Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Which leads me to staff's recommendation that the planning commission approve the proposed project based on the draft findings in attachment two and subject to the draft conditions of approval in attachment three. At this time, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. I'm joined on the city side by our civil senior civil engineers, Syed and Kathleen, our landscape architect, Theo. And from the applicant side, we have the developers, Brian Steele and Caden Proctor, the project architect, Nick Manea, the project engineer Justin Joseph, the CEO of the Arc of the East Bay Ron Luther, and the property owner representation Scott Eden.

Thank you miss Richard. Are there any people in the audience that would or in the council chambers that would like to address the council through public comment? Are there any individuals on Zoom, Ms. Bray, that would like to have a comment on this item?

We do have one commenter on this item.

Okay so for agenda the item that was just presented by city staff the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless it is appealed within ten days from the date of the decision. If appealed, a public hearing will be scheduled before City Council for a final decision. We can now proceed with public hearing with our first speaker. Go ahead.

Hello.

I'm new to this project. My name is Deborah Souza. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can.

Okay. I would like to just, say a few things about, this project, which I just heard of at about 01:00 this morning. So I I'm 63 years old, 63 year resident of the city of Hayward. I'm third generation here in the home that my parents bought seventy five years ago. They raised five kids here.

I have seen a lot of changes in Hayward, and the one that hurts me the most is the loss of our open space and the loss of historical sites. They're so important. I want you to know that I am also an active member of the Friends of the Mount Saint Joseph Cemetery, which borders this property. I am also an active volunteer with the city of Hayward. And, my concern is, since I was a little girl, my family, my grandfather, my siblings, my neighbors, we have walked the Wally Wickender Trail many, many, many times.

We have swam in the creek. We have fished in the creek. We have picked picked the watercress with my grandpa. Anyway, a lot of good memories. A lot of good memories.

All that to say, my concern on this project is I totally understand ARC's reason for selling the property and moving their project down to where it's more accessible to their clients. I am very familiar with ARC as I have had family members attend there. My concern is I'm looking at the plan with all of these buildings that are gonna go right down to the creek, and I have noticed I have seen and I have watched the Wally Wickander Trail. I think you're familiar with that what it is. It starts at the plunge, and it goes all the way up to five canyons.

I have watched it change over the years and become more and more encroached by residential property. And my concern is that what is currently, I think, maybe a six foot, dirt trail along the creek is gonna have a chain link fence and then gonna have buildings right up against it. And I've seen that more and more throughout that entire length of that trail. What used to be open land, where we used to be able to play as kids and ride our bikes and stuff is now encroached upon by houses, housing or development. So I am asking, would it be possible to even consider removing a couple or I'd like to see the the bottom four buildings removed, but I would even go with the bottom two buildings that are closest to the creek removed so that there's more of a an easement to the creek.

And in its place, make it a public a public space. Maybe some picnic tables, a wider area of the creek trail, and make it accessible to the public.

Thank you, Ms. We've recorded your your concerns. Ms. Breyer, any other speakers? There are none. Okay. Thank you. This concludes our public hearing section of this meeting. I'd like to thank Ms. Richard for her presentation. And at this time I would like to invite the applicant to provide a presentation or make any comments if they wish.

They don't have any presentation to present. But they are here to answer questions you may have.

Okay. Fantastic. At this time, the matter is now before the commission for questions of staff at the end of the applicant. Commissioner Yorgoff.

Thank you. Just a few questions from me. First, just understanding SB three thirty, know it places restrictions over the commission's decision. Does that extend to not just the rejection, but any conditions the commission applies or if you could clarify that?

Yeah. So SB three thirty says you cannot deny project unless we make those specific findings. It additionally says that you can't conditionally approve it, which would render the development infeasible. So we are really limited to applying standard conditions of approval or things that are codified within our Hayward Municipal Code or other regulations.

Okay, thank you. Couple of questions about the conditions of approval. I think it was condition 91 talked about the tree preservation or it may be Condition 113 actually talks about a tree preservation zone protected by, I think it's a fence. Is that I guess something that's required by city code? Or is that just an additional condition here? Because it seems like a lot of the other conditions also require the developer to protect those trees.

I'll let our landscape architect, Theo Spores respond to that, but I will say this is a standard condition of approval which is applied unilaterally across all development projects.

Yes, this is part of our tree preservation ordinance that was updated last year. It was a condition that has become more and more necessary. It's on every project that has trees that are to be preserved. This is a requirement.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. And then one final one for the applicant team. Is the site currently owned by Arc of the East Bay still or have they deeded that too? Yes, it is. Okay. And that's it for me.

Commissioner Little.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Richard for your great work that you put into this. I can tell that you really, really knew what questions we might ask and you really tried to answer our questions ahead of time, I could tell. I only have a couple. The letter of support by Arc of the East Bay seems to contemplate that there would be affordable housing as part of this project. Was it ever a part of the project?

I think there's a representative from the Arc of the East Bay that might be able to speak to that, but I will say that there was never a proposal to include affordable housing on this project. The applicant is opting to, pay the in lieu fee, which is an option awarded to them by our code.

And and the reason I was asking is because the letter says that the fact that they, there was, they thought or that there was gonna be affordable housing, an affordable housing component of the development entitlement request was a material consideration for them in making this, or selling this property to them. And so I was wondering if Arc of the East Bay has expressed whether they are still as supportive of the project.

Yeah. I'll invite Scott Eden from he's the property owner representation from Arc of the East Bay because I don't see Ron Luther online and he can speak to the Arc's support of the project as it currently is.

You could just come up to the podium. Yeah. You want to? Yeah. Thank you, miss Allen.

There we go. I guess you can hear me now. Ron Lueder, the president of Arcs, was gonna be on Zoom. He just had some medical issues that he had to attend to. But, yeah, Arc supports the project for a number of reasons.

One, provides housing for the community that's definitely needed, including for some of maybe his staff and the surrounding needs of his own staff. But it also provides them the ability to monetize their asset here for a higher and better use to allow them to effectively continue their mission in another part of Alameda County and city, which they've been in over thirty years. Without this, monetization and the assistance of Waymark in attempting to allocate their funds in a timely manner to assist them in the acquisition of another headquarters, this would not be possible. So it seems like this whole situation over the number of years we've all been dealing on it is a win win win. It's a win for the community.

It's a win for the city with the donated funds and the and the impact fees. And it's a win for Arcs for able to monetize their situation and continue their mission. So I can't find a detriment

Thank you very Under

your current law.

Thank you, I appreciate you answering the question. If I can have one moment to look at my notes. So I read that the retaining walls and the water lines have been, have impacted the trees and the arborist report it states that with some adjustments they believe that 10 more trees might be able to be saved. And I saw like for example that they said some adjustments had already been made so at least like an oak tree was gonna be saved. Are there any updates as to whether or not more trees can be saved?

I will pass it to our landscape architect Theo Sporess to answer that question.

Relative to when Moore is with the question starts at what at baseline. They did make an effort to save more trees. Since this was written, there haven't has not been an attempt to save more trees. We did certainly put a good effort in from the landscape review process to save as many trees as possible. And in some cases, trees are removed, they're just not in good shape.

But we are very focused on saving as many trees as possible on every site. This one is not excluded from that. And that's also leading to the other previous question why we are so staunch about tree preservation for trees on-site to make sure that they aren't damaged in construction process as well. Hope that answers your question.

It does. I appreciate that. And then my last question is kind of piggybacking off of the caller. Just wanted to see, I know that are no, CECO is not required, there's no environmental impacts that have come up, but I wanted to see if there are any additional steps that are expected to need to be taken to preserve Ward Creek or the preservation of that area.

So as I mentioned in my presentation and is included in the staff report, the engineering department is also requiring the recordation of a slope easement. So that way, once the project is finished and the HOA is running the site, that there is additional protections to ensure that there is no grading, development, further alteration or any alteration to the creek slope.

Thank you so much for answering my questions. That's all I have.

Thank you. Commissioner Stevens.

Thank you very much. I just have a quick question kind of following up on the Ward Creek questions. So anybody that's walked the Ward Creek Trail has noticed that it's pretty heavily incised. You know due to urban development and lack of runoff controls. So it's nice that the condition 101 states the following.

The project shall not block runoff from or augment runoff to adjacent properties. The applicant shall be required to mitigate augmentative runoff to maintain post development site rates to less than or equal to pre development discharge rates to the satisfaction of the city engineer. So when I look at the plans, I see a collection of pipes here. I see a series of both bioretention areas and silva cells. And I see an 18 inches pipe going to the outfall to Ward Creek. But I don't see any flow control devices. And I'd like to understand by final design and in order to meet this condition, could it potentially change the site plan in any way?

I will defer to our senior civil engineers, Syed. He's online.

Good evening. I will be more than happy to answer to that question. The condition that you mentioned to regarding mitigation of any increased flow as a result of the additional impervious area to the site is a typical condition that we apply to all of the developments regardless of their size. So when a development comes and if they add any impervious area, we ask them to do a hydrology and a hydraulic study. And as a part of that study, they should show us that at the discharge point to the city's pipe or to the right of way, they are not increasing the post development flow.

And they have to compare the flow on hydrograph, show it to us that it is mitigated. On this project specifically, they are adding, as you mentioned, bioretentions and silver cells. Bioretentions and silver cells, in addition to doing and treating the storm water, they also delay the water. The water needs to get into the facility, go through the bioretention soil mix and gravel, and then infiltrate to the perforated pipes, enter to the downstream pipe, and find its way to the low point. The detention of these bioretentions and the silver cells have been taken into account to basically show that the downstream portion of the water is not being increased.

And that is what we very consistently see in all developments that that the bioretentions themselves also act as detention facilities. That's one point. The second point is that this as a part of this project, the 18 inch pipe that the city has, an existing pipe, is being relocated and a brand new pipe is being installed in lieu of that with a different alignment. So the discharge point will remain as is. However, the upstream flow is being controlled with the bio retentions and the silver cells, so the downstream flow doesn't increase. I hope I answered to the question.

Thank you for that. I just want to confirm that's the predevelopment, like when it was a natural it was before it was even developed, the natural existing terrain that was there?

So basically, it is whatever that we see today, any impervious area that it has, that is the existing condition. And then the proposed is what you're looking at as proposed plans with all this development. So to answer to your question, is it is are they looking at purely pervious area of the landscape? No. That is not the answer. Because the existing condition, as we speak, when the rain hits, water basically gets on this site, and there are some impervious area in this site that basically have a higher runoff coefficients. We are comparing the existing condition with the post development.

So I guess I'm very, very confused because the definition in this says the rate to less than or equal to the pre development discharge rate? So when I see pre development discharge rate, I think of the natural site with a C factor of 0.1.

So the C factor, as you mentioned, the more impervious it becomes, the higher it it gets. So typically for a fully impervious area such as a concrete surface or asphalt, we have 0.9 or 0.95, which shows it's very basically maximum contribution to the runoff when the rain hits. But in this existing condition, as we look at the aerial, we can see existing structures. We see existing roadway. All of this has a high c factor already.

And what the project will bring in will be increased level of impervious area. The delta, the difference between what we have right now as we speak and post development, that is the extent that must be mitigated as per the requirements that we have.

So I guess I still don't understand because I don't understand the term pre development discharge.

Predevelopment refers to the current existing condition. It doesn't mean we have to go back in time when basically this land was empty and there was nothing

on

it. Predevelopment basically refers to the existing condition of the land.

And that's defined in the municipal code somewhere? Correct. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Of course. Thank

you. Commissioner Myers.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, planner Richard. I know all the projects you're handling. I don't know how you handle it and respond to everybody, but thank you. I'm in awe. I wanted to start off by just saying thanks to the people who wrote in and called Peggy Guernsey and Deb Souza. I think the more input we have from the public, the better. I think that's that's very powerful, so I just wanna acknowledge them. Also so let me start off. Thanks first of all for describing the Senate Bill three thirty.

One one of the exceptions is that when when when we meet Rina numbers, And since none of these are low income, I'm curious as to the fact, I believe our RINA numbers for these type homes are at 120%. And I'm only asking, I'm not swaying one way or another, I'm just saying does that meet the criteria for that exemption there?

From my understanding of SB three thirty, we have to meet our entire RENA in every single income category to be able to make that finding. And additionally, in the next item, Leah will talk about our actual progress per HCD. We in the packet projected compliance, but we only get credit for units when they are issued building permits. So we have a lot in the pipeline that haven't pulled building permits yet, so we are not close to meeting our arena at this point in time.

Excellent answer. Thank you. I wanted the public to to know that too. So I know that we're meeting all of the fire codes and everything, but one of the big worries for Hills, the Hillside Homes are egress and an emergency evacuation. I know that this is meeting the fire codes, but is there any more that we can say towards where we are as a city for emergency egress from the hillside? Because I still hear strong worries about that.

I can take that question back to our fire department and we can talk about it more generally. Speaking for this project, it does meet all applicable standards of the California fire code. The city of Hayward also adopted appendix d, which is an append an optional appendix to the fire code, which goes above and beyond the fire code and provides stricter standards for egress in that. This project has also demonstrated compliance with the entirety of appendix d.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you. So I also I saw that the in lieu fees are possibly around $3,000,000 That's quite a bit. But so I'm just curious does that 3,000,000 not I mean is it really that big of a difference to add lower income options than pay the 3,000,000? I don't know if somebody wants to speak of that.

I'll have the developer speak about the trade offs.

Okay, thanks.

Good evening, guys. It's a pleasure to meet you. Yes, as it pertains to building affordable versus Paney and Luffy, are you asking to do both at the same time or doing one or the other?

Well, I was thinking for $3,000,000 I would think you might be able to provide some low income housing to offset that $3,000,000

So essentially it actually is not financially feasible to build them out for this project specifically. The revenue discount you need to provide for the project is substantial. So, this case, we felt that paying the in lieu fee would make this project feasible for ARC and for Waymark.

Okay, thank you. It just seemed like 3,000,000 would be, but I guess it's

not We're excited to see how that 3,000,000 is spent with you guys. It's a lot

of money. We are too. Thank you.

Yeah, no problem.

Okay. And then, I got that that that Oh, I know. Their HOA manager of the Pines sent a letter with various requests, and some of those make a lot of sense. And I know that we are limited on what we can mandate a builder or such to do, but have you put them in con you know, in communication, and have they kind of off the record agreed to any of these terms or requests?

I can have Cadence speak to their conversation. I will say that we shared with the Pines our standard procedures that we do not allow any construction staging off on private property. So none of that will occur. And then Kaden reached out to the Pines and they spoke and he can say about what their conversation was.

I'll be brief. Yeah, we chatted and he was worried about, I think there was other projects that happened in the past that they were encroaching on his private property and he was worried about that. But I assured him that we will make sure our subcontractors, anyone involved in the construction process will know that his property is off limits. And it also states in the code, you're not allowed to use private property for parking or anything else. So he was satisfied and he said thank you.

Excellent. Thank you very much for reaching out to him. That's appreciated. And, I noticed on the property, because I've been to the property a few times, it does slope off dramatically in the back. And I tried to look at the elevations and, you know, without being out there with my my measuring stick. Is there going to be some infill, like to raise the elevation or will it continue to slope down?

It will continue to slope down. They are doing the site in 2009 when they built on the back half and they built the road, they kind of significantly graded that back half to kind of create two flat like areas. This project is not doing significant additional grading, so they're mostly keeping the existing contours and elevations. There is some cut and fill, but it's not significant.

Okay, thank you very much and that's all my questions, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Homan.

Hello, thank you very much for the staff report and thank you guys for presenting your project too. I do have quite a few questions actually. Did I miss something in the results of the traffic study results that state that there will be no traffic impacts on Walport? Did you take any consideration what would happen in an emergency, especially a fire?

So the traffic report did two things. It did a local transportation analysis and a VMT analysis. Both concluded there would be no significant impacts. So the LTA really looks at what you're looking at which is like levels of service and whether or not there would be needed additional improvements like adding additional lights or anything to ensure that the traffic flows are still safe. The LTA concluded that as designed the project is fine and doesn't cause any significant hazards. And then the VMT analysis showed that there wouldn't be a CEQUA impact, that the VMT would not exceed the thresholds set by the city of Hayward.

So when they were doing their study, did Mission Boulevard get backed up so that Walpert got backed up?

They analyzed specific intersection, and I'll have the study in front of me, they analyzed specific intersections within the project vicinity. I believe the one between Walpert and Mission and Walpert and 2nd Street were analyzed as part of that analysis.

Because I've been stuck on Walpert before because there have been problems on Mission. And I'm certainly concerned that if there was a fire or another emergency that Walport's gonna back up quickly and it's gonna make it really difficult to get out of there.

The report concluded that there would not be any traffic hazards.

Okay. And then how was it determined that there are 10 on street parking spaces available? Are they gonna be dedicated to the owners of the property?

There are nine visitor parking spaces on the property. They are for anyone to

I guess I'm talking about on the street.

There is street parking on Walpurt Street, but they are, you know, it's like any street parking. Anyone is able to park there. There's no like dedications. No one, it's the public right of way.

Because on the plans it shows like 10 spaces.

Those are the visitor along Street A, there are nine visitor parking spaces. Those are not dedicated to any specific unit. They are for the enjoyment of the entirety of the project.

So those are on the property though?

We call those off street parking spots because in our code on street means on the public street.

Right, so on the public, maybe I read the plans wrong, but it looked like there were parking spaces designated on the street on Walport. Is that

No, those are just public parking that exists currently.

Okay. See some of my questions also were with the meeting our goals for the arena. I understand your concern about needing the money for other projects. I guess my question is where does the in lieu fees go? Is there a project that's waiting for this money now to start construction or repairs?

I will pass it off to our acting housing managerprincipal planner, Leah Schmidt.

Good evening, Commission. It's nice to be here with you tonight. So I think that this was touched on in the last item when you were talking about Amador. There's a housing trust fund where the city collects in lieu fees from projects like this and that housing trust fund we keep in an interest bearing account as was asked by one of your fellow commissioners and we build up that fund. And then occasionally I think we issue a notice of funding availability and then development projects come forward and apply for the funding.

In the last NOFA I think was 2017 and we just saw two projects that were funded through that project Pimentel Place and another project just come online this year. So it does take quite a while for those funds to be dispersed and those projects to be developed. But that's what happens with this money.

So this 3,000,000 would take how long before it reached those who need it for affordable housing?

Well we collect the fees at building permit issuance. So when they pull the building permits for this project, we collect the funds and they go into the housing trust fund. It typically takes years to build up enough money to really issue a notice of funding availability because development is so expensive. So I can't estimate that for you. But right now we have about 4,900,000.0 in there. And once we get this we'll have probably enough to issue another NOFA. But I would expect this project to take years to build.

So what's the incentive for anybody to build lower income housing if we haven't met our RHNA numbers that they can continue to build higher or moderate income housing.

Leah can add to this. Both are very important pieces of the puzzle to meet our RENA goals. Without the projects that are market rate, which provide those in lieu fees, we are not able to, no one, no developer is able to build extremely low or very low without the support of these fundings. So projects like those helped us to beat the hardest to reach funding goals. For projects that do want to put on-site like low income and moderate, we have density bonus and other programs which help to incentivize the developer.

In this case, the developer was happy to meet our requirements and in some cases exceed them, so it wasn't an added benefit for this project. And as they spoke to, it didn't make their project pencil.

Okay, thank you. These questions are kind of general. Under the CEQA, has there ever been a case where development has been postponed due to bird nesting or wildlife habitat?

So there is required if you do it within the nesting period that you provide a study. And if that study were to find that there are nesting birds, it would delay construction at

that Have point of have you ever found have there been any develops in

I would say most of the developers plan their construction timelines to avoid the nesting period. So I haven't personally seen it, but most of my projects wait the nesting period out.

Okay. Thanks. And then are are you fairly confident that no remains from the cemetery will be found during excavation?

Yes, I am fairly certain I did extensive research. I went to the church. I went to Oakland to the Diocese of the Catholic Church and asked them for their records. It was a very interesting part of my job. I've never had to do that much research. But I think based on the preponderance of evidence, we even worked with the Hayward Historical Society to pull all records. There is no evidence that we found that there are any human remains on the project site.

Okay and obviously there'll be somebody there on-site just in case something does get

done. Yeah, and there are conditions of approval that are standard to all projects. They are actually required under state law that if you do, in the event, find human remains, you have to still halt construction and then there are proceedings that occur.

Sure, okay, thank you. Under conditions approval, are there any concerns that the proximity to the fault line will drive up construction costs?

I will let the developer answer that.

We've accounted for that with several geo studies and stabilization studies. We feel confident in the plan we've put forth. So no. Okay.

And then here's a question for planning. Under building number 34 it asks for separate structures, separate permits. Is there a way to streamline this requirement to make it easier for the applicant not to have to cross reference everything or need to include redundant information?

This is our standard procedure and it's set by the building official. I can bring your comment back to them about potentially streamlining this process, but it would be under the building official's purview to determine what permitting process they would like to use. And I believe they do it separate by building by building because it's easier to inspect the project building by building and provide phased occupancy. If you do it all as one permit, all the buildings have to be finaled in order for you to get occupancy for that.

You can get a TCO for certain buildings?

You can get a TCO, but that's an involved process. And I think our landscape architect can speak to that point. But it's a phased process and it's been a very challenging one in Hayward, we've had lots of issues with TCO processing.

Okay. So move on to trees. I wasn't on the plans, I wasn't able to locate where the 111 new trees were gonna be list where they were listed or where they're gonna be placed.

I can scroll to the page. It's on the landscape sheet.

Saw a

lot of trees being removed.

The tree mitigation chart, illustrates the trees that are being replaced and on-site in the mitigation requirements. And then there's a calculus there that shows the mitigated trees, the required trees, which are different. Required, so like street trees, things like that. And then the difference would be, the remainder would be an in lieu mitigation fee.

So I have a question on those two. How exactly did you arrive at a figure of $233,520 out of the $311,770 worth of trees?

Well, you have to look at the tree mitigation chart. But the way the process works for trees is that the all trees on-site are evaluated based on the standard procedure for tree valuation. So you come up with a dollar figure for the value of those trees. Then you take the trees that are being removed. That gives you a dollar figure that they have to meet for mitigation.

Then the trees are mitigated to the extent that they can on-site. Then we have the remainder is the in lieu fee amount. So there's the calculus of mitigated trees versus the trees that are required like street trees or screening trees. I don't think we have screening trees on this site. And that gives us our total that you're asking about.

Have those variations. We have the total, sorry. We have the total mitigation value. And then the mitigation goal. So the mitigation goal would be the total number of trees, dollars 311,000 plus.

And then the balance. So you can see the 78,000 is the value of the trees that they're putting on-site. And what often happens is we want trees on-site as much as possible. They will, and you can see on this chart, what's required is a 15 gallon sized tree as a replacement. If you take that value and you upsize the tree, they get credit for upsizing for

larger I think that answers that.

Yes. It continues to climb as they get larger and larger specimens, which are of course more expensive and more expensive to install.

And I'm guessing those the in loop fees are going into a fund that will have

Yes. To lease So in previous years, that fund was designated by council for La Vista Park. That was upward of $500,000 which is going to be for tree purchasing for that park. Currently there is close to 300,000 in an account for tree replacement. And we will be going to counsel to discuss the distribution of funds in the future to programs or forward planning, etcetera.

And things that we talked with you about last year when we were looking at the tree preservation ordinance and a lot of the things that you spoke of are on that list as we're trying to distribute this money for replacement of trees within Hayward to benefit the entire community.

Okay, thank you. And then, aren't protected trees, don't protected trees need to be approved before they get removed? Are we doing that tonight? Or does it have to be done at a separate time?

No, protected trees is, refers to trees that we designated as protected in the tree preservation ordinance. So native trees with a long list of several species. Street trees are protected trees as well. And those trees are already designated. We don't need to decide what they are. We already determined that in the tree preservation ordinance. The only trees that you would be addressing would be heritage trees or memorial trees as written in the tree preservation ordinance. And those go to, actually they go to council.

And we have none of those on this site? We have

none of those on this site. Okay.

Alright, thank you. So on to the site plans. The site plans state that there are nine units that'll be ADA accessible. Where are they located?

I will call on the project architect. He I think is online to answer the question or the applicant.

They're located throughout the project on the top portion and the bottom portion. ADA requires that units are scattered across the entire project. You can't cluster them in one place. So I couldn't tell you exactly where they are but every, I mean they're represented in most buildings in the project.

Did you say that there's some that are located on

the Top Floor? Sorry, there's a slope. So a top pad and a bottom pad. That's our project. It slopes down. So I'm saying on both pads, they're reflected in both pads, both areas.

And what makes them ADA accessible? So there has to be

a powder bathroom on the Bottom Floor and then beyond that code requires larger entryways and then other items like that. I mean we can go down the list of technical items but I can have my architect explain if that

But I didn't see any kitchens on the Bottom Floor.

No kitchens on the Bottom Floor are required for ADA.

So if you're in a wheelchair, you would not be able to obviously get to the Top Floor or the 2nd Floor to get to the kitchen?

It's a great question. All I can say is the ADA code does not require a kitchen. So we didn't put a kitchen, we put a bathroom. That's what's required. But if you want more clarity, can have our architect speak to that.

Sure, okay. Okay, yeah, that's fine. Okay. And then can you clarify the architectural element drawn in the space labeled den?

Can you point to a sheet or a page number that you're looking at?

It's any one of the floor plans. On the bottom level where the garage enters into the area, says den. At least one of them is labeled den.

I think it's just a family room or living area. It's just a multi purpose room.

So wouldn't this area still be able to be used for sleeping?

Per the building code, there are very specific requirements when you call it a bedroom. There has to be, you know, egress and ingress, and there has to be a closet. Based on this, it doesn't look like that meets the requirements. You wouldn't be able to sleep within that room.

But I think we all know that your teenage kid's gonna wanna sleep in the den. Yeah. So wouldn't that still qualify as being a sleeping area?

Per the building code it would not. And we can't require what individuals use their homes for. Like we don't monitor what people use rooms for. But per the building code, it doesn't meet the definition.

So couldn't the, just easily be remodeled so you add a closet in the hallway when you come out of the garage? And then that will separate the den so that if anybody did sleep in there, that it would still meet the requirement our three hundred one point five point one?

There's very specific requirements for sleeping bedrooms for egress and ingress. So if at a later time one of the homeowners wanted to do a renovation to their things, they would have to hire an architect to demonstrate that they could meet the requirements of a sleeping room.

And that could be done now at this phase?

The applicant is not proposing to do that at this phase. They're proposing three to four bedroom units. And my guess is that they did market analysis about what the community wants and needs and they likely found that three and four bedroom are what the market is wanting or what the Hayward community is desiring.

Sure. And just to further clarify, we have a few different plans as you can see on the site plan. The plan three is what you're talking about. We have a bedroom down on the Bottom Floor but because we were doing those plan threes to get those bedrooms that you're looking for, Unfortunately there wasn't enough room and space for those other plans to have a bedroom down. So we thought, our marketing team said that a bonus room or an open space on the Ground Floor would be fantastic because if you're not able to put a bedroom, what's the next best option? And that was what we determined.

Sure. I just think there's maybe a fine line between the den and the sleeping area since we all kind of probably know that they'd probably be used as a sleeping area.

Well if they were to change anything, I mean obviously there's a private owner. But if they were to change anything, they'd have to pull a permit and go through the city again and gets back in your hands. Okay.

And then just one last question. Are solar panels going to be installed during construction or is this left up to each individual owner to install solar on their own?

Yeah, so right now per Cal Green standards you have to put solar panels on all the townhomes. As of right now, we're estimating about eight solar panels per unit. That doesn't mean each individual owner has eight solar panels. It just means they can access eight solar panels up to. Okay. But they will be put during construction.

And then I think I asked on the last project if it's gonna be EV charger ready.

Yes.

If you could make it easier for the homeowner to pull a permit for an EV charger, then maybe be able to streamline their permitting process a little bit easier just as part of the

It's a great idea. Right now they are all EV ready.

But not everybody is kind of up on their EV charger codes it would be easier, nicer for them to be able to get handed a packet saying if you do want to upgrade to your EV charger that this is the steps you need to take.

Yeah, we'll look into that. Thank you.

Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you Commissioner Hamann. Commissioner Stevens?

I just had one quick question. Noticed there's, on the architectural plans it talks about the top of bank and it shows a 20 foot setback which is a blue line. And then I noticed on the tentative map it shows something called surveyed top of bank. Can somebody help me understand what I'm looking at here? Because it looks like the buildings are setback from the blue line or the 20 foot setback as shown on the architectural plan.

The blue line is the 20 foot setback from the top of bank which is required by the Alameda County Watercourse Protection Ordinance. So the blue line is the setback line.

But is the red, how did we establish the red line? Because the red line doesn't match the tentative map. Or is the tentative map wrong or does that not mean anything?

No they match based on my thing. Top of bank is calculated by doing a two to one projection line from the toe or the creek toe. So the bottom of the bank, you do a two to one projection line, and where that intercepts with the slope, that is called the top of bank, and they label it differently. So on the tentative map, they call it projection line from creek toe. That is how the Alameda County water course protection defines the top of the bank, and then from there, you have to do a 20 foot setback.

I don't see that, but thank you. And then the other question I have is going back to the idea of Item number 101, the reduction in flow runoff from the site. Would the applicant be willing to modify that condition to remove a little bit more water from the post development condition, a certain percentage more?

Can you repeat the question?

So you're currently required to match the current existing condition out there which is a neutral, Yes. It's neutral. The creek's in size. We've heard folks say that, you know, they're concerned about the health of Ward Creek. So what you're basically doing is building something that's neutral. So the question is, you be willing to detain or reduce some additional runoff into the creek somehow?

Yeah, so given the constraints in the site development problems on the site, like I mentioned, it's sloped. There's only certain areas you can build on just for the safety of the residents. This project is already extremely constrained and tight. And so that would, I think if I believe if I'm hearing you correctly, you're asking for more areas of C3 bio attention and our civil engineer has to the inch maximized that.

No, I was thinking maybe you upsize one of your pipes a bit and you put an orifice or something to throttle the flow, maybe instead of 18 inches pipe you put a 12 inches pipe, you put a little volume storage in there, you reduce and mitigate the peak flows a little bit so we create a little betterment time by time because obviously Hayward's development standards are archaic.

Understood. Justin, do you want to come answer that? This is our civil engineer.

Justin Joseph, CPG civil engineer. So to answer your question, as Caden mentioned, we're using C3 bioattention silver cells that have storage mitigates it down to predevelopment flows. Based on the site constraints as you mentioned, upsizing pipes takes up room which then encroaches on utility separations. And the other alternative, as Kate mentioned, is increasing your storm water areas. But as we could see, we've placed the units, we've placed the storm water quality. That would then create additional impacts. So while we are matching the city's code about matching to pre development flow, we've made every best effort we can to match that.

So so just to be clear here. So when I look at your sheet if I look at sheet t m zero five, the utility sheet, and I see a 12 inch storm drain pipe dropping to an 18 inch storm drain pipe paralleling a eight inch sanitary sewer pipe on Court 6 between Building L And N. So you're saying you couldn't upsize that 18 inch pipe a couple sizes bigger and throttle it at that manhole just to provide a little bit reduction in the peak flow into the creek?

Based on what we see with our current utility separations and how wide the courts are, we're not able to see that increase. But that's something we're happy to discuss with staff. But that's kind of our current design.

Thank you so much. Of course.

Thank you and Commissioner Hardy.

Thank you chair. I just have one question also and thank you for the very thorough report. So just in terms of, I used to actually live on one of the cross streets to Wall as well and did see even back then how much like pedestrian, just it backs up to out on 2nd Street right there, it's the back of Hayward High. And so, the morning there actually were a lot of students who would walk along Walport there and there would be a lot of cars that would back up there too. So just wondering whose responsibility it is for stop sign, like a stop sign at the main private drive, I wasn't sure, I looked all through the report and didn't see that.

Is that the HOA's responsibility as well as like a speed limit and things like that or is that the developer? I just wasn't really sure especially right now in the city. I know there's a really big focus on pedestrian safety and bike safety.

Typically there is a, I think it's in the conditions of approval. I could look for it for finding the specific number but typically there's a striping and signage plan which the traffic transportation department reviews at the grading permit, and they will make sure that there's all the appropriate signage in the development to ensure that everyone is safe and pedestrians are not interacting with car in line with our Vision Zero goals.

Thank you.

Thank you. And before I call on Commissioner Myers, I wanted to just ask if the, I noticed that in the arborist report she hadn't reviewed the grading report or the landscaping plan or I think the location of the utilities. Is she online? Has she joined us? Okay. Do you know why she hadn't had a chance to weigh in on I can

have those? I the can speak to this. Typically the arborist report is there to assess the existing conditions and look at the trees and the health of the trees as they currently exist. I'll have our landscape architect add anything to that.

No, that's correct. The arborist looks at the site prior to development to evaluate the existing trees and their health and their value. They don't look at the development plan as it's been developed. They are often on-site during construction and reviewing practices to make sure that it's not violating the plans and the conditions of approval and protection of existing trees.

Thank you. And so my follow-up question is that the, the 10 or so trees that whose fate is, is not yet known until development starts with the arborist then make those determinations and bring her recommendations to staff on what can be saved or not? Or how does that work? Or does staff determine that? Which

arborist will be on-site to evaluate condition of trees during construction. That's a requirement through the process. So yeah, she definitely, she would definitely be employed to do that. To make sure that what the status of those trees are and all trees on-site that might be affected.

Great, thank you. And now, Commissioner Myers.

Thank you, Chair. One quick question for staff. So it's regarding in lieu fees, because you know I still, I'm a big fan of low income housing. So if let's say a builder in order to provide the lower income housing, let's say in this case it would be $3,500,000 but they could pay an in lieu fee of $3,000,000 so they save $05,000,000 let's say. Is there a way instead of building our complexes all as one cluster of low income that we could maybe offset the difference and say, well, we'll take out of our bank, our trust account and say, we'll pay the difference in order in order to provide it in a more spread out area.

Does that make sense?

Yeah. It does. I will say, and Leah can add, our process of ensuring compliance with our affordable housing ordinance and ensuring that the entirety of the deed restriction era that these are units is really hard when they are scattered through multiple developments that are under different HOAs or land management. So it makes it extremely difficult for staff. We prefer to see affordable housing units clustered within developments but spread throughout the city of Hayward because it makes it easier to maintain and monitor them to make sure they are following the deed restricted requirements. Do you have anything to add?

The only thing I would add is the vast majority of projects that are coming forward these days do include the housing because they're taking advantage of density bonus law and the flexibility there. So I think that what you are seeing is a lot of inclusionary units. This particular project is choosing to pay the fee, which they're allowed to do under the ordinance.

Okay. Yeah. And I agree. I have seen a lot more units incorporate that. I was just wondering if that was an option. And it is quite a bit more work, if they're spread out, it sounds like. Okay, well, thank you very much for that answer.

Thank you. Are there any further commissioner questions for staff? Okay, we'll see none. We've already closed public comment earlier and we can now go to commission discussion. Who wants to start us off?

Don't all raise your hand at one time. Okay, Commissioner Stevens.

So again, there's nothing more that I like than mundane architecture, stacked and packed townhomes on a hillside and a developer that's not willing to even move an inch to put a little bit of detention or mitigate a little flow. So again, know, Ward Creek, it's a great thing that Hayward has. But of course I guess Hay City Council maybe we should update our standards because I think it's pretty irregular that we would allow no net increase or no net benefit to our only waterway that's sort of natural in this city. So, but I guess we're handcuffed because again my best friends at HDF sent this nice letter reminding us of our obligation to approve this. So this is just yet another pitch I make that you know if you care about development, if you care about your community, if you wanna see what's moving forward, you gotta vote.

You gotta vote the politicians out. You gotta get local control back for housing. And you know the whole fear tactics about housing accountability and all this other nonsense, you gotta vote for it. So again obviously this has to be approved. I'm not sure, I don't feel good about anything I've seen here tonight or heard here tonight but obviously I will vote for it because I don't want the city getting sued.

It looks like I need to refresh my page. I'm not seeing the speakers on my screen here, so we're just gonna do old school, and if you wanna raise your hand and I can call on you. There they go. Oh, they're there, right. Commissioner Gargaff.

Thank you. Don't think I have quite the aesthetic standards of of Commissioner Stevens because I actually think the project looks quite nice and I do think it would be a wonderful addition to the city. So, to me, this is a really good use of the site. It's a good project with good amenities. It's somewhere I could see myself living.

When I thank the applicant team for the work that they've put in, city staff for the work that they've put in, I want to speak to affordable housing since that's been a topic of discussion. And, in my day job, I do work for a non profit affordable housing developer, know, I feel somewhat qualified to speak to this, specifically the in lieu fees. The $3,000,000 estimated fee is a sizable investment for the city and it would nearly double the funding in the city's housing trust fund. I think it's currently 4,900,000.0 and it would take it to 7,900,000.0. So, city trust funds are how 100% affordable housing projects are built.

They allow Hayward projects to receive highly competitive county and state funding and just anecdotally I mean that's getting more and more difficult every year to obtain and basically without this local funding those projects are dead in the water for competing for any state or local funding. So, know that sometimes the clustering that can come with the way that affordable housing finance works can definitely seem off putting. It can seem like we're putting those units all in one place. But, I think a lot of what you know I've heard from market developers is that with our current structure it's really difficult to comply with many of the affordable housing restrictions with the laws of actually having you know the regulations met that allow for those units to be in place. I think the reason we see so many inclusionary units in other projects is because of, you know, the bonuses that come with them through density bonus which is I think wonderful and it meets what I think the state intends.

But I think in many situations, in lieu fees are in place for a reason and I think it gives developers flexibility while still providing a great benefit to the city. I think at the moment we do have many affordable housing projects that have come online recently, but right now we don't have any future ones coming in our pipeline. I don't think there's any prospective projects that are applying for funding right now and there's not really, you know, that's largely because there's no city funding. There's not really a path forward for them to be built. This funding right here, this $3,000,000 is how that changes.

Without it, we will not make a dent in the massive need for affordable housing in our community. Anecdotally, more and more of the folks I know are getting priced out of Hayward or having to move further and further away. And, the scale of the problem is enormous, but this is how we make a change step by step. It does make me really happy to hear that there's going be an affordable housing NOFA potentially for the first time since 2017. And frankly the fact it's been almost ten years is pretty remarkable.

Shows just how slowly unfortunately this money accumulates. I would also like to speak to the parking on-site because the developer has chosen to provide 175 parking spaces at a ratio of 2.1 for every unit and they have done this without any mandate from the city due to state law. They have done it purely to meet the projected market demand of prospective residents. To me this shows that the market is in many ways a better determinant of the adequate parking for a city than city regulation. I think in the later item we'll see, we'll talk about how those are calculated.

But I think many times when you talk about parking minimums it's in the framing of no parking and I think this shows that the market is often a better determinant than a regulation for establishing what parking should be provided. Yeah, think it's a great case study. I fully agree with staff's findings. I think Commissioner Stevens already named it, but I think we're pretty locked in on what we can do here. We don't have any basis to reject this so I'm gonna be voting to approve it.

Thank you. Commissioner Hardy. Thank you.

I just want to say that I do remember when this came before the Planning Commission in January 2024 just for us to approve the zoning change and so I appreciate seeing it here a little over two years later with an actual development being proposed on it. Sometimes, I don't know, I haven't been on the planning commission that long. I think that was actually my first meeting and so to see something actually happening is actually pretty exciting to me. I do know that there's challenges. We see in the arena that we of of course want more low income housing, but I really appreciate the investment in the city, we need housing.

I do think in that area the above to moderate units are consistent with the area, the look of the, what you're building is consistent with the area as well. So, I'm appreciative. Also echo Commissioner Yerkov, I appreciate the parking. It never seems like it's enough, but what you're doing is more than what you have to do. And so I do appreciate that as well. So I just wanted to state all

of that.

So thank you.

Commissioner Harman.

Yes, so, I echo some of the comments from my fellow commissioners. I do have concerns about the traffic on Walport, which echoes some of the public comments that were sent in and also from some of the neighbors that I've talked to. I do believe that in an emergency such as a fire it'll be difficult for traffic to move in and out of the development due to emergency vehicles and that Walport will be saturated to the point of a standstill. I've been stuck there and know that it is a problem. And just for the record, I just hate to approve a project located in urban woodland interface that could potentially be a danger and an emergency.

It would be nice to see another exit on the property, but I understand that that would mean a major redesign and I don't believe that'll happen. Well I appreciate the parking on the site. I do believe that the off on street Walport parking is gonna become a problem. There'll be no parking for everybody on the site to be able to park, but if they're having Christmas or a birthday or a graduation and guests are coming, I think that Walpurg is just not going to be able to handle the on Walpurg Street parking. And for the trees, it seems like the trees marked for removal are only to accommodate the layout of the site, not the other way around.

Also a reminder that the trees being removed are mature trees and it'll take years for the new trees to offer the same benefits in filtering pollutants. Anyway, the design's adequate. I like the open space areas. But I am still concerned about the lack of escape if there is an emergency. Thank you.

I generally am supportive of this project. I have been to Walport Ridge and I was actually have been in the community center way back in the day and have witnessed was part of some of the exercises and some of the community events that were sponsored by the ARC when I worked in the state legislature. So I'm well aware of its history in Hayward. I'm really glad to see this project actually come to fruition. I think it's wonderful use of infill space.

It certainly is a good it's better than what is there now. My concern is over the lack of kitchens in the ADA units. And it's ironic that we this land was sponsored or owned by the ARC and that we are not building these units equitable to our residents that have disabilities that could use these that could live independently through these units, whether they're staff or whether consumers. And so that I wanted to pose to the developer if that is something that you could work with staff with to include on those nine units or if that has completely closed the door. I would entertain making that a condition of approval.

We have no requirement requiring Ground floor kitchen so we couldn't add it as a condition of approval. You're welcome to include it as your motion that the developer consider it when they move to building their construction plan at the building permit stage.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other comments from the commission? I can entertain a motion now.

I will say one last comment that I misspoke. I don't think it was my first meeting. Also, we did not approve it. We actually approved for it to be recommended to city council. So I just wanted to note those two things. But I do motion to approve at this time. Oh there's already one there.

My apologies. No. Excuse me for just one minute. Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Yorgoff.

So motioned.

And Commissioner Yorgoff, would you be amenable to a friendly amendment to include kitchens in the ADA units as a condition of approval?

And just to be clear, I think what was discussed is that it couldn't be a condition but that it could be a suggestion to the applicant. Exactly. Yeah, as long as it's a recommendation, definitely. Yeah.

And do I have a second? Second. Alright, have a motion from Commissioner Yorgoff and a second from Commissioner Lowe. Commissioners can vote please. Great.

And the motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming out and answering our questions. Best wishes to you. Okay. So now we go on to item number two, which is

the

report 26Z-twenty threetwenty twenty five, annual progress report on the general plan. And at this time I would like to invite city staff to make their presentation. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Good evening commissioners. Nice to be with you tonight. I'm here to provide a presentation, the 2025 general plan annual report. I saw you last year at this time.

And basically we provide this report annually to the commission and then to the city council before we submit the report to the state on April 1 of every single year. While planning did take the lead on preparing this report, we received input and support from pretty much every department and division in the entire city. As you can see from all the attachments. It was public works, environmental services, engineering, transportation, library services, fire and police, housing, community services, code enforcement, economic development, maintenance, city manager's office. I've probably left a few off but I do want to let you know that this was really a group effort.

Moving on, a bit of background. So the Hayward 2040 general plan and related implementation plan was adopted in 2014. It's organized into different elements. Land use, economic development, community safety, natural resources among others. All of these elements contain goals, policies, programs and actions that are intended to guide development in the city through 2040.

In 2023, the city adopted an update to the housing element. That's the only element that is required to be updated regularly by the state every eight years. And then in 2024, the city adopted an update to the climate action plan and amendments to multiple elements, hazards, mobility, natural resources, public facilities, and then adopted an environmental justice element. And that basically resulted in either the addition or amendment of about two forty five of the programs. So those were updated in 2024 even though the general plan was initially adopted in 2014.

So this table provides a snapshot of all the programs status by element. In total there are four thirty one programs. You And can see that those different elements have a range of programs in them from about three to 120 in the housing element. So there's a broad range within each element of the work that's being done. About 11% of the programs are complete and that means the work is done on those.

16% of the programs are determined to be partially complete. That means they may have started, they have multiple components or steps, some of which are done. Or they may require additional work or analysis that could be completed throughout the life of the general plan. As such a few of these may never actually be considered complete. And then about 51% of the programs are ongoing and they require some annual measure of reporting, monitoring or research.

And so like the partially complete items, these may never be complete. They're just being monitored throughout the life of the general plan. And then finally about 22% of the programs have not been started for various reasons. Sometimes it has to do with staff capacity, funding, shifting priorities, possibly things that might have been feasible in 2014 or a priority in 2014 or just not now. And then finally 35% of the programs in the general plan align with the strategic roadmap priorities and projects.

And then briefly, the strategic roadmap, it's a work plan. It's adopted by the city council and it sets priorities for staff and funding typically on a three year cycle, although it's evaluated every year. It hasn't been updated in the past since I think about 2024 because the focus of the city council has really been on the budget. And so staff has been using the strategic roadmap that was adopted at that time to sort of evaluate our projects including this general plan annual report. To the greatest extent possible, we do try to align the strategic roadmap with work we've committed ourselves to doing through the general plan and it falls into the bullets that are on the screen confronting climate change, investing in infrastructure, preserving, producing and protecting housing, growing the economy, enhancing community safety, and cultivating vibrant neighborhoods.

So really all of those themes are braided throughout the general plan. So next steps, basically staff is gonna bring this annual report to the city council on March 24. And then we will be submitting it to the state on April 1. In the next year we will continue to monitor all of these programs and come back to you in about March 2027 to tell you about this year, 2026. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. I think a couple of people are online that may be able to answer questions, but I do want to caution you that I may not have detailed responses to a lot of these items because they were completed by a different department or division. And with that, that concludes this presentation.

Thank you Ms. Schmidt. That was a wonderful presentation. Do we have any questions from the public? Or any comments from the public? We have a speaker card. Ahmed

Good evening, everybody. My name is Ahmed Sharab. Sharab. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm a homeowner in the Hayward Hills, proud father, also an automotive engineer down at Lucid Motors in Newark. It's the first time I saw the general plan. So really impressive work by the the city, especially the staff. It's it's cool to see all these things that are being thought about and how to react to the regional pressures we're we're experiencing in in the Bay Area. I have three comments, bear with me. I'll try to be quick.

First, I listened earlier to Commissioner Yergov's comments about letting the market dictate parking requirements. So I thought that made a lot of sense. I support that. Second comment about mobility specifically. I saw a lot of good things on paper about reducing car dependence, bike ped master plan, etcetera.

The plan I guess is the easy part. Execution is politically messy as I'm sure you guys know. And I've been seeing observing a trend where obviously I appreciate the city implementing and doing a lot of studies, but where it gets politically difficult because there's often compromises that have to be made that a lot of these safety improvements are being either delayed or canceled. Especially for me in the Hayward Hills, I was really disappointed to see what happened to Hayward Boulevard. I regularly ebike as part of my commute.

And from what I saw, I'll I mean, the the community had, you know, good concerns. I thought the staff and the city, you know, brought forth some good solutions that balanced everything. But ultimately, it felt like it was canceled because of, you know, a perceived inconvenience and a fear of change. So I was really disappointed to see that my safety and my kids' safety who are gonna go up to Stonebrae. You have the Bret Hart location that's gonna move across from Cal State East Bay.

You know, there's not there aren't there isn't any safe routes to school for people to use that corridor. And something I've noticed in the city is it seems like this bike lane infrastructure is perceived as recreation infrastructure. And it's it's not, you know. It's it's a key way that a lot of people can afford to get around. I started biking because I save a lot of money.

I'm trying to afford a mortgage and my wife wants to stay home to take care of our kids and this is the way I afford to do all that, you know. So this is key infrastructure that allows people movement in the corridor and it's a key pillar of your master plan. Right? How are you gonna increase the density of housing along these corridors and continue vehicle dependency? I mean, in a decade, emissions gonna it's already at a standstill.

It's gonna be even worse in a decade if we're not serious about implementing infrastructure that allows people to use alternative forms of transportation. And you can't just do 90% of a bike lane. Know if 90% of the San Mateo Bridge was made and you have to jump the rest of the gap nobody would use it right? So you know please can I keep, I know I'm over time, I'm a building one, can I keep going?

You can wrap it up.

Okay. Yeah. I'll have some other topics that I'll email it. But in closing, know, I think you guys have a great plan. I just wanna urge you to execute. And I think future generations will be really appreciative of of your guys' efforts. Thank you.

Thank you for coming and speaking.

Thank you.

Okay. Do we have any commissioner questions for staff? Commissioner Low.

Thank you Ms. Schmidt for your presentation. My question is just very simply, it seems like some of the programs are never going to be started because either we've realized that we don't have the authority to do it or for whatever reason, why not just delete them?

That's a really good question. The reason is because that would require a general plan amendment and I know that at least one time we've taken a general plan amendment to it requires public hearings, it requires outreach. And this is a forty year plan so even when you create it there's always going to be shifting priorities and staffing and grant money and things you know that over time. And so I think that this just is part of the process of a general plan. It's not really a living document except that we update our progress every year.

Thank you, that was my only question.

Thank you, Commissioner Myers.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, so I have a few questions. So I know it's pretty common that Hayward's having a deficit issue right now. Do you anticipate any unexpected, like, degradation in the progress of our general plan accomplishments in the next year or two? And if so, in which particular categories are you kind of expecting it? And what might that look like?

This is a difficult question to answer because as I stated, so much of this work is accomplished by different departments and divisions. I will say that just back to what I said in the presentation, in 2024 the city adopted an update to the Climate Action Plan and that resulted in an amendment of over 200 of our programs. And I would say that some of the efforts that went into creating that plan which happened in 2021, 2022, 2023 you know, require more staffing and more resources than we will have at present. With that, I wanna see if Eric Pearson is online to see if he has maybe something to add. Because Eric is the environmental services manager and headed the climate action plan effort and I think could speak to that.

Well, guess I can just say that the, sorry, yeah, Eric Pearson, environmental services manager. Good evening commissioners. One area where we've struggled a bit is with the REACH code that is called for in the Climate Action Plan. There were some new state law last year that basically limited our ability to ban natural gas as the Climate Action Plan calls for. Other than that, I think that there's several programs that are going to rely on grant funding and some of those grant opportunities are becoming further and yes, available.

So sorry, can't be too much more specific than that. Happy to answer any other questions.

Okay. Thank you, you, Eric. So it sounds like there's not an obvious insurmountable mountain that we're hitting with the deficit issues. It's just going to be a variation of obstacles, guess. Am I about right on that?

The general plan implementation is an incremental process. So it does take, that's why you adopt a forty year plan. And so it is something that is going to just kind of inch along And that's the nature of this work. Okay.

Then, because I'm trying to kinda get my hands around the completion of it, because I know we do have till 2040, but sometimes those years sneak up on us pretty quick. So we have different levels. Have not started, started, partially complete, and complete. Complete's easy. That's 100% of that project is done. Is there a certain percentage when we check the box, when we move it from started to partially complete? So do we have a certain percentage of that so that I can kinda get my idea on that project is at least 50% or what percentage is that that's partially complete?

Every project is so different. It could have multiple components. If you've read some of these, I mean some are very very simple. Some have multiple, multi year components and rely on outside resources or collaboration with outside agencies, the state, the federal government. So I think that the element that you could really focus on in terms of really drilling down would be maybe the housing element because the state again has such a magnifying glass on that, does require us to update it every eight years.

They've just created the housing accountability unit. So the state just is really scrutinizing that specific element. And so I think that if you just maybe dig into the spreadsheets a little you'll see some of them are just you know, something could be listed as partially complete and it could take ten years to actually complete. And other things are partially complete that started last year and will finish next year. They're all so different.

Okay. Yeah, okay. Think and I totally get that and I get that they're very complex. So next year 2027 we're gonna be at that halfway point of the general plan from '13, I think it's next year. So I would think we should be somewhere in the range of 50% of our goals. Does that sound somewhat approximate?

Well I mean I would suggest that we are at about 50%. I mean those ongoing programs will be reported for the life of that general plan. So you're at 51% there and then you're 11% complete. So you're over 60% either complete or you've started it and it's ongoing reporting, right? And then you look at the other 16% partially complete which may be completed next year or in ten years.

So what I would venture to say is that at about 78 you're doing pretty darn good at halfway through the life of the general plan. I would also say that for the most part jurisdictions don't wait the full forty years update their general plan. You might see us start to think about doing that with the city council, you the planning commission, might with the next housing element update which will be in 2032. You know we might say hey it might be time to look at this general plan. We have some stale programs that will never move.

This is the time to really do a big effort. But it's multi year process. It's very robust public outreach. It has multiple public meetings, presentations, workshops, and then comes to the planning commission for recommendation before it goes to the city council. So I mean I would say that we're doing well and that likely you know before 2040 you'll see another general plan update where we'll come up with a whole set of new programs for the next challenges we'll face in the next forty years.

Okay, that's good to hear. That was actually one of my questions on the ongoing because I know we're never gonna have 100% on those. But of all the objectives, the ongoings, would you say that's 10% of all the objectives? Or is it a larger portion that are classified as ongoing?

It's 50% of them are. Oh, you mean in general? Know, I I'd have to really comb through every single program that hasn't been started yet in order to give you an answer of the remaining 22% of the programs if they're ongoing or if they actually have a completion date. But about 50% of these programs will just be reported on a regular basis.

Thank you. I realized this might have been answered on the paperwork I received right before the meeting, but I know that we, land use element three, The three sites were identified for the priority site designation. It's on attachment four page three number five. I know that listed was the two BART stations and the downtown city center. But with the issues with the possibility of losing one of the BART stations, my question was do we have a backup options? And if I read it right, did the paperwork say that we did?

So yes. The BART station going away would be terrible for the community and obviously the city would love to see high density transit oriented development there. But that requires a tremendous amount of investment unlikely to happen anytime in the near future. However, downtown BART is moving forwards. The city is collaborating with BART on that project.

So that is moving forward. And then the South Hayward BART, if at the midpoint of the housing element cycle, which is I think about next year, if we see sites that are unlikely to develop during the housing element cycle, then the city will give HCD a set of other properties where we could accommodate Arena. And then HCD will take a look at that list of sites. And if the South Hayward BART Station is closed, then the city will have to identify additional sites to offset the loss of that property. Or possibly it becomes a housing site, you know?

Hey, we can wish. But we do have, we don't have a void of options if that should go away is my question.

No, we have a B list.

Excellent, okay. And my last question, attachment four, page one, item two talks about the Tennyson traffic improvement project that we did last year.

Which element is it? Is it mobility or land use?

I wrote attachment five, page Okay. One That's item

the mobility element.

Yes. So what we did was we implemented that plan for traffic flow.

And which number two improved traffic flow?

Yeah. Are you familiar with the Tennyson Change where they hired they changed a bunch of the traffic signals to flow better? So my question I guess would be do we have any data as to if it's working and if it is a lot much or a lot better or less, you know?

That's a good question. I'm not sure if anyone from our public works transportation team is online. But what I can do is take, I can write down this question and ask them to, if they have any data to share and they can send it to you.

Yeah, if you can email us that would be wonderful because that's something I'm pretty interested about. And that would be all, thank you much.

Thank you, Commissioner Myers. Commissioner Yorgoff.

Thank you. Just a huge thanks to Steph for all of their work on this report and for patiently answering my many questions to you and for the work you've done on these items. I just want to follow-up on Commissioner Lowe's question. If there were to be a future general plan amendment for any other reason, would staff consider removing items that are deemed unachievable?

It's a good question, Possibly. It's a large effort. Again it requires collaboration amongst all the different departments and divisions. So I think that it would require like a tremendous amount of organization and planning. At this point what we're doing is we're sort of triaging and addressing projects as they come to us.

But definitely, as you saw in 2024, multiple elements were updated at the same time. You saw natural resources, hazards, public services and utilities, and environmental justice, all of those, and mobility, all of those were amended when the climate action plan was amended. So when there's a big effort like that we do look at all the different kind of elements that might be impacted. And again with the next housing element update, it could be just a mini general plan update where we just do something a little bit more targeted instead of a big one. But it's a good thought.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, it seemed like if we could just strike it, might be the easiest, but understood there's probably a lot of work around yeah, on the downtown BART work, a little selfishly since I live right next door, do you know at what stage, like when public comment or like when the public will be able to give feedback on what they want to see there?

Right now it's just the earliest discussions. It's an identified priority development area. It's a housing element site. But right now the city and BART are just having conversations and will likely be rolling out sort of like some public outreach in the coming months. I would say we're in March, maybe in the next like few months. Bart is taking the lead and the city is providing support.

Excellent. Thank you. And whatever happens there, it'll be nice to see something and not a staging lot as it currently is. On Mobility 2.3, that's the parking requirements and how they're established. Do you feel comfortable speaking to that item? I don't want to put you on the spot if you didn't work on it. But specifically with the one parking space per unit or 500 square feet, whichever is less is the standard? Yes. Do you know exactly how that was established as the baseline for the parking minimum? Was there like rationale or calculations behind it?

That's a good question. So the downtown, it was set by this downtown, when the downtown specific plan was adopted back And in '20 through that downtown specific plan process it was like you know a two year public outreach and there was a tremendous amount of outreach. I can try to find the specific plan documents and email them to you so you can take a deep dive into it. I didn't personally work on that project so I can't give you all the background as to how they arrived at those numbers. But I believe under state law it's kind of like not required.

Yeah, don't worry I'll dive around the specific plan as needed. Yeah, guess just going to my comments on the earlier item I think you know as today's other approvals showed oftentimes it seems like market conditions can better establish it. You know, I understand that there's concerns about not enough parking being there. But, you know, I've personally never, especially downtown, had issues finding parking. And so it seems like, you know, somewhat arbitrary number like one space per unit or 500 square feet might not be the best measure versus kind of a case by case basis. So that was all for my questions.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Allman.

Yes, just a couple quick questions. On the land use and community character, what does the city have in mind for the A Street Redwood Road corridor? I guess I'm kind of thinking that if the plan to maybe make the center of Hayward a little more dense in housing that corridor is gonna be important for transportation.

Yeah, so in the land use, this was actually a response in the Q and A. So we followed up, thank you Commissioner Yorga for pointing it out. Basically right now there's a transportation grant that is looking at safety improvements that go from Hisperean to about Foothill on A Street. But then it ends. And so our transportation planners would wanna look for a grant in order to continue that from Foothill to Redwood Road.

So right now that is a project that would be considered not started. And that's because they'd be looking for grant funding in order to start that project. And then they'll look at roadway improvements, safety improvements aligned with our Vision Zero goals. And then at the time based on the land use plan, we might look at a kind of a land use study around there. But again, project has not started.

That's maybe a good thing because I think that corridor has a lot of potential as is like Asperian, Mission Boulevard to hopefully make public transportation a little more efficient. And I think that those streets are very important for for that to happen. So anyway, they're also on the mobility, it it said that they're you're gonna identify streets for closure. Which ones are on top of the list?

Which, can you tell me what number?

You know, I didn't write it down. I'm sorry.

I think it's CAP action T1.8. Identify streets for permanent through traffic closures to promote walking, biking and other forms of active transportation. That's right. And the response, it says partially complete. Safe streets downtown is evaluating downtown streets that could potentially be closed from through traffic further outreach as needed.

That was the response from our transportation folks. So, what I would encourage anyone who has questions about this, who might be listening tonight is to look up the Safe Streets Downtown project online. Go to the project website, reach out to the transportation planners and see if they're, you know, when the outreach events are and if they have more information related to any plant closures.

Okay, thank you. This one I do have written down. Under hazards, number 12, it says that there's an evacuation preparedness and coordination plan. Is that like the emergency broadcast system or something?

That's specifically about, yeah it is and it's about routes. So there are plans in place to you know, for example, this isn't, I'm a Hayward Fire Department but I did happen to work with them on the hazards element update. The plans include notification systems, but it also includes like what would happen under certain scenarios where they would convert all the traffic to both lanes going out instead of maintaining two way traffic. And so I can tell you that the Hayward Fire Department would coordinate with the police department to come up with routes out of constrained areas to bring people out very quickly. So that's what that evacuation plan is referring to.

So has that plan ever happened?

Oh yeah, it was published as part of the hazards element update. So yes, they looked at various scenarios, different areas in the city, and they do have these plans.

So I've never, I guess I've never received one. That's why I guess maybe I was kind of surprised that this actually is a thing. Just wondering how the community will know about these plans.

Well I can find it online and send you a link to it because was a plan that was kind of included with the hazards element update. But it's a pretty technical document. It isn't intended to be a map for residents. It's for police and fire to come up with strategies to get people out quickly and they come up with these plans and then they'll implement it. And implementation would maybe include communication but the actual plan itself is not really, it's not, it's you know quite long, it's dense, it's you know detailed, it has lots of maps. So it isn't something you communicate to every homeowner.

Okay, so I thought I might have missed something. Okay, that's it for my questions, thank you.

There any other questions? Commissioner Stevens.

Thanks, I just wanted to comment that because you said that, I searched it and there was a really cool thing called, on the Hayward's website it's called Zone Haven Emergency Evacuation Platform. And it has a cool map and it shows you a bunch of things. And I wish the gentleman that was the speaker hadn't left because what he said about Hayward Boulevard last year was right and one of the primary issues was this. And I wish we had all known about this because if the city had communicated this I think it would have solved a lot of the challenges. So that's awesome that that's there. So thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other commissioner questions? Okay, we can move to commissioner comments. So for this item the city is asking us to accept the progress report, the annual, the general plan progress report. Commissioner Hamann.

You're asking for comments? So yeah, just in general there's some things that kinda stood out. I do support and encourage the corridor beautification plan. I do think that we need to improve alternative transportation like bus services and especially AC transit. I support installing EV charging stations and all EV related programs around the city.

I like to see them especially where people might go to shop or dine. For economic development, I really like the idea of adding a cultural and arts commission. Let me see. For education lifelong learning, I think that the library is doing a really good job. For hazards, I think that as a priority, sea level rise has to be a priority.

For natural resources, I think this might be a good opportunity to include the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Commission for input. And for environmental justice, there's a lot of programs there that would really be beneficial to the people that need it, but it would appear that most of those programs that haven't been started yet, I really like to see that become a priority. Anyway, that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Luttgjurgoff.

Thank you and thanks Schmidt for wearing many many hats and responding to comments on behalf of so many city departments. As Commissioner Hammond pointed out, many elements rely on collaboration with other agencies such as AC Transit and Bart And so I know staff will, but I just really encourage you to closely collaborate with those agencies particularly considering regional fiscal issues that are somewhat outside of the city's control. Yeah. On land use element seven, yeah, I know that though it's no longer actually the item, I am very interested in how that grant is used to make A Street between Hispereon and Foothill safer. I actually work right in that area and every time I walk to lunch, have to dodge cars disregarding crosswalks and I've seen seniors and other folks have to do the same.

Before I was even on the commission, I'd called in to public works to see if there was anything that could be done. I do really hope that steps will be taken to calm that corridor, particularly in light of the pedestrian deaths that we've so tragically seen recently in Hayward. Yeah. So, on mobility item T 1.5, I do appreciate staff noting response to community pushback but I forget who it was that commented but I think, you know, a lot of a lot of the pushback we've seen against the safe streets initiatives around the city are unfortunately down to maybe misunderstandings between the community and staff, and I think there's a lot that we can all do to kind of come closer together. So I do hope that staff will go above and beyond to just make sure that all steps are really clearly communicated to the community so that it doesn't seem like the city is flying in from on high to you know, make big changes in the communities and that their input is taken in.

I think this is all something everybody benefits from, right? Again, I think yeah, traffic calming is something that every part of the city could benefit from but the feedback of the folks that live there is vital. I think as I've commented before, changes that we make for one night here are things that folks experience for the rest of their lives where they live. And then, finally on Mobility T3.4 about the parking. You know, again, I've never had trouble finding parking downtown and so I do think that concerns that as we grow that may change are totally valid, but I want to say that I'm really heartened to see that enforcement is being considered because, you know, I think it's really good that, you know, it's lovely to have free parking in Hayward, but I think, unfortunately, sometimes that can be abused a little bit and I've definitely seen cars left in certain places for really long so that can magnify the perception of a lack of parking.

I think enforcement is one way to really take advantage of the parking we do have because we do really have a ton of parking downtown. Multiple parking garages, tons of street parking. Know, a bit anecdotal but I live in an apartment complex and parking was very, very scarce and then one day parking started getting enforced and a lot of cars got towed that shouldn't have been there, including me when I forgot to put my parking placard up and you can believe that I have never forgotten to put that placard on since. So, I do think enforcement is often a good mechanism to take advantage of what we already have in place. And I will leave it at that. Thank you.

Great. Commissioner Lowell.

I really appreciate the collaboration as my fellow commissioner said and the cooperation that went into the development of the general plan in the first place, and also your hard work in giving us these updates every year. And I wanna thank you for prioritizing the issues that are the most important to the residents of Hayward. I see you and your staff at the events like the one we had yesterday for the 100. And you're always asking what do people want to see in Hayward, what sort of projects they're interested in, and really making sure that you are meeting the needs of the residents. So I just really appreciate that and I would encourage you to continue to always put the residents first.

Thank you for your hard work.

Commissioner Hardy. Thank you. Just wanted to also echo just a real appreciation to the staff for always bringing this to us and just your explanations of everything and just so clear about what it is and what it isn't and what can be done. Just wanted to speak specifically around CAP Action T 3.5. I know it hasn't been started and I'm actually appreciative that it hasn't been started.

That was actually the one that was in the past the most concerning to me because I was worried that it would have a lot of impact on Hayward residents when it's not just Hayward residents, just to say what it is, it's about the congestion in Hayward and single use, single passenger vehicles. And so having a charge or tolls for people potentially because of the congestion and Hayward truly is the heart of the Bay. And so there are a lot of people from outside of Hayward who drive through Hayward and just not wanting to do anything that impacted Hayward residents more than needed. And so I'm just glad that this hasn't been started, just wanted to acknowledge that. But then also to acknowledge really my appreciation for CAP action T 3.6 which is a very intentional engagement by public works of low income communities of color and just making sure that there's not like a, just seeing it with the impact would be on those communities.

So I really do appreciate that. And even though it hasn't been started also CAP T 3.7 that if there were a program like the one in T 3.5 to make sure that there's metrics around the impact of that. And then also just to speak about the free parking that currently exists in Downtown Hayward, I do also think with our discussions of business friendly Hayward that we've been having recently, I do think that that is a key to maintaining or growing our business friendly area. I do think that for me personally and people I know it's just really great to know that if I'm going to go to Downtown Hayward I don't have to worry about parking and that is not something that you see in all the cities that you go to. So just do wanna encourage us to maintain that if possible even though I do understand some of the challenges with that.

Thank you.

Thank you. I also wanna thank staff for this amazing report and for the continued updates on your progress. I know that you're juggling a lot of balls behind the walls here and then going out into the community. So I really appreciate all the balls that you have in the air. In terms of when you go back and you relook at these programs to see where there's maybe duplication of efforts or maybe some programs that just haven't gotten off the ground, I would maybe think about looking at combining environmental justice, community health, and quality of life.

I think that there are some themes and some programs that perhaps could be combined and just get the low hanging fruit. And maybe some that are already in progress we could tag on some other programs too. I encourage you to just keep moving forward with the traffic calming measures as Commissioner Yogarov said, not just because there's been some fatalities in our city lately but people don't like it right now but very much needed across our city. Is there anyone else? Oh Commissioner Stevens.

Yeah I just wanted to say you know I'm, the transportation elements specifically British radio traffic calming I think are great. But I just wanna caution you know somebody that's practiced this for thirty years now, I can say something's fundamentally changed in society and I think that you can't engineer yourself out of a problem. Road diets are great but still people speed on road dieted streets. So 's a huge psychological element in this and I think there's things that need to happen above the state level about not only enforcement of people that aren't driving correctly but also mandating people be taught how to drive and there be actual responsibility associated with that. So I think some of this is good, but I think a lot of it's false.

So I just encourage decision makers and leaders and things to really look more holistically at the problem.

Okay, if there are no more commissioner comments, I will go ahead and close. Commissioner comments at this report and I'm ready to entertain a motion to accept the progress report on the general plan. And we have a motion from Commissioner Hamann. Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Lowe.

And if the commissioners can vote now. And the motion is passed. Thank you, at this time we can move to commissioner reports and announcements.

There's one more item chair. Thank

you. Our third item is the exception, to accept the minutes of the commission meeting from, let's see, from January 20, where is that, twenty second. And there's been a motion from Commissioner Lowe. And is there a second?

Oh,

thank you. Seconded by Commissioner Stevens. And the minutes have been accepted. Thank you. Now we can go to commission reports and announcements.

Ms. Schmitz, do you have any announcements for the commission?

Sorry about that. It's okay. So yeah, I just wanted to give you a quick sort of view about upcoming agendas. We are gonna cancel the meeting on March 26. There are no items for that meeting. But, on April 9, will see return of the business friendly Hayward. That will be the actual amendments to the zoning ordinance. So, that is an exciting meeting. Will It be a public hearing and your recommendation will go to the city council. And then also the capital improvement program will be brought to you that night and that too is a recommendation to the city council.

So, those are the upcoming items for April 9. And no other things to report.

Terrific. Are there any referrals, commissioner referrals or announcements? Commissioner Lowe.

I know I said it a little earlier but I just wanted to say what a great event it was yesterday for the Hayward one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. It was lovely. There were lots of things for families to do, for children to do and of course it was lovely to see the planners out there and giving people an opportunity to voice their opinions about our streets and how they should look in the future. Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay if there are no further business before the commission, I will adjourn this meeting at 09:13PM.