that's commensurate with the level of review that would be appropriate for these supplemental uh plans.

So um we were trying to kind of fit a um, you know, kind of a square pig into a round hole originally with thinking that we could maybe accommodate this supplemental plan review with a zoning clearance, which is not even a permit, you know.

So um we think this is a more appropriate um pathway, very streamlined, but provides a more comprehensive package of of um safeguards through standard conditions.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay, I have one more clarifying question and then we'll open the floor for public comment.

Uh so uh at the CUC meeting I did ask about um how park staff uh use funding.

And I don't know in the last two weeks if you were able to check in with them, but just for the sake of sharing the question here as well.

My question was about um sort of their uh revenue policies about when they receive income from certain vendors or cafes and parks, how they uh spend that money.

Um yeah, we were not able to um to check with them on that question.

I apologize.

No worries.

Thank you.

Okay, any other clarifying questions?

All right, I will open the floor for public comment.

There's no public comment.

Thank you.

I will now close public comment and close the public hearing and open it up to discussion and other thoughts from commissioners.

Um I mean I'm just very excited about this, really appreciate it.

I mean, one two other things I wanted to call out is just the the change of definition for EV chargers, making that differentiation between industrial and actual residential or um you know um community use so that you know people who specifically renters who can't install EV charges at their home that they now have hopefully future more infrastructure that they can go to because it's gonna be easier to install EV chargers around the city specifically and under serve communities and the other one that I wanted to call out is also the recycling centers, not you know, making sure that we comply with the state goals and state laws, but making it easier for people in communities and at retailers and supermarkets to recycle and have kiosks and all that stuff available.

Something that I grew up in Europe with 30 years ago.

So very very exciting.

You're meeting our goals, you know, environmental goals, and you know, thank you for all your work and really thoughtful changes that you put into this.

I know it's not always easy, but very interesting to see how it actually uh impacts Oakland and would love to really see that data collection over the next two, three years and see if it actually brought the improvements to some of the areas where we want them.

So thank you.

And happy to move the item if there's no more discussion, but happy to support.

Yes, Commissioner Lee.

Um yeah, I just had one main comment.

Uh just uh, you know, I think in general, um, so I I do support these changes.

I think these are um really important and helpful um amendments um to the conditional use permit code.

Um and you know, in general, I'm always very appreciative of um the staff reports and staff presentations.

I think they're always really well um put together and really thoughtfully prepared and presented.

Um in especially this one, you've got 146 pages of code amendments.

I thought it was summarized really well.

Um, you know, the I I did want to flag though, I think um the this the the change in section 17 134 um around the transient habitation commercial, um it it uh and you know it doesn't really fit into the the summary framework that um that uh that was, you know, that did a really good job of summarizing everything and this didn't really fit into that, so I understand um why, but it wasn't described.

But I believe in the in the um the original uh staff report, it didn't describe this this one change and I think it was um uh highlighted by like the hotel workers union, which is which is how it was it was sort of so I just want to make sure that um just any time there's because hotels are such a high impact use, um, that if there's any ch you know major changes to their um to their approvals process, their oversight process in the future that it it definitely gets highlighted.

I would just um I know I don't know if I would have caught this change um if it hadn't been um brought out by the public um uh and it is sort of a a potentially a big change to not um if there was a change around the requirement to the categorical requirement that transient habitation commercial um conditional use permit was always a major um conditional use permit.

So just I just want to highlight that moving forward that um changes to um hotels, um if that it's it's highlighted in the staff report.

There's a change in oversight.

Yeah, thanks.

I guess just maybe to clarify we are not making that change.

Right.

So I guess I'm more that's clear.

And I and I think that's a needed that that was needed, um, that that change is no longer being made.

Um, but I just I just want to make sure moving forward that if the the staff report would point out, just make sure to point out that if if there was to be a change made to the oversight of hotels and yeah, thanks.

Okay, um, well, just have a couple of quick comments.

First of all, just thank you all for your um presentation.

Um, also thank you all for taking the time out to simplify this.

Um, as someone who's been digging through planning codes his entire career.

Um it's always wonderful when it can be a little more simplified.

Also, the only thing I would say is what is something that I've said in previous um presentations is just to make sure that the communication is open with the building department because there's nothing worse than finding something in the planning code that contradicts what's in the building code.

So just make sure that as you all are making these adjustments and simplifying things that you keep that communication line open, um, so that they're making proper adjustments as well.

But once again, thanks for the uh presentation.

Thank you.

I'll keep this short.

Uh, just to echo my comments from ZUC, thank you for your thorough work.

Uh, yes, this is a massive undertaking, and it is complicated to make things more simple.

So thank you for doing it.

Um, yeah, just very excited to see efforts to increase activation and walkability, livability, and public spaces.

You know, these are things that people want.

People want splash pads and cafes and parks and um pedestrian oriented store storefronts and that sort of thing.

So anything we can do to increase third spaces for people, especially youth and um just all Oaklanders is very important.

So thank you for that.

And I think the cost savings that businesses will see will be astronomical, and thank you for providing some examples of of what that looks like.

So yeah, I'm all about having you know limiting discretion and having um clarity um while also providing some flexibility, and uh I look forward to hopefully implementation in February.

So I think with that, Commissioner Randolph, would you like to make the motion?

Um recommend I make a motion to recommend that the city council conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt an ordinance.

One amending title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the planning code to a adjust regulations for permitted and conditionally permanent activities and facilities for purposes of providing greater opportunities for groundful activities and ease the permitting burden for commercial civic and low impact industrial activities, and B make related miscellaneous cleanup and administrative changes, and to making appropriate California and minor quality act findings with the following revision in section 17.136.30, small project design review and add provisions for community education civic activities and group assembly commercial activities as written and presented and approved by the commission earlier uh on the November November 5, 2025 PowerPoint.

Second.

I think if I can I get a call of the vote, all right.

So it's motion by Commissioner Randolph and secondary by Commissioner Rob.

Uh Commissioner Lee.

Yes.

Commissioner Randolph.

Yes.

Commissioner Rob.

Yes.

Each chair pro tem Josie Aaron.

Yes.

And the item passes unanimously.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving on to our next item, appeals.

I believe we have no appeals.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Okay, on to commission business.

We have approval of the minutes from our last meeting.

Would someone like to make a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve minutes from the last meeting.

What's the date?

October 15th.

Second.

I need a can you call the vote?

All right.

It was motioned by Commissioner Rob.

You seconded by Commissioner Randolph.

Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Commissioner Randolph.

Yes.

Commissioner Robb.

Yes.

You chair Pro Tim Aaron's.

Yes.

And with that, the minutes are approved unanimously and will be posted on the city's website.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to correspondence.

I don't think we have anything, but I will take this opportunity just to remind commissioners that it is not required but common practice to disclose if you've met with applicants.

And I will move us to city council actions.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, I will adjourn the meeting at 41 p.m.

And we will see you at the next meeting duly noticed for a time in the future.