Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Chair Goodbody. You can let me know when you're ready.

Recording in progress.

Good evening and greetings. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of February 2626. We are holding a high rig meeting with some participants in the council chamber and others who have joined virtually via Zoom. This meeting is being webcast on Comcast TV channel 15 and live streamed on the city's YouTube channel and on the city website. Commissioner Myers will you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Ms. Allen will you call the roll please. Good evening. Commissioner Hammond?

Here.

Commissioner Hardy? Present. Commissioner Lowe? Here. Commissioner Myers? Here. Commissioner Stevens?

Present.

Commissioner Yorgov?

Here.

Chair Hardy?

Chair Goodbody, sorry. I'm here, thank you. Okay, moving on to the next section of our meeting is public comment And before we move on to public comment, I want to remind all of our participants here in the chamber and at home that public comments section provides an opportunity to address the Planning Commission on items that are not listed on the agenda. The commission welcomes comments and requests that speakers present their remarks in a respectful manner within the established time limits and focus on the issues which directly affect the city or within the jurisdiction of the city. As the commission is prohibited by state law from discussing items that are not on the agenda, your item will be taken under consideration and may be referred to staff for further action.

Speaker shall not use threatening, profane, or abusive language which disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of a commission meeting. The city is committed to maintaining a workplace free of unlawful harassment and is mindful that city staff regularly attend commission meetings. Discriminatory statements or conduct that is hostile, intimidating, oppressive or abusive are per se disruptive to a meeting and will not be tolerated. Ms. Allen do you have any speakers on zoom or in the chambers that would like to make public comment at this time?

There are none at this time.

Okay, now we move on to our action items. And before we do, we have presentation from staff. Oh, no, I'm sorry. Before we move to our first item, I wanted to hand the microphone over to Commissioner Stevens who has an announcement.

Yes, thank you chair. I'm going to recuse myself from this item because I have a relationship with the applicant, a professional business relationship. Thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Stevens.

Good evening Hayward Community and Planning Commission. I'm Taylor Richard, an associate planner with the City of Hayward Planning Division. And tonight I'm happy to present a tenet vesting tentative track map, site plan review, and density bonus application for a 58.

Excuse me, we missed item one, Chair Goodbody. It's the continuation of the election of officers.

Thank you for that.

Can we, do you wanna, maybe we can postpone this item if it's okay with the chair given that we just, Commissioner Stevens just recused himself. Is that okay to push this to the end of

the meeting? Yeah, that's a good idea and our applicants are here. So we can go ahead and move forward and move that to the nomination of officers to the end. Thank you.

Okay. We'll take it again. So tonight, I'm happy to present a vesting tentative track map, site plan review, and density bonus application for a 58 unit townhouse style condominium project at 24041 Amador Street. Before we dive into the project, I wanna familiarize and orientate us to the project site. The site is located in the Santa Clara neighborhood in North Hayward.

It is nestled in a mixed use area where it is surrounded by existing residential development and an off and office buildings. The project site is in close proximity to several AC transit bus routes and the Downtown Hayward BART Station. These public transit facilities provide service to the unincorporated Alameda County, Union City, Cal State East Bay, Chabot, Southland Mall, and the Greater Bay Area. The project site is also close to Interstate 880, which provides access to Hayward and the Greater Bay Area. The site is also close to many public facilities, including Centennial Park, Cannery Park, Birchfield Park, the Hayward Police Department, the United States Postal Office, Alameda County offices, Winton Middle School, and Park Elementary School.

Zooming in to the project site, you can see it's a 2.4 acre flat rectangular parcel with frontage along Amador Street. The site is located within the commercial office zoning district, which allows multi family residential, such as that proposed by Wright, and the site has a corresponding land use designation of retail and office commercial, which also allows for residential development. Later in this presentation, I'm gonna share how this project is consistent with both the zoning and the general plan. As you may have noticed from the aerial, the site is currently developed with a vacant 18,432 square foot office building and an associated parking lot. The office building has been vacant since August 2024 or about seventeen months.

Both the office building and the parking lot are proposed to be demolished as part of this project. Now moving to the development itself. The development includes 58 residential townhouse style condominium units spread across eight buildings. Each unit has three bedrooms up to three bathrooms and range in size from 1,149 to 1,886 square feet. Each unit has a two car garage, and there are an additional four visitor parking spaces on the site for a total of a 120 parking spaces.

Throughout the site, there is a variety of private and common open space, bicycle parking, internal pathways, and landscaping. The project features four deed restricted units for very low income households and one deed restricted unit for a moderate income household for a total of five affordable units. This elevation showcases the building's design, which incorporates a craftsman architectural style with gable roofs, large windows, a mix of materials, and a earth toned color palette. As I promised previously, I'm going to take a moment to discuss how the project is consistent with our regulations. As a way of background, I want to remind everybody that state density bonus law and the Hayward Municipal Code grant projects that provide a certain amount of affordable housing with additional density, unlimited waivers from development standards, and concessions from cost saving items.

The project includes such a request for additional density, four waivers, and one concession, which are all detailed in the staff report. The project is fully consistent with all applicable zoning regulations with the four allowable density bonus waivers. The density bonus waivers are highlighted in yellow and include moderate deviations from the side yard setback, the open space area, the open space amenities, and massing. Moving along, the project is fully consistent with the general plan density range with the allowable density bonus request under state density bonus law. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the following housing and land use policies, which promote diverse infill development close to services.

The project qualifies for a urban infill housing exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act also known as CEQA. The project has demonstrated compliance with all of the eligibility requirements as shown in attachment seven, and this exemption requires us to invite all applicable tribal organizations to consult on the project. We did this earlier this year, and during the outreach period, the city received no request for consultation. Wrapping up, as a reminder, in 2019, the state of California passed the Housing Accountability Act, also known as SB three thirty, in response to the ongoing housing crisis in the state. The law requires cities to approve housing development projects that comply with all objective standards unless the city can make any of the following findings.

One, that the city has not met its arena or has met its arena. Two, that there is a public health and safety issue which cannot be mitigated. Three, that the property is agricultural land. Four, that the project violates state or federal law. And five, that the project is inconsistent with the zoning or general plan.

Based on staff's analysis, there is no evidence to support any of these findings and as such, the city must approve the project, which leads me to staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the draft findings in attachment two and to the conditions of approval in attachment three. At this time, I'm happy to answer any questions you guys might have. I'm also joined on the city side by Syed with the Public Works Engineering Department and Doris with our housing department. From the applicant side, we have Kian and Daniel with the developer, Citi Ventures, and the project architect, Dan.

Thank you, Richard. Are there any commissioner questions at this time? All right, while we get our There's two there. Okay. Technicality set up here.

Okay, here we go. Commissioner Myers.

Thank you, Chair Goodbody. So a few kind of clarifying questions here. So page one of the project plan says that this is an all solar a solar all electric condo with each home having its own solar panels. I'm curious, do we know how many kilowatts each home will have or how much it might offset the average electric home bill? I'm guessing there's a set standard that is like a bare minimum and we're are we doing that? Is that what it is?

So I'll let the applicant come up and answer, that question. But the project will have to comply at a minimum with Cal Green standards, we'll review for compliance in the building permit stage. But the developer, this is Kian, he can provide some additional information.

Hi, my name is Kian Malik. I'm with City Ventures. I'm engineer, but we do have, seven active projects in the Bay Area today, and and, many more built, as well, with solar all electric homes. With these solar panels, depending on the family size, if it's a smaller family size, we're seeing the solar have capabilities of backing up a home for at least four days, which is pretty amazing if there's a power outage. Obviously, that changes if there's a larger family, but I don't have an exact kilowatt answer for you, but just to give you an idea of how how that helps.

Yeah. Oh, awesome. Yeah. Because I see that each building has its own set. And do you know if they're subdivided that each condo Yes. Gets each condo is is dedicated x amount of Correct.

There's not one there's not one solar array for the entire building. It's per unit on top of the roof.

Okay. And I don't believe Cal Green mandates battery backup, but are are you saying that you will have battery backup on these?

All of the homes will be solar battery backup capable. So they'll they'll all be EV ready as well in in the garages to to have solar battery backup capabilities.

Oh, okay. But you you don't know if they'll have the actual batteries installed yet or they'll just be capable of that in the future?

They'll be wired and have conduit and the bill the homeowner will have the ability to to to purchase a a battery as well.

Yeah. Okay. Awesome. Thank you for that.

Thank you.

And then the other question, and I don't know if it's for Kian or whoever. I see the is there one bike rack for the whole unit or are there multiples? I noticed that the one that's there is right on Amador. I don't know if it'd be more advantageous to pull it away from a main street and put it kinda centrally located for all the residential eyes to watch.

Yeah, there is the one area where all the bike racks will be located and the number of bicycle spaces will be in conformance with Cal Green standards. In terms of placement, I would imagine the developer may speak to why they chose that location, but I would imagine it's because it's closest to the bike lanes and the facilities which would be used. But I'll let the applicant explain their reasoning.

I just want to add to that response. All of the homes will also have bicycle storage in the garages as well, In addition to the the guest parking stalls that are on the the project frontage just for easy access for for so someone has to walk their bike through the whole project. There are two racks, and that allows for four bicycles on the frontage

It's for short a minor thing. I just was wondering if you'd taken into consideration the location of them, but it sounds like you did. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. And then, so the next ones, I have two more questions. One is on, if I'm looking at the chart on the staff report page nine, which is just our RENA numbers. So I guess basically California mandates that every region has to build X amount of homes and it's an eight year plan from 2023 I believe to 2031. And what it looks like is the above moderate, which are the most expensive, I would assume market rate homes.

We are currently expecting with our pending approval homes and the ones that have already been built and approved to be at 120%, which is outstanding. The very low income, the low income and the moderate income, we're kind of only at 30%, 30% to 40%, let's say. So I think my question is, do we expect to reach those goals for those three lower income homes? I'll ask that first.

Yeah, I will say that the estimated compliance is consistent with previous housing element cycles. We typically meet our above moderate requirements, and we have a harder time meeting the very low and low and moderate. We, you know, as the city, don't build housing, and so it is hard for us to ensure that we will be in compliance with these numbers. That's why projects like these that take putting on-site affordable units are helpful. And also our market rate projects that play pay in lieu fees, which help us build the lowest income units.

Those affordable housing in lieu fees help us build those very low and low projects. But, you know, we're supportive. We have a pro housing designation. We're supportive of these projects, but we don't build them.

I'll just add one other kind of thought for the commission is that, you know, a lot of the projects that include that are built as 100% affordable often rely on outside funding mechanisms. And, you know, in addition to the city of Hayward that's dealing with budget situation right now, the state is also going through a very similar sort of situation where the money that was already not sufficient to build enough housing is becoming even more scarce. And so those programs that do offer those financing options for the 100% affordable developers becoming more competitive. And so projects really need to be shovel ready. And so I think in the meantime, we are largely going to be relying on market rate developers to include those units within their development as a way to maybe help us get closer to that RENE number.

But yes, I think as Taylor pointed out, many cities struggle because a lot of this is outside of the city's control and it's a lot of outside of the developers' control.

Okay, excellent. Yeah, I figured some of that was the case. Do we have the part of my question is, do we have any I know that we incentivize it by giving various things if they provide. Are we thinking of anything else? Do we have anything on the books to discuss to maybe incentivize more some of these lower income homes to be built? And I do understand it has to pencil out for these builders. The math has to work. I totally get that. I'm just wondering if there's anything from the city that we're thinking that could help incentivize them even further.

So we have a couple programs that are currently in the city. So we have our density bonus ordinance which goes above and beyond state law to provide additional incentives to developers. In addition, with this project, the applicant has proposed to the city manager and the city council to be in what's called the SWIP program, and I'll have him talk about a little bit of what that program will do to incentivize housing development.

Thank you, Taylor. I have two things to add to that. Actually, one, the city does go above and beyond for density bonus with incentives. One one example of that is, if you provide universal design features for your project, meaning adaptable and accessible, elements to your project, the city does provide additional density, and we are, proposing that here. So that's that's fantastic. Not a lot of cities do that. That's a great incentive. So I highly recommend that to other cities if they're listening. The the second is, there are two programs that are available right now. It's called the Skip program and the Bold program.

These are funding mechanisms for developers to either finance from the public fees, impact fees, or public infrastructure. Are proposing on this. Haven't officially proposed it yet, but we're in the process of officially proposing to the city manager utilizing one or both of those programs to finance the impact fees of the project because that's typically one of the larger costs. And by doing so, we're able to be more creative with our home sale prices, our our mortgage you know, subsidizing mortgage rates or providing more affordable housing. This is these are really important factors.

And so we're we're excited to keep exploring these financing structures with the city because I think it's going to help not only us, but if it gets approved, all developers can use this and build more affordable housing or more income ranges for the city.

Excellent, thank you. Yeah. Apologize for having you get up.

No, this is great, I love this.

Okay, thank you though. And then to finish off that question, I know that we have our in lieu fees. Do we have anything planned for possibly building and will that create a cluster of low income homes in one complex? How exactly does that work when we're maybe trying not to do that?

I believe we have Doris Tang online and I might ask her to talk a little bit about how they distribute the affordable housing and LUFI's and kind of the process of applying and how they select applicants. Doris, are you available to speak?

Yeah. Thanks, Taylor. I'm here. So the distribution of the affordable housing and new fees is done through a NOFA. So the city would issue a NOFA and developers affordable housing developers who are interested in seeking city funding would apply and the city would review those applications and then potentially fund those projects and that's kind of how it happens.

Okay, okay. Thank you, Doris.

Yeah, no problem.

Okay, and my last question, and that'll be it, is I know that we have on the proposal some special features that we discussed and some ADA, let's say wider doors and stuff like that. Are those only if you order during the build and the purchase? Is that only when you order that package? So is it possible that all of these could be built with zero of the ADA inclusive?

I'll start and say that they do provide two universal design features on top of the package that you spoke about. So 34% of the units have ground floor living area, which is really important for, you know, families that wanna age in place. And additionally, they'll have six ADA accessible units, which is 10% of the units. So at a minimum, they will have that. And on top of that, the developer is office offering a package to have varied height cabinets and countertops, flexible appliances, wider doorways, accessible bedrooms and bathrooms, slip resistant flooring slip resistant flooring and sliding doors.

Excellent. That's perfect clarification because I was under the kind of assumption that maybe everything was under a package, but we have a baseline already and then you can actually add to that when you Is

that right?

That is correct.

Wonderful. And then with the 10, I believe you said, that were specific ADA, is that right?

Six ADA accessible dwelling units which accounts for 10% of the entire So

of those six, how did we decide on where they fall on our RENE chart? Like is it low income, moderate, you see what I'm saying?

So the accessible units are separate from the affordable units. So they're I don't on this chart, I can look if any of them overlap as an affordable unit and an accessible unit. That would be part of the let me look. Yeah. So the affordable units and the accessible units are separate. So there's five affordable units and there's six accessible units. The accessible units are proposed to be market rate units.

Okay, I didn't know if we just randomly did those or, market rate, that makes sense. Okay, all right, I'm done with my questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Myers. Commissioner Hammond.

Hello. So let me see, to kind of add some of the questions about the housing goals. So if you meet the housing goals, does that mean that you don't have to offer any density bonuses, incentives anymore? Wouldn't you reach that goal?

The density state density bonus law and our municipal code apply regardless of RINA status. What being compliant fully compliant with your RINA does, it does give the city the ability under s p three thirty to deny projects. We are not at that point yet, so.

So once they're once you've reached that level, you can deny?

Correct. Under SB three thirty, it says that is if if the city has met its RINA, it's able to deny projects.

Is that something that the city proposes to do?

No, I would just say, you know, the planning commission and staff, every project that's required to go through discretionary process are obligated to meet legal findings. And so irrespective of what the state law, SB three thirty in locking in objective standards is just a processing tool but it is not necessarily a denial tool. The city would still for discretionary would still have to be able to make upon a preponderance of evidence that the project is not satisfying zoning general plan. It does not meet any criteria. And we'll have to still make the findings.

And so if the commission if we have met our RENO obligation and let's say the commission cannot make certain findings, then that could be a justification. But we typically don't go there. We typically try to work collaboratively with the developer who has dedicated a lot of time and money and commitment to the city to build housing. And so if they are generally in compliant, we try to work with them to ensure that we can make the findings. Certainly not every project is going to be smooth sailing and some may be more controversial than others.

But SB three thirty again was intended to provide some transparency and predictability for the developers rather than have just arbitrarily being denied because the neighbors don't like it.

Okay, thank you. So are some of the incentives dependent on the building of the accessible units?

What incentives are you referring to?

Like the density bonuses. So

density bonus as a whole requires you to have a certain level of affordable units. Our Hayward Municipal Code also allows additional density if you provide a certain amount of units to have access or universal design features. This applicant is doing both. They're providing 12% of their units to affordable income levels, and they are providing I don't have it right in front of me. A certain amount of their units to I think it's 5% minimum Or yeah, to provide at least 20% of the units with universal design features. So the applicant is doing both to take advantage of the additional density awarded by that.

So do you do you have have to qualify for an EDA unit?

No, so the universal design, I think we're talking about the universal design ordinance. And so when we adopted the density bonus ordinance that included that universal design incentive, That was before we actually adopt we adopted the density bonus ordinance before we adopted our universal design ordinance. The ordinance that we adopted for universal design requires that homes be designed to accommodate future installation of universal design features. If the applicants proactively install those features consistent with our density bonus ordinance, they get the benefit of the additional density bonus to be able to add additional units. That's the incentive.

So if they proactively install those units and make those units available at market at the time when they're built, then they get the benefit of the density of having additional density bonus, which does go over and above what state law density bonus requires. State law does not have a density increase for universal design, but the city of Hayward does.

So it's kind of a one time thing. So if somebody buys the unit that needs it for ADA accessibility and they sell it and the next person comes in and wants to says I don't need this, then?

It doesn't quite work that way when universal design features are installed. And to give you an example, so they could be as simple as just door levers instead of doorknobs, but it also requires a different design approach. So when you have a universal design house, you typically have a living area on the Ground Floor. You have wider doorways that can accommodate those that are in wheelchairs. And you have a ground floor entry that does not have any steps.

A traditional home does not have any specific limitation with providing steps. So these homes, they can be functional for those that may not necessarily need those universal design features right now, but the whole purpose of the universal design is to allow people to age in place. So if they buy the home today, they may not need it, but maybe ten or twenty years from now or if they have a family member who may require that, then it's there. And so there a long term benefit for the homeowner to purchase those homes.

Okay, thank you. So coming back to the solar, did you say that the solar panels will be installed for people to choose to hook up to solar? You should just stand there.

All of these homes will be solar, all electric. So just to clarify, there's no gas going to these homes. All of the homes will have solar. It's not optional. So they all will have solar panels.

Okay. Yeah. So and then as far as the EV chargers, is it EV charger ready? So are those garages installed with an EV charger? Or is that an option?

These these the requirement is they need to be level two EV ready, which means the conduit and the wire in the conduit are there so the homeowner can have the option of choosing a Tesla charger or any charger they want. They have that ability to plug it in very easily because all the wiring is just ready to go right there.

But they would still have to pull a permit to get an EV charger installed in the garage?

They they would have to follow the whatever is required for for I mean, not all the time, but for for the most part, the wiring and the conduit is what requires permitting. And we're we're we're gonna be going through that process during construction to get all the mechanical, electrical, plumbing permits required. Their job is only to buy a charger if they if they want one.

So they won't have to get a permit?

I don't know the exact requirements in in the city of Hayward for permitting a a battery charger. Okay. But the electrical to it itself, they will not either, do a a permit for that.

So if, let's just say, they have to pull a permit, is there some way that you guys could create some sort of documentation to make it super easy for anybody to just go in and say, hey, I'm ready to get a charger. Here's all the

That's something we can look into. Obviously, once the home is purchased, there's really not much interaction after that point, but we definitely can look into adding that. I mean we do actually, for our active and closed projects, we do surveys of those communities, the HOA company, and that's something I can bring up with them to see if that's that's something that they would be interested in doing.

Okay. Yeah.

That's a

good point. Thank you.

And then did I see right that the storm drains pass up underneath the units?

I don't believe so.

Maybe I read them.

We do have area drains in the yards because these are the majority of the homes in the project have a yard. So there are area drains there for storm water capture and then treatment as well.

But there are no storm drains?

In the homes themselves?

No, Under the units, that run under the units.

No, no.

Oh, okay. And then, let me see, is it possible that more trees can be planted beyond what your minimum requirement was for the tree ordinance?

You know, there's a

lot of levers to pull we're looking at projects. Every project is different. Every project has different constraints. This is a true infill project. It's very tight.

We needed it, you know we had to utilize we had to rely on state density bonus just to be able to hit the density that we we had and for other affordable units. So we are limited on space. We did prioritize the larger redwood trees in front of the project, and that's essentially within about a 20 foot setback from the right of way. And you know, that's something we prioritized. Unfortunately, there's not enough space to add more trees than that, but we did prioritize some of the existing larger trees on-site today, hence the the name of the project. No

extra way to green it up a little more?

We can always look at that during our permitting process. The city will require a more thorough planting plan. But for the most part, the city already has requested a pretty thorough planting plan and we've tried to fit as many as possible including keeping the existing trees.

Okay. And then, so as far as the parking is concerned, I know you have two car garages, but most of those are tandem parking. So if people find tandem parking to be inconvenient and guests come and those four spaces are eaten up, where do you expect the over spill to go? There's no parking on Amador and certainly Have on you spoken with the park or with the business park? It seems like that's where people are gonna end up parking if somebody has a party and there's all those four spaces.

And one of them is accessible, see. So that means really three spaces that are gonna be available. And chances are someone's gonna fill those up pretty quick. Anyway, I'm just, it seems to me that people are gonna be spilling over into the business park and the park that's to the north of the

I'm glad you asked that question. We are you know, it's something we think about with all of our communities here. The the the parking requirement here is for 87 units, and we wanted to make sure there's there's enough parking here. So we we are providing 33 more parking stalls than than what is required just just for that exact reason. You know, these are family sized homes. People need at least two cars. And so we we we you know, that's something I think from the onset when we met with staff. We understood that's gonna be pretty important, so we made sure to not just provide one stall, but provide two for for each home.

Sure. And it also says that you guys reserve the right to reduce the number of parking spaces in the future. I was wondering where would you take those parking spaces away if you were to exercise that option?

I think what you're asking is one of the statements in the state density bonus letter. I might mean, let staff respond to this part because coming from the developer is a little funky, but develop we we do reserve the right to request more concessions and waivers later on in the process. That's not something we're looking to do here. We're we're we only have four waivers here, pretty reasonable waivers reasonings. It's going to be pretty unlikely that we're going to be moving parking.

That would be a pretty large site plan change. But we're reserving the right if there's an unknown, we've had projects where you start working under construction, there's an unknown utility in the middle of the project and you need to make some changes. Sure. This is a a tool to allow developers to more stream in a more streamlined way, make changes to the plans. So to reserve the right to remove a stall or two to make sure that there's space for those homes. There's something in the ground.

I'll just add to that. As put in condition of approval two, the project is approved per the plans we have. If they want to make modifications to it, they either have to submit for either a minor modification or a major modification depending on the extent of the modification. So we'll revisit those and ensure that any changes meet our code requirements.

Will that have to come up with the Planning Commission again?

It'll be determined if it's a minor modification or a major modification. It's up to the Planning Director to make that determination.

Sure, okay. And then I think I missed a question before. Are all the homeowner fees distributed equally? Like for the real low income housing, are their homeowner fees gonna be less

I

than can the maybe take this question. The city does not charge park impact fees or school district impact fees or affordable housing impact fees on the affordable units. They only apply to the market rate units.

I see, okay. I think that's it for my questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you Commissioner Hamann. Commissioner Yorgoff.

I just quickly wanted to clarify. So it's the skip and bold program that allow for the financing of impact fees. Correct?

Correct. That's correct.

And those are through state financing agencies or is it done with the city?

It'll be done with the city. The city will need to pass a resolution to opt into those programs, and then they are administered through the state. Yeah.

I think CMFA may be for well, anyway, regardless. Okay. And is that something the city, it sounds like, hasn't done on other projects? This would be the first project it would be on?

Correct. The applicant has met with the city manager and the city manager is awaiting their formal proposal and then she'll present it to the council.

Okay. Sorry to grill you on that one but it is a really exciting program so it's cool to see it pioneered. Thank you.

Are there any other commissioner questions? I just had a very general one. I think this is going to be a really good project for this area. I'm really glad to see that something is going to be done with that site. I'm a big fan of infill projects. And I'm looking forward to more activity, more residents supporting our local businesses around in that area. My question was around the mailboxes. I see that they in the staff report, they're near let's see.

To help. They're located between Building 7 And 6 but more in front of Building 6. Yeah. Along the main drive aisle.

Thank you. And I know that the postal service wants to make these as convenient as possible and not have to run around the entire development to deliver mail. But it seems like this area is, I'm just thinking about everyone coming home at the end of the day and kind of utilizing this one street or this aisle to access their mailboxes. And I'm wondering if you've thought about maybe dividing up the mailboxes or maybe making them more accessible to more people, more of the residents. Because you do have to for those that live in Building 1 And 8, I mean they have to travel quite far to gather their mail.

I will start and say that the US Postal Service typically requires them to cluster all the mailboxes, and ultimately they have authority over the design and the location of those mailboxes, but I'll have the applicant speak more to it.

That is so the location is correct. It's further into the project, about probably two thirds into the almost about halfway. We do need to have the mailboxes near a parking stall. That's that's required by the USPS. Additionally, just to avoid any theft or issues like that, we typically like to have the mailboxes more centered into into the project and sheltered behind evergreen trees that are gonna have leaves throughout the season.

So they're they're pretty protected from the public view to avoid any any issues like that. Additionally, the reason why we centered it in the project, Building 763, And 2 are where the focus of the adaptable units are, and we wanted to make sure they're those are the buildings that have that are closest to that those mailboxes. And then Taylor stole my last thought which was they need to be clustered as well. So they, in addition to being close to a parking stall, they need to be clustered together in one area.

Thank you. I have a follow-up question. And there's a, will there be sufficient lighting there too as well?

Yes. As part of the permitting process with the city, we're going to be required to have a full blown lighting plan. We have already been proposing bollards, light, essentially light posts throughout the project site. That will be focused along the ADA paths of travel, one of which is along this, the sidewalk along these mailboxes in the center of the project.

Great, thank you. Thank you. Okay, if there are no more questions from the commission, we can move on to the public hearing portion of this item. And Ms. Allen, are there any members in chambers or online that would wish to wanna speak on this item? There are none. Fantastic. Okay, now we can move on to the discussion.

Chair, excuse me, if you could formally close the public hearing portion.

Okay, thank you for the reminder. All right, I'm going to close the public hearing and move on to the discussion on this item. And there's a motion by Commissioner Lowe and a second by Commissioner Yorgoff.

And do we get to comment before the motion?

Yes. Commissioner Hardy.

Great so I'm not sure what motion is on the floor but I'll go ahead and make my comments. So I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the developers and the presentations thank you to to Flannery Richard and to all of you who are here tonight. I really love this project. Think it is wonderful. I really appreciate the investment in the city of Hayward.

I think that the design is really great. I feel that the the two car garages and the fact that you exceeded the parking requirement, it's not often that we see that. So even though it there are some things that aren't perfect about it, I actually really appreciated that. And so I just wanted to name that. I also really wanted to name that I thought that the four waivers that you asked for were not very much and that your concession around the water meter wasn't that much either even though I live in an apartment and sometimes wonder how much of my water bill is really mine.

But it's really not that, you know, that concerning. So I really did appreciate that as well. I thought that you weren't doing what we sometimes see which is like asking for like building heights that are really out of line with things that are in the neighborhood or, you know, making the city like look different in different places or standing out. So just really wanted to name that as well. Just wanted to also mention we got some emails and things that match it mentioned things like pattern books that I've never heard of before.

So, we'd be interested in learning more about things like that in the future. So, just thought this was an interesting project too for that reason. Learned about things like the skip program and bold program right now. And then, just my only request, and I didn't wanna bring it up as a question, just as a person who lives in an apartment complex, there is a really large apartment complex across the street. That is not a place where people own their own homes and so they don't usually get noticed when projects are going on and when the demolition is happening.

And so if there would be any way, this is a building that would be being demolished. It was built in 1972 and so there probably are some hazardous materials. I know this didn't need to go through CEQA. But if there is any way that they could be noticed about what is happening when that building is coming down, that would be great. And those are my comments. Thank you all so much.

Thank you Commissioner Hardy. Commissioner Yargov.

Thank you Chair Goodbody. Yeah, I just want to echo what Commissioner Hardy was saying. I wholeheartedly support this project. It's great to see you do it. Thank you so much for doing this in Hayward.

And I love to see a developer getting creative with the density bonus and, you know, using it to its full to the full advantage that it offers and delivering an even better community while offering more affordable homes in the city of Hayward. If it's wonderful to see townhomes being built in Hayward, we need a variety of homes, housing types in our city, and these homes will be a really good addition to the city. And, yeah, echoing Commissioner Hardy's comments, Appreciate you teaching us about the Skip and Bold programs. Those are really cool initiatives. I do just want to make a few general comments and highlight associate planner Richard and planning manager Lecuco's comments about the difficulties of building 100% affordable housing.

Spot on. Funding is incredibly scarce for 100% affordable housing and there's a massive backlog of projects that makes the problem bigger every year. You know, we have projects that are ready to be built, they just don't have the funding. I think in the state's last major funding cycle the multi family housing program there was maybe a 10% success rate of projects being funded. There's a massive need in the state.

And so without a bond issue to further affordable housing in Hayward in lieu fees are the only way to build 100 affordable projects in the city. So, in the meantime though, it's great to see the incentives that the city has in place creating additional affordable housing units in market rate communities. And the affordable housing crisis is massive, but every home we build makes a difference. So, you. That's it.

Thank you, Commissioner Yogroth. Commissioner Myers.

Thank you, Chair. I echo, a lot of what my fellow commissioners have just said. I'd written them down and you guys have said them. And, I wanted to start with Dion. Hey, I really appreciate, your candor, your approach, the way you came up here and answered the questions.

I wish all of our developers had that approach and the way that you guys have put together this project is outstanding. I'm really excited about it. I also echo that I appreciate the extra parking. You guys went above and beyond. And the ADA compliant additions are also very appreciated.

Every once in a while I'll come across a report that I think is pretty amazing. I know our minutes last year were pretty amazing so I had to comment on that. I have to say I'm really impressed with our tree report. I looked through that tree report and I thought let's hire them again whoever hired them. So anyway that's all I wanted to say. I'm pretty excited about the project so thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Myers. Commissioner Lowe. Thank you.

So it was easy to make that motion. I'm very pleased with the project. The that I haven't actually made yet, but I will. The location, I think, is ideal for new homes, and I'm excited to have home ownership opportunities for our residents. The project will continue to provide, it looks like it'll provide really great aesthetics in that area.

And also it will contribute to our Reno numbers which the city needs to improve upon and is steadily doing so. I want to thank associate planner Richard for a wonderful presentation and a great staff report. And I also want to thank the developer for answering all of our questions and for being here. It was also easy, I agree with Commissioner Hardy, it was very easy to agree with the waivers. I didn't think there was much you were asking for much at all as it relates to the waivers.

I'm very excited that they are going to have solar panels and that you seem to care about saving the Redwoods. That also makes me very happy. Those are things I was hoping I would see in this project, and we did. And the park down the street, I think, is great for families. It'll be a really great place for families.

I know my kids played ball there at that park and the one thing they will have to watch out for is people will try to park in their neighborhoods. But hey, they have two car garages, so they'll have a place to park and they won't have to really worry about that so much. But overall this is a very good project and since I have the floor I am gonna take an opportunity to go ahead and make my motion if that's okay.

Commissioner Hardy if you could just hold. Commissioner Hamann has some comments as well.

Yes. So it's kind of being the last one making comments. All the good comments have already been taken. So anyway, for me this project was a lesson on how to develop a housing project. It was very educational.

How you were able to take advantage of all of everything that you could take advantage of. And I'd like you to think it's a good use of infill space. I think it will make an improvement on what was there before. I know my son in a few years will be getting ready, I hope, to buy a house. And this seems like a really good opportunity for a young person that's starting out to be able to buy something and then either keep it or move along.

But anyway, like the project. I think I have no reason not to approve the best of the track map or the site plan review or the density bonuses or CEQUA. But my only critique maybe is just the parking. Anybody that had to deal with tandem parking ever, it could be annoying to have to move your car. And I just hope that people don't get discouraged about using tandem parking and spill over into the streets and in the parks and business park.

And I hope that the business park is again, I don't know if you've spoken with them or if they're going to be okay with people parking in their spaces. But other than that, I think it's a good project. I'm glad to see it happening and good luck with it.

Thank you, Commissioner Hamann. Commissioner Lowe, would you like to make your motion?

No, thank you. I'm kidding. I move that we approve the proposed vesting tentative track map 8757 site plan review and density bonus application and find that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA.

Seconded.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Commissioners can vote.

Ms. Allen can you do a roll call vote? We're gonna do a roll call vote. Yes. Commissioner Hammond? Yes. Commissioner Hardy? Yes. Commissioner Lowe? Yes. Commissioner Myers?

Yes.

Commissioner Stevens has recused himself. Commissioner Yorgov? Yes. Chair Goodbody?

Yes. Thank you everyone and with that the item passes. Thank you for coming. Okay, we are now moving on to item three on the agenda. PH26-seven thousand and seven, proposed demolition of an existing truck terminal and construction of a new truck terminal.

And was there any public comment on oh no, we go to staff presentations first, correct?

I just wanted to quickly announce Commissioner Stevens has rejoined the commission for this item.

Thank you. Welcome back Commissioner Stevens.

Thank you Chair. Good evening, Commissioners. Steve Kowalski, Senior Planner. This is an application for a conditional use permit and major site plan review to allow the demolition of an existing 14,640 square foot truck terminal at 2256 Claremont Court and the construction of a new 45,336 square foot terminal in its place. The project also includes a draft mitigated negative declaration that was prepared by the city in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act to address the potential environmental impacts that could result from construction of the project and to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels.

The subject property was undeveloped and historically used for agricultural purposes up until 1987 when the existing terminal and its associated site improvements were completed. In June 2019, the city adopted new industrial all new industrial zoning regulations, which henceforth required all new truck terminals to obtain approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. The adoption of those new land use regulations rendered the existing terminal what's called a legal nonconforming use, Meaning that it could continue to operate as is indefinitely, but that a new CUP would be required if it ever to be demolished and replaced or expanded. As such, when the applicant submitted plans to demolish the existing terminal in February almost exactly one year ago, a conditional use permit was required. And major site plan review is also required in this case because the project would not meet the minimum on-site open space requirement for a new industrial project.

Projects that are unable to meet the minimum on-site open space requirement may request a reduction in exchange for the provision of exceptional on-site amenities that offset the proposed reduction through the major site plan review approval process with the Planning Commission. Here is an aerial photograph of the property. It's the one highlighted in yellow and with a red outline. The parcel measures 7.9 acres and contains, as I said before, a 14,640 square foot truck terminal with 42 truck loading docks and a freestanding uncovered refueling station within the terminal's yard. The yard is enclosed by a chain link fence that is covered with vines along its frontage to help screen the loading and unloading operations from view from the street.

A 47 space parking lot for employees and visitors is located outside this fence at the front of the site adjacent to Claremont Court. The rear most, roughly one third of the site backing up to Ward Creek is currently undeveloped and has never been disturbed except when the site was used for agricultural purposes several decades ago. The proposed terminal would be nearly three times the size of the existing one and would contain 45,336 total square feet, including approximately 5,000 square feet of ancillary office space and 74 loading docks. 123 designated truck trailer parking spaces would be provided around the perimeter of the yard. The existing truck refueling station would be relocated directly inside the entrance to the yard and be provided with a new canopy to comply with the current water quality regulations.

And a new covered trash enclosure would also be constructed within the yard adjacent to the new refueling station. The front parking lot would be modified in order to be brought into compliance with current codes and would feature 48 spaces instead of 47, including 17 new electric vehicle spaces and four accessible spaces. The project would feature amenities for the terminal's employees, including an outdoor break area with tables, chairs and outdoor exercise equipment like park horse equipment that you sometimes see at parks, And a half basketball court at the rear of the yard away from the majority of the truck traffic. This slide shows the proposed site plan for the project. And I pointed out several of the key features.

For everyone to get your bearings, this half bulb here at the at the top left is the Claremont Court cul de sac bulb. This is the entrance to the site right here. And the vehicular parking lot where employees and visitors would park on a daily basis is out here in the front. And there's a chain link fence running behind that parking lot. As I said, it's covered in vines.

And then the new terminal would go roughly in the same area as the existing terminal. This square shape here is the new truck refueling station. And there will be one pump with two kind of yin and yang oriented refueling stations for trucks. The half basketball court that I mentioned is tucked away in the back of the property. It's it's definitely, you know, kind of far away from where the employees would be, but it made the most sense to put it back there.

The engineer, the the project design team chose that area because it is farthest away from where all the trucks will be maneuvering, loading and unloading on a regular basis. So it's also a good use of a lot of paved space on the property, right? So staff reviewed the proposal for conformance to the general plan and for compliance with the applicable zoning standards for a new truck terminal and determined that it is consistent with a number of goals and policies of the land use and economic development elements of the general plan. Those are listed here on this slide. The only standard that the project wouldn't meet, as I said before, is the minimum on-site open space requirement.

But as I said before, this requirement can be reduced through the provision of high quality on-site amenities that offset the proposed reduction. In this case, it's staff's opinion that the reduction would be adequately offset by the benefits that having a half basketball court and outdoor exercise equipment on the site for use by employees would provide for those employees' physical and mental health and well-being. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the draft mitigated negative declaration and approve the conditional use permit and major site plan review based on the findings in Attachment two to the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment three. And that concludes the staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kowalski. At this time, I'd like to open it to the Commission for planning I'm sorry, for questions staff questions.

Something I failed to mention that would probably have come out shortly but I might as well put it out there now. The existing tenant is Central Transport which is a truck freight business. They will be occupying the building during construction. They won't have to move out. They may have to relocate some of their operations but they will fully reoccupy the new building once it's been completed if the conditional use permit and major site plan review are approved.

Thank you. Commissioner Hamann.

Yes, thank you for the report. So one of the things that came to my attention was in the condition of approval 88 A, B, C and D, There seem to be, especially D, there seem to be lots of conditions and risks. So given that FEMA suspended processing new L O M R dash F and C L O M R F applications. What is the contingency plan knowing the proceeding prior to FEMA's formal map revisions carry inherent uncertainties?

So that's a question for our senior engineer who I believe is on the call, Saeed. Did you catch Commissioner Hammond's question?

Yes, good evening. In regards to the question that the commissioner brought up, so there is a condition of approval for this sort of projects that are within the special flood hazard areas in FEMA that basically we want them to revise the map, and they will do it through a conditional letter of map revision before the project gets a building permit. And then once the building permit is issued, they will go and they will do the LOMA, letter of map revision. And what this does, basically, it will take out that fill site from the special flood hazard area that will help with the insurance. That will be a better approach for us because it will be basically cleaning the map.

FEMA will do the map in regards to the field. As of July 2023, FEMA has suspended processing these applications. They are redoing some of their environmental reviews. They haven't continued that approach. So instead of that condition of approval that we typically apply to these projects, we are asking these applicants to do an additional flood study.

And the purpose of this flood study is to basically show the city with proper design measures that they are not impacting the neighboring properties and they are not impacting adversely the right of way. By bringing in the field, we simply don't want the, basically flood to be pushed out to the right of way or to the neighboring property. The way to mitigate these is to mainly do site detention and mainly showing that the direction of the flood is not in a way that the direction and the portion of the flop is not in a way that it adverse adversely impacts the properties or the public right of way. So that's one measure that we have added. We have also added a measure to basically hire a third party reviewer that we ask the applicant to submit their design to that third party reviewer.

We will run. We are basically we have a contract with that third party reviewer. The applicant only provides funding to do this review. And then we are also adding a clause in the condition of approval to require the applicant to pursue LOMRF once the FEMA restarts processing these applications. We still want this to happen even if it is a few years after the completion of the project.

So we want to tie this agreement to right before the occupancy of the building. We don't want to hold the occupancy of the building to this. However, we want to have to at least the agreement in place to make sure the applicant or the next buyer of this project or property will pursue the loan mark.

So the owner is willing to take the risk?

So unfortunately, the options are limited, commissioner. One option is to wait until FEMA starts reprocessing these, or the other option is to basically follow through these requirements to make sure the adverse impact, if any, is mitigated.

Okay. Thank you.

Of course.

The next question was site protection. So it states that vapor barrier will be used under the structure to, I'm guessing to contain any hazardous particulates. Normally, what I know, VaporBerry usually keeps moisture from coming up through the soil and not necessarily containing. Usually a geomembrane, perhaps liner is used instead. How is the vapor barrier under the building going to protect the site?

Is your question directed at the applicant or

Whoever's going to answer it.

Commissioner, can you tell me which condition you're referring to? What are the conditions of approval?

So it was stated that a vapor barrier is going be placed up underneath the structure. And then the space will be vented.

Where did it state that, though, is my question.

Well, gosh.

Yeah, that's outside of my area.

There's like 400 pages that I read through. Sorry if I can't remember them all. But I do remember it saying that there's a vapor barrier that's going to be used up underneath the under the structure. So anyway, I guess my concern is how the entire site's gonna be protected. Can the geomembrane be extended past the building and into the parking lot in order to keep the soil protected?

Because it would seem like there's a lot of area there that could potentially be contaminated.

The vapor barrier requirement is under is listed under condition number 67, which is a mitigation requirement that our environmental consultants reviewed and analyzed. And so the way that the condition is actually worded, the applicant needs to submit and have it reviewed and approved by our hazmat division to demonstrate compliance. So this is a mitigation requirement. So the applicant will need to adhere to this. And obviously, some of those details, I think, may still have to be navigated as they're working through some of the construction level documents.

Sure. But staff will verify and as part of the requirements for the mitigation and monitoring plan, staff will verify that this was adhered to prior to occupancy and prior to issuance of permits.

Okay, thank you. So perhaps a geomembrane liner could be used extensively throughout the site?

I'm not a hazmat engineer from that regard, so I can't answer that question. I think we would probably need to have one of our environmental consultants respond specifically or somebody that's familiar with that. Also, don't have a member of our hazmat team available to respond to that. I would just say again though, part of the mitigation requirements in order to switch out the mitigation, the applicant would need to agree to that, number one. And we would also need to go back and confirm with the environmental consultant that that would be sufficient that would sufficiently mitigate till levels of less insignificant.

So I don't you know, the city doesn't really feel comfortable right now in swapping out many environmental mitigations that were prepared by environmental consultants to help mitigate the environmental impacts without having bigger understanding of the reasons why. So I think right now the condition is worded to provide the final review by the development services director and consultation with our hazmat team.

Okay. So you'll be looking into it. So it kind of extends to how the protection for the diesel exhaust fluid, the trash enclosure, the underground fuel tank and the generator will also be protected.

And all of these would be are going to be required to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. So we will have details, more construction level details on how they plan to mitigate. Oftentimes the mitigation measures, there's multiple ways to mitigate impacts. This happens to be the mitigation measure that our applicant, excuse me, our environmental consultants were recommending and it's these mitigation that the applicant has agreed to.

Okay. Thank you. And then a question, where are the trucks going to be washed? On-site or off-site?

Yes. So for all of our trucks, have different areas around the country that they swap out in shops. And in those specific shops, we don't have one at this specific site. So we have neighboring properties of central transport that those types of things would happen at.

Excuse me. Real quick. Could you introduce yourself for the record?

Oh, sorry. Mark Heinrich with the owner, Crown Enterprises. So you won't be washing any of the vehicles on-site?

Not at this location. We usually have maintenance shops at our other hubs that these maintenance things would take place at.

Okay. And then it all says that the Clermont Court Roadway would be upgraded. Will the main and alternative feeder roadways also be maintained? You're really only adding what 23 trucks to what you already

have? Correct. Yeah. So we're really just upgrading the site to give a better area for all of our drivers to go in and out of in a more efficient space, covering all of our the fuel and just making a better space for our employees is our goal.

Sure. I guess what I'm speaking is the roadways to when you leave the the space that you're the the the site and you're heading towards the freeway, if there'll be an extra impact on the roads.

No. There won't be. No. We are adding a couple more doors to your sense, but to the extent of it, it wouldn't change on a high level. And if it starts to wear out, are

you guys willing to fix it?

Well, and we also have the other adjacent properties of XPO and FedEx and all the others that use that same road as well.

Okay. So, okay. And then for the storm drains, are the storm drains going to be collected and then treated? And then are they gonna be going into the sanitary sewer or would they be going into I'll the storm

have our civil engineer speak to that.

Hi, I'm Shadi, civil engineer of the project. Just to answer the previous question first, think the court fronting our project will be signed and striped per Caltransgender. So that's the improvement it's going to get. And there's been traffic studies as well that have been conducted and it's in the M and D. For storm drain, yes, there's a three-three regulation in Alameda County regulates clean water act. So, all impervious surfaces do flow into bioretention areas for treatment and then into the storm drains and into an existing storm drain that flows.

So it'll be going into our storm drains not treated and going to the sewer?

No, goes to the storm drain not sewer.

And so since only rain in the drain is sort of the motto, how are you going to keep just clean water going into the storm drains?

Because they go through the bio retention areas first for treatment.

So that's your strategy for cleaning the soils, the bioretention?

Yeah, that's a typical strategy that's supplied for just something we use in oil storm water management. They have to go through treatment facilities. The treatment facility that we picked here are at the perimeter, two sides of the terminals with a long bioretention strip where the entire water runoff flows through curb cuts into these. They pond and infiltrate into the treatment and they get treated and then they flow into the storm drain system. So there's no direct flow into storm drain systems

right Okay. So you'll be keeping our storm drain safe?

Yeah, yeah.

Yes, very good. Okay, and the next question's for the site amenities. How did you guys decide on the employee recreation space, like basketball courts and weights? Was that something that the employees were requesting or?

So the developer could answer that. The basketball court was actually something that I suggested they do just knowing about how much pavement there was going to be and that it's a popular sport and it's a good form of exercise for employees who drive trucks. Might want to have something like that on the site. But the exercise equipment was the and the outdoor seating area was it came from the developer's design team. So I'm assuming that was their idea. We kind of worked in partnership to come up with those Sure.

So in the future attitudes or wants change they can do whatever they want in that space I guess?

No those amenities are conditioned to that because in exchange for approval of major site plan review by the Planning Commission they have to provide amenities that you folks feel as a majority at least of you feel that they kind of went above and beyond the traditional you know a bench outside where somebody can smoke a cigarette on a break or something like that?

Sure, okay. And then well for some of that extra space, along the perimeter I think that you have some landscaping. Is it possible to be able to add maybe a walkway or something that if people wanted to walk around that could be added?

So that would be a question for the developer to see if they're because they have the truck the tractor trailer parking all around the perimeter. That landscape strip, it's a nice feature but it is kind of the bare minimum. So to have a walkway added in there, there's trees and shrubs and ground cover that are going to be planted in there. So it would be something that the commission can require it if you feel like that would tip the scale.

I'm just trying to give them more perhaps.

I was just going say and then that would create additional problem and site redesign because there are landscaping requirements for projects. So I think this Okay. Is

then move on. So I didn't see on the plans anywhere that there'll be solar panels installed. You have all that roof on the filling station and on the main structure. Is there any reason why solar panels are not a part of this project?

I don't think the developer may be able to speak to this. I don't think they're required of new industrial projects like they are of a new residential project. But Not

that it's required. I mean they are trying to mitigate a lot the hazards. It seems like there's a perfect opportunity to make good use of all that roof space. Anyway, I certainly would like to see that included. And then also, another question is, with everything going to electric, including, I'm guessing, trucks, when would the fleet be perhaps 100% electric?

Staff wouldn't know, that's a question for the terminal's operator. I'm not even sure if the gentlemen here are the design engineer and the property owner. But Central Transport, would you guys know the answer to that question? When they might convert their fleet to all electric? Yeah. I'm sorry Commissioner, nobody here tonight would

So are there no goals for changing everything to electric? Isn't it 2035, 2050?

Don't have any city requirements for that. I mean it's a private business operating. And if they have I know Amazon has slowly changed over their fleet to be all electric. It is a business decision. And so it would be up to the operator, not every size vehicle, especially a lot of the larger tractor trailers, even have the infrastructure to be able to be electric.

So I think it depends on the kind of equipment that they're using for terminal. It may or may not be available and it may or may not be a part of their overarching business plan, but that is a private decision and the city is not really in a position to require operationally that they use all electric vehicles as part of their operation any more than we could for any other business in the city of Hayward.

So the state's not pushing for all electric?

If the state, yeah, if the state, they are, but the state, if they want to uniformly apply this, then that would be coming out of a recent state law or something similar to how the state has mandated solar panels for residential. That is codified in the California Building Code. And so here again if the state has specific requirements this project would need to satisfy obviously the green energy and the Cal Green are the requirements pertaining to that. I mean, the applicant may be able to answer. I don't know if

We got one at least. Something that we do use in all of our facilities is forklifts. They're all electric forklifts there. So that is something that we've committed to in other places and we use to help with that decision. I just want to let you know that.

So anyway, again, I guess I'd like to see perhaps a better use of solar panels on this site to help you along with charging up your forklifts. I do think you do have some EV chargers for the employees. Is that true? And potentially you'll be able to add more EV chargers in the future. So anyway, I think solar panels certainly would help with that goal. Anyway, that's all my questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Commissioner Myers.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you planner Kowalski. Your last comment about Central Transport being the existing tenant was where I was actually gonna start. So I spent some time out there looking at the property, pretty cool site. So that threw me now that I know that Central Transport is the existing tenants. Are they not gonna be the new tenants? Or are they?

They will be.

They will be. Oh okay. Yeah, I do think I do have a couple questions for you if you have time. So how many, I read that there's gonna be up to 50 potential employees. How many are now employed there?

I would have to look with our operator here. We're the landlord developers here. But I would say probably 80% of that of what we're looking to have.

Oh, I see. We're looking for growth in the market. Excellent. That's awesome. The fact that they're going to stay during construction kind of throws me because are we not doing a complete demolish of this building?

That is correct. So we are building the new building adjacent to it. So the east side of all those dock doors, those won't be in use while we're building the new building. And then we're going to then demolish that piece once they move into the new facility.

Oh brilliant. So That's then will you have to furlough or do anything with some of your employees?

No, that's the goal is to not be able to do that and keep everyone retained and everything during the process.

Excellent. Okay. That's wonderful news. I did notice that the diesel storage tank and everything and the refilling station is kind of right along the what did you call it, a Bubble Street or something. Is there a separate point of egress?

Because I see that the pathway, like the ADA pathway, from the parking area to there crosses right over the underlying underground tank. And so what I'm wondering is, and I'm on page five of twenty four. Yeah. What I'm wondering is, I'm sure it meets fire code, but I'm just wondering without because I couldn't find it. Is there a secondary point? Should there be an issue with those tanks? An explosion or a Right.

Yeah we would follow you know, with the fire fire department states that we would adhere to during But the building

but I mean, as of now, we're it's all along that frontage road, that front

road there? That is correct. Yes.

Okay. That's that's what I was wondering there. And and I know you'll you'll follow along the the fire code. So just wanna and the egress code. Generator. I see you have a generator. Is that primarily for power outages?

Correct. Yes. So our computer system is really kind of the backbone of of the operation. So if the computers go down

Okay.

Our operation goes down. So that is the main reason for the generator.

And is it tested once a month? Or

Yep. Yeah. We do maintenance on those, monthly.

Okay. You just run them for, like, half an hour a month or something like that?

Correct. Yeah. We run them for a certain amount of time, get to the right RPMs, and make sure they work functionally.

So my next two might be for you or might not. I'm not sure, but I'll ask them. And my last two, I should say. The negative mitigation declaration, it addresses the noise, obviously, that might might occur during construction. And I know that we do have our building conditions, which is many pages of things. Can we talk a little bit about addressing the construction dirt plumes that might only because it's right next to the freeway, I wanna make sure wanna reiterate kinda what we're specifying for mitigation of that potential issue.

Yeah, typically there are dust control measures that typically consist of a tanker truck driving around and spraying down the site with a great big, you know like a hose to prevent dust from getting kicked up when it gets dry and windy out. And I think that's in here somewhere but I'm trying to thumb through it as quickly as I can to find that. Does that answer your question, Commissioner?

Yeah, does. Typically I in just wanted to kind of bring it up to the front of the conversation so that we know that it's something that is important that we seriously mitigate, probably more than others, to prevent any issues on the freeway. Sayeed, do

you happen to know off the top of your head if that's in one of the public works department standard conditions?

Uh-huh. Oh,

sorry. I'm asking our engineer. Sorry. So,

generally, in our, grading permit conditions, we do have, certain conditions in regards to dust control. And, those are typical conditions I'd be applying the permit and also on the plans. But, mainly, I think that is not the purview of the construction inspection from the public works. I think those are by others.

Did you have another question? Sorry, did you have another question?

Yeah, did. I was just giving you some time to check whatever. My other question is, I know I read that everything would be underground electrical, which I believe we already are. Looking at the property on the front street, there are two power poles. Will those remain or are we anticipating putting those underground as well? Because it looked like everything was underground, and then we said it was gonna be underground. So I just wanted to make sure I understand the concept.

I'll let Saeed answer that because that is a public works requirement, but there are some overhead lines that will have to be undergrounded. So, Saeed, do you wanna, expand upon that?

So, Luthi, basically, the existing overhead power poles and those overhead wires, all of them will be undergrounded as a part of this project. And this is a typical condition of approval for the projects of this nature that have overhead poles right across their frontage.

Okay. Yeah. I see that. Yeah. There's, I think, two poles there right on the front that I think would be wonderful to be underground. Okay. That that concludes my questions. Thank you.

And while you were asking that question, I found condition number 98 which covers dust control. So it's in there. It's deep in there.

Okay, thank you. I knew it was but I wanted to just

make sure you talked about it.

Thank you. Commissioner Hardy.

Thank you, Chair Goodbody. So I just have questions related to the initial study draft mitigated negative declaration. If it's helpful I am on page 74 of attachment five and I'm looking at the under general plan consistency and it says the project would result in a net increase of 38 jobs on a site located within an area of the city with low VMT per employee. Therefore the project would increase jobs in the region in a manner that would reduce automobile regional and local traffic congestion and pollution. So, love that because I love the idea of employing more people from the city, but I just have some questions about just one, a couple of those statements and then how we would do that.

So, the low VMT, I looked it up, so low vehicle miles traveled. So can you just speak, I don't know, just to saying that area is an area of the city with low VMT per employee, how do we know that about that area of the city?

Yeah. I believe we have our transportation planner, Steven Chang on the call and that he would be best suited to answer that question.

Yeah. Hi, commissioner. So for VMT, we base all of our VMT on the Alameda County regional model. So they've modeled different what we call TAZs, transportation analysis zones throughout our city, and each of those have a set VMT per employee. So this project actually falls in ATAZ that has less than average VMT per employee. So this project did screen out of our VMT requirements.

Great, thank you. So how then would we ensure either the employer, the developer, or the city that this project would increase, be a net increase for the city of Hayward? Like how would we ensure that it's people from the city of Hayward who are being employed?

Yeah, does the, I don't have the language in front of me, is it saying that the new employees will all be Hayward residents?

It doesn't It say says it would increase jobs in the region though.

Okay.

So I mean, so not necessarily in the city of Hayward but even then it's making a statement that they would somehow be from the region so how would we be ensuring that?

Director LeCourco.

Yeah, I don't, it would really be up to the operator if they have a local hire preference. They can certainly try to target that. I think the challenge here is that this is an existing operation. And so I'm assuming that some of the existing employees may or may not live in Hayward, depending on wherever they're coming from. And so obviously, we want to maintain their jobs. But if they're going to be adding additional employees, I don't know if that operation again, if that developer or the operator has thought about how they would to do that. But that would be a business decision for the employer.

I can definitely just speak to all of our drivers are domiciled into this location here. So when they come into work they come into here and leave from here. So with that being said I imagine everyone will be locally employed.

Great, thank you for that because it does say net increase. Like it's not just speaking to the currently employed people. Thank you, that was my question.

Thank you. Are there any more questions from the commission? My question was already asked. Okay, at this point I will close commissioner questions and we'll move to public comment. Ms. Allen are there any?

There are none at this time.

No, okay, thank you. I will close the public comment and move to discussion among the commission. Are there any comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Myers.

Looking for the button. Yes, thank you. So I'm a big fan of moving the overhead power lines. Anytime we go underground on anything little by little, it's just a big improvement to our society. So that's a good thing, thank you for that.

And thank you for actually building in Hayward. I know there's a lot of cities around, you already own the property but you are improving it and it means a lot from me. I just wanted to say thank you for doing that. And yeah, that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Harman.

Yes, okay. Just for final comments. For the conditional use permit, I agree and approve to all the staff's recommendations and comments for section A, B, and D. For section C, for conditions, I would like to see to make sure that the ground surface protection that there's ground surface protection to protect the soil from contamination, containment for any hazardous material storage above or below ground, and solar panels installed on all available roof surfaces. For the major site plan review, I approve all of the staff's recommendation and comments for section A, B, C, D, and E.

Some of the items that stand out as favorable in my opinion are the tree and landscape plan, the good use of mixed use occupancy and infill space, and attractive architectural elements. For the CEQA, so after 197 pages of mitigated negative declaration report, I wasn't sure if I was disappointed or elated that the report came down to only two items, one being construction noise and the other vapor barrier. Anyway, for section B and C, no comments. Section D, the statement presumes that the Planning Commission had enough time and resources to judge that the MND findings and conclusions are legally adequate. One week was, for myself, not a lot of time to look that over, and there was a lot of information.

But anyway, I got through it. And anyway, then section e, I'll need to rely on the integrity of those who published the report that all the adverse effects to the environment were researched and reported without bias, and that the city of Hayward could be assured that it'll be safe from any adverse effects on the environment or the community. And then section f, for my part I can say that the report was presented to me, albeit on short notice, that I reviewed and considered all of the information, and that I will approve all of the staff's recommendation and comments for all of the sections. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Yorgoff.

Yeah, I just wanna thank Senior Planner Kowalski for the time you put into preparing this report and for all of staff's time. And I want to thank the applicant for spending a Thursday evening with us and for, you know, just your investment in the city of Hayward. It's great to see a business in Hayward not only remain here but also expand its business, offer more opportunities for hopefully Hayward residents and yeah, really appreciate you. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Stevens.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the conditional use permit and major site plan review as written with no modifications.

Second. Commissioner Yorgoff has seconded.

I withdraw my second so Commissioner Lowe can second.

Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Stevens and a second from Commissioner Lowe. Are there any other comments from the commission on this item? Ms. Allen if you will do a roll call vote please.

Are you guys able to see it on your tout?

Okay. Yes, thank you. Yep. And the item has passed, thank you very much. Good evening.

At this time I'd like to go back to the first item on the agenda that was to continue the election of officers for secretary. So at our last meeting Commissioner Myers was nominated for secretary. And so I would just ask

If you accept the nomination and then the commission can vote on that. Was a primary I and a

would be honored.

Commissioner Myers as secretary. I'll second that. I don't think we have a, do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion. And I'll second it.

Great. Okay our screen to vote is up. And the motion passed. Congratulations Commissioner Myers.

Thank you, thank you.

All right moving on to our next item which is the approval of the minutes. And we have a second from Commissioner Low, I mean a motion from Commissioner Low. Do we have a second? Commissioner Hammond has seconded. And the motion has passed.

The minutes have been accepted. And thank you for your good work on your very thorough minutes Ms. Allen. Much appreciated. Okay, now we move on to Commissioner reports. Commission reports.

All right, good evening commissioners. Happy February. I think this is the first meeting we've had this month because we canceled the prior one to city holiday. I have a couple items to just report out. I just wanted to highlight for the commission that you will be receiving probably tomorrow or early next week.

Staff is gonna be sending out an informational memo to the commission and to counsel about implementation strategies that are going to be starting with implementation of the downtown specific plan and primarily revolving around increasing density around some of the areas around city center that the Downtown specific plan envisioned when that plan was adopted back several years ago. So that's more of an informational item. There's no action quite yet from the commission, but we just wanted to make sure to keep you in the loop as this project starts and as we continue on with that. The other item I just wanted to announce is our next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 12. We currently have two items on there.

We have a residential project on Walport, which will be coming to the commission for consideration for final approval. And then we have a general plan annual report, which will be a recommendation, and it's more of an informational item and a status update on the progress we've made toward implementing many of the hundreds and hundreds of programs that are listed in the general plan. You may remember we did that last year. We've made some really amazing progress. I think we're going to have equally good progress this year, trying to meet our goals of implementation by 2,040.

But we are going to be bringing that to the commission and then to the council. And then following both commission and council reports, we will be submitting that report to the state as required by statute. So just wanted to give the commission an update on that. I will also be out of town for the next meeting. So my principal planner on the team, Leah Schmidt, who I think many of you know, will be running and be the commission liaison for that evening. So just a couple of quick updates. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Lakirko. And if there's anything else, we can adjourn. Commissioner Myers.

At the fear of upsetting one of my fellow commissioners, just wanted to say happy birthday to Carla tomorrow.

Happy birthday. Thank you. There are cupcakes in the break room?

Yes, there are nothing bunt cakes in the other room.

Thank you so much. Thank you all for attending and the meeting is adjourned.

Recording stopped.