Matt Rodriguez
Rob AriasThe Emeryville Planning Commission held a Public Hearing back on September 26 for a proposed Tesla Collision Center at a vacant commercial space at 1295 67th Street.
The proposal elicited some strong opinions from the public and scrutiny by the commission. After some pushback, the proposal is slated to come back to the commission this month.
Emeryville City Staff Presentation
City of Emeryville Assistant Planner Alyssa Chung presented the staff report detailing Tesla’s plan to occupy the 47,000-square-foot facility for light and heavy collision repair on Tesla vehicles. Currently, the closest Tesla Collision Center is in the south bay.
The location was most recently the site of New Logic Research who moved their operation to Nevada in 2019. The structure has entrances on both 66th and 67th streets.
The proposed Collision Center would involve repairs ranging from minor fixes to battery replacements, and include a spray booth for panel painting. The location would maintain 39 combined parking spaces for customers, rentals and vehicles being serviced. 6 of the parking spaces would be removed to accommodate storage and waste.
There would be no expansion of current square footage, although the project would include the removal of the 13,000 square foot interior mezzanine within the building. The interior would accommodate 29 service bays.
No exterior changes would be allowed without a separate design review.
Public improvements proposed by Tesla included sidewalk enhancements, tree replacements, and compliance with local landscaping ordinances.
The center could employ up to 50 employees.
Air Quality, Noise and Traffic Concerns Addressed by Staff
Chung next addressed possible community concerns created by the occupant including Air Quality, Noise and Traffic.
A traffic analysis, which extrapolated from a Tesla collision center located in Pomona, anticipated approximately 416 additional daily vehicle trips caused by their presence.
Current average daily traffic on 66th and 67th Streets were measured to be 1,224 and 2,402 trips, respectively. The 416 additional daily trips constitutes about an 11% daily increase and deemed “negligible” by the traffic consultant. A queuing analysis determined that the gated lot on 66th St. would not generate an undesirable amount of traffic back-ups on 66th street.
Air quality concerns related to paint and solvents from their proposed spray booth, including storage and disposal of these materials, would be subject to regulations, permitting requirements and enforcement by local fire codes, the EPA and the BAAQMD. As the vehicles being serviced are all-electric, no combustible engines and concerns over the fumes generated by them would apply.
Relating to noise concerns, Chung highlighted that the hours of proposed operation would be weekdays from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and that all repairs would take place indoors. Expanded hours, which Tesla indicated might be sought based on demand, would require additional city approval.
Enforcement of any issues would fall on the city to loop in the appropriate agency of any complaints.
Based on the project’s zoning compliance, mitigation efforts, General Plan consistency and positive economic impact, City Staff recommended approval of the proposed project by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Clarifications with Tesla Representatives
Four representatives from Tesla were in attendance to address concerns brought forth by the commission and the public.
Comr. Henmi asked for clarification on the precise air quality metric which Tesla representatives were unable to provide. Henmi also recommended that a condition of approval be a requirement that the facility’s doors be closed during hours of operation to mitigate noise.
Comr. Chafe asked for clarification on the battery storage area which staff clarified would require sign-off by the fire department prior to occupancy being granted. Chafe also asked how long damaged batteries would be stored on site of which representatives replied was typically 24 hours. Chafe clarified her concerns were related to a recent incident of suspected arson at a Tesla service center in the San Diego area. Lithium-Ion batteries can be trickier to extinguish than tradition car fires. Chafe also challenged the accuracy of the traffic study as it was conducted in 2021 amid the pandemic.
Questions from the other commissioners included clarification on enforcement levers, replacement of existing trees and other aesthetic improvements to the property.
Public Comment
Written comments and in-person members of the public were unanimously critical of the project asking that the commission reject it. Noise, parking and air quality were all cited as concerns.
The reputation of Tesla was also cited on several occasions for their litany of violations at their Fremont plant. “They are not a good neighbor,” noted a neighbor from the Liquid Sugar lofts which faces the proposed site on 66th. “They’ve been sued endlessly for hazardous waste violations, for refusing to follow health and safety guidelines that caused a massive spike in illness to start the pandemic. They refused to close down when asked to do so.”
A longtime business owner noted the additional strain the collision center would add to an already impacted parking environment. “They have 50 employees. I don’t know where the other employees are going to park perhaps on the street which again is going to push parking even further.”
Commercial Property representative Hong Ho was on hand to support Tesla’s application, pointing out opportunity to expand the infrastructure of EVs and promote their adoption. Hong also pointed to the recent challenges of finding a tenant for the vacant space. “This building was purchased in 2019. And during this five-year period that we’ve had ownership. I’ve only had six months of occupancy here.”
Commission Deliberates
Comr. Martinez led off the commission’s deliberation asking staff to clarify what was within and outside of the body’s purview. “Certainly, there are feelings about this company,” Martinez provided citing the many examples of misconduct that the public had brought forth.
Martinez seemed to want to ensure they did not overstep the authority of their role and subject the city to litigation.
SpaceX, another of Tesla owner Elon Musk’s companies, recently filed suit against California’s coastal commission when one of the commissioners cited Musk’s tweets for rejecting launches from the Vandenberg Space Force base.
Planning Manager Miroo Desai suggested continuing the item was acceptable if additional information was requested but not provided as was the case. “A number of issues that were brought up where there were no answers provided,” Desai outlined.
City Clerk April Richardson reiterated that if certain findings outlined in the proposal were not found, they could ask staff to address these.
“I’m not prepared to make the findings necessary to approve this application.”
Planning Commissioner Zoe Chafe
“I’m not prepared to make the findings necessary to approve this application,” Comr. Chafe provided. “I don’t find that it is consistent with the general plan, specifically the piece that requires us to find that the location size, coverage, density, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed, use will be compatible with and not adversely affect the surrounding area including neighborhood characters, street design and capacity, noise and lighting.” Chafe went on to describe the location as an “outlier” compared to other collision centers.
The Commission tapped staff with addressing several applicable concerns including battery storage, fire suppression, use of their lot for employees, and designating specific loading/unloading areas. Including enforceable actions if they fail to meet these recommendations was also suggested as a condition of approval.
A motion was made to continue the item at a future meeting and give Tesla and staff the opportunity to address these community concerns. The motion was approved unanimously.
Neighbors begin to Organize
Long an industrial area of the city, Northern Emeryville is trending residential and many in the city would like to continue this trajectory.
Emeryville currently is down to two “traditional” auto body shops including Continental on Park Avenue and Boyd’s on Powell St. There are several along San Pablo Avenue just outside the city’s borders.
Some community members have begun to organize against the project and have started a change.org petition citing fears of increased air and noise pollution and risk of battery fires.
“This center would worsen air quality from paint fumes, increase risks of thermal runaway from lithium battery fires, creates hazardous waste often illegally disposed locally, worsen noise pollution and traffic, and strain our limited parking resources,” the petition started by Carlin Dacey argues. “The proposed Tesla site threatens neighborhood safety given the site is located across from a senior community center and next to the Emeryville Greenway, where children and families recreate everyday.”
The item is expected to come back to the Planning Commission at their January 23, 2025 meeting.
The replay of the Public Hearing for the item can be watched below beginning at [13:30].
The fact that the making of Tesla cars supports child slavery in several countries by using young children to dig for the Cobalt needed to produce Tesla car batteries and many of these children are crushed and suffocated to death by the collapse of their digging tunnels and the fact that the making of these cars uses a minimum of 30,000 gallons of drinking water in addition to the huge energy and toxic pollution created by the production of parts for these cars; should be ample reason enough to keep collision testing and Tesla cars out of Emeryville. To support such an enterprise is to align with a morally and environmentally dispicable practice that underlines the reason why the accelerating destruction of climate change and global warming, which the current fires in Los Angeles illustrate, must be addressed in every possible way.
Oh my…
Too much drama, exaggeration, and “B.S.”. Tesla would be good for our economy
1