Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, sorry, we're good to start.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Hayward Planning Commission meeting. We're holding a hybrid meeting with some participants in the council chamber and others who have joined virtually via Zoom. This meeting is being webcast on Comcast Channel 15 and livestream on the city's YouTube channel and on the city website. If we could rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, if you're able. And Ms. Carrell, if you will take roll, please.

Okay. Commissioner Hammond?

Present.

Commissioner Hardy? She's absent. Commissioner Low?

Here.

Commissioner Myers?

Present.

Commissioner Stephens.

Present.

And Commissioner Yerba.

Here.

And I am here as well. Commissioner Goodbody. Chair Goodbody, sorry, I forgot. All right, at this time we're gonna move to public comment, and this is for items that are not on tonight's agenda. The public comment section provides an opportunity to address the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda. The Commission welcomes comments and requests that speakers present their remarks in a respectful manner, within established time limits, and focus on issues which directly affect the city or are within the jurisdiction of the city. As the Commission is prohibited by state law from discussing items not listed on the agenda, your item will be taken under consideration and may be referred to staff for further action. Speaker shall not use threatening, profane, or abusive language with disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of a commission meeting. The city is committed to maintaining a workplace free of unlawful harassment and is mindful that city staff regularly attend commission meetings. Discriminatory statements or conduct that is hostile, intimidating, aggressive, or abusive are per se disruptive to a meeting and will not be tolerated. And Ms. Corral, do we have any speakers in the chambers or on Zoom that wish to address the commission? We do not. Okay, now we're gonna move to the main, to our first agenda item, which is PH 26-15, business-friendly Hayward. And at this time, I will turn it over to staff.

Excellent, thank you, Chair. Good evening, Planning Commissioners, Elizabeth Blanton, Senior Planner. Tonight, Assistant Planner Sachiko Riddle and I are proud to present you with the final proposed municipal code changes and zoning map revisions for the business-friendly Hayward project. As we've previously discussed, the objectives of this project are to streamline the permitting process for desirable businesses in order to activate our commercial nodes and corridors, as well as vacant and underutilized properties. During tonight's public hearing, we'll be asking the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council regarding project adoption. And as this is our third time presenting this project to you, we're going to focus our presentation on changes that we've made since we last saw you in January. But as usual, during the Q&A, if you have questions about any part of the project, we're happy to answer those. so over the past 15 months we've accomplished quite a lot spring and summer of 2025 we're primarily focused on research and analysis as we work to analyze hayward's codes research successful strategies in other communities and conduct a market analysis of our downtown next we turned our attention to outreach to ask our businesses the community at large and the planning commission and council what can we do to make Hayward more business friendly? And what types of businesses do we want to see more of in Hayward? Based on what we heard during that process and along with what we learned during the research phase, we took a stab at drafting edits to the municipal code and zoning map, which we presented to you back in January. This was kind of the kickoff of our second phase of outreach, where we're really asking the question, did we get this right? Do you think that these proposed changes accurately reflect community priorities and will result in making our city more business friendly? So after speaking to you all and doing some meetings with the community, the business community and the residential community, we further refine the draft regulations to produce the final draft that we bring before you tonight. And then following tonight's hearing, we have scheduled a public hearing with the council on April 21st, where we will be asking them to make a final decision on the project. So in terms of proposed zoning ordinance changes, the vast majority of what was shown in the attachments or what was included in the attachments for tonight's agenda item are identical to what you reviewed in January. So that's to say the various commercial sections of our code are still consolidated into a single section, and we've relaxed permitting requirements for uses that are popular with the community, including establishments selling beer and wine, such as small markets, breweries and wineries, day cares, and recreational facilities. We've also updated some of the definitions in the code to reflect updated business practices. However, here we come to our first change compared to what we proposed to you in January. After extensive conversations with our industrial stakeholders, we learned that our proposed updated definition for truck terminal was too broad. It contained terms like third party logistics and last mile delivery, which encompass a wide range of industrial uses. So we spent several weeks, many meetings, workshopping this definition with our industrial partners, And we learned it's just going to take some more time to fine-tune this and get it right. So as a result, we're not proposing changes to the existing definition of truck terminal, which seems to be working fairly well for our industrial community as is. And instead, we will readdress this definition as part of a future planning effort if necessary. Now, while the vast majority of our proposed changes and revisions are ways to lighten the permitting requirements and streamline processes, there are two uses that we're recommending stricter controls for. The first is to require a conditional use permit for any massage establishment in the city, as was recommended by the police department. This was presented to you in January and there's no additional changes that are proposed tonight. However, we have made some additional changes to our proposal for stricter controls around data centers. Following direction from the commission and from the council, as well as input from our industrial development community, we're now proposing that data centers be allowed in both the industrial park and the general industrial zoning districts instead of just the general industrial district. So this change reflects the fact that critical energy infrastructure that is needed to support data centers is largely located in the IP zoning district. Secondly, we are now proposing a two tiered permitting process depending on the energy generating capacity of the data center. So data centers that generate less than 50 megawatts will be required to go through the conditional use permit process with the planning condition or the planning commission making the final decision. For larger data centers that generate 50 or more megawatts, they will be required to go through a new permitting process called major conditional use permit that will require council approval. This is directly in response to council's direction that they would like to be the final decision makers on all large data center projects. And then finally, just prior to this meeting, I passed out this handout that is sitting on your desks in front of you. We had some additional back and forth with one of our industrial partners yesterday and this morning. So there was one additional text change that's related to data centers, and this is to allow data centers to exceed the FAR maximum set for the IP and IG zoning districts through a major site plan review process. For clarity, this is currently allowed for data centers, and both of our data centers have used this exception in the past, so this minor change is really just to clarify that this exception process will continue for data centers moving forward, given that they're now in their own use category and they're not bundled in with offices anymore. And with that, I'll turn it over to Sachiko to walk us through the final few changes. Thank you, Elizabeth.

When we were last before you, we presented three new permit types. In response to Planning Commission and City Council feedback, we've made slight alterations to those three new permits and are introducing a fourth. As a reminder, ACUs are small businesses that are run from the home, but unlike a home office, they'll see foot traffic from the surrounding community. City Council had a spirited discussion on whether restaurants should be allowed as a permitted use under our ACU program and considering whether it would help alleviate or further exacerbate our current existing challenges around sidewalk vending. Ultimately, the majority felt like it should not be included and so it's been left out. There was also discussion around where the pilot program should launch. Planning Commission was interested in allowing it in areas other than downtown as that's a relatively small area that already has a lot of the city's focus. So staff took this feedback and is now proposing that the pilot area be for properties with single family residences south of Tennyson Road. Our proposed new limited entertainment permit will provide an easier and more streamlined path for small live entertainment opportunities such as karaoke or open mic nights. We added more detail to the rough draft of the ordinance that we presented during the last work session and are now proposing, in addition to the performance standards that were previously presented, that this permit type apply to entertainment events involving amplified sound for 10 to 100 attendees. The minor temporary use permit is intended for low impact activities that operate for a limited period of time. This would include things like a circus or a food truck, food court or other similar events on private property. Staff has further refined the ordinance to state that in addition with the previously presented performance standards, this permit type will cover specific outdoor uses for up to 1000 people. Similar to ACUs, staff is proposing a specific list of uses that would be covered by this permit so that we can control which temporary uses would qualify for expedited review and which will still need to go through the established AUP process. As Elizabeth covered earlier, while both hearing bodies felt comfortable with allowing data centers in the IP zoning district, as well as the IG zoning district, council felt very strongly that they wanted to receive a recommendation from planning commission and make the final decision. This led to staff to create a new permit type, a major conditional use permit. The MCUP will require council approval following recommendation from the Planning Commission and will apply specifically to data centers that generate 50 megawatts of energy or more, gas stations, and cannabis dispensaries. At the previous work session, staff originally recommended that the residential office or RO district be combined with the commercial office or CO district to create a new district called the commercial office residential district. In response to the letters sent out to the RO property owners informing them of the proposed rezoning, a few property owners reached out with questions and concerns. Staff held two separate community meetings with these property owners in order to address these concerns. After these discussions, staff is now proposing that instead of combining the RO and CO zoning districts into a new zoning district, these two zoning districts be kept separate to help preserve the residential feel and unique identity of the RO zoning district. To make the RO district more business friendly, property owners felt that they were comfortable with allowing office uses by right in their zoning district as opposed to requiring an AUP or a CUP, which is the case now. So in conclusion, staff's recommendation is that the planning commission recommend that the city council approve the proposed municipal code text amendments, zoning map revisions, and master fee schedule updates related to the business-friendly Hayward project. Thank you so much for your time, and Elizabeth and I are happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. At this time, I would like to, before I take commissioner questions, given the amount of information in the packet and this evening that we will review, I would like to separate the motions and the votes in this item under business-friendly Hayward. So if the commissioners aren't opposed, I would like to take the motion on the proposed tax amendments and then the zoning, the proposed zoning map provisions and then the master fee schedule. So we can go and ask the questions for all three items now or we can take the motions and the votes after each after each item, whatever the commission prefers. I thought it would just be easier to organize comments and not conflate any of the issues because there's so many of them. Does the commission have a preference or? Yeah, go ahead.

How would the attachments then be grouped? Because Master Fee Schedule I think would be a loan, but would the other ones be like two through 13, or? Just so I can better understand like the.

Yeah, so my understanding is the first item would be, we would vote and on the proposed text amendments to MUNI code chapters 10 and then the articles that follow it. And then the second would be the proposed zoning map revisions and then the third is the master fee schedule.

Chair, if you don't mind me jumping in for a clarification. So the attachments for the first motion that's related to the municipal code changes would be attachments three through 13. And then the second motion on the zoning map revisions would be attachment 14. And then the third motion on the master fee schedule updates would be attachment 15.

Thank you. Okay, are there any commissioner questions, staff? Commissioner Stephens.

Thank you. I have just one clarification. So if I was going to build some sort of light manufacturing or maybe even sort of a heavy manufacturing facility in the IL, the IP, and the IG zone, I would not need a CUP, correct?

Correct. Manufacturing uses tend to be permitted by right in those.

So, but I would still, would I still have to do some form of a CEQA document to assess how much power I was using, how much?

Ministerial application, so if there is no planning entitlement involved, are not subject to CEQA. So only if it was triggering an entitlement. So if there was no use permit required, it would be like if there was a major site plan review, for example, or a site plan review application as part of it. If it was a use that's allowed by right that's moving into a building that's already existing, for example, like a manufacturing use moving into a building that's already existing, that analysis is covered by the general plan EIR that was done 10 years ago, and additional SQL analysis is not required.

Okay, so just help me understand. So if I build a data center that consumes 51 megawatts, And it's a box, doesn't emit anything, has two people working in it. Why does that require a conditional use permit when a heavy manufacturing facility might not? I don't understand where this nexus is coming from. What triggers this? What's the purpose of it?

For that particular example, any data center that is generating 50 megawatts or greater of energy is actually required to have a CEQA document done through the CEC. That's part of state law. So in that case, again, the fact that there is an entitlement as part of it, at least for the data centers that we have seen that are this large, typically there's some sort of site plan or a major site plan review. And then in this case, there will be a use permit as well. That's what's triggering the need for CEQA. And then the CEQA is mandated by state law to be done at the state level. And we're actually a responsible agency, but not the lead agency for those. Jeremy, do you have something to add?

Let me just add in here real quick that most of the projects that we see in Hayward do require or do contain a proposal to add construction to build something. And so at the point when they're coming in to build a project, that would trigger site plan review as a discretionary, even for permitted uses. projects around town like residential as an example that's a permitted use, they are still subject to go through CEQA. Oftentimes they are exempt because they're exemptions that carve out certain flexibility for certain land use types, but they would be subject to CEQA even for industrial uses. So irrespective of what kind of entitlement, whether it's site plan review or it has to go to the full council or the planning commission, Any discretionary review is considered a project and would be subject to CEQA review.

But I could build my theoretical manufacturing plant without a CUP.

You couldn't, yes, correct. You could build it without a use permit, your theoretical manufacturing plant, but if you were building it, it would trigger site plan review. If you were moving your theoretical manufacturing plant into an existing building in a zoning district that allows that by right, that wouldn't trigger CEQA.

And so who has the purview for the review of the site plan at staff or does it come to the planning commission?

If it's a site plan review application, like a normal site plan review application, that would be at staff level unless appealed and then it would come before this body. If it's a major site plan review application, which so far our two recent data centers have been, for example, because they're on sites that are over 10 acres, that is required to come here to the planning commission.

So I guess just a theoretical question. Why are we making it so hard to build a data center of more than 50 megawatts? What is the theory behind that? What do we get out of that?

the direction that we got from the city council is that they think because these uses have impacts and there's potentially community benefits associated with them, that they wanted this higher level of review aligned with kind of that state threshold of 50 megawatts in order to have some of those conversations at the council level instead of the planning commission level. Just like we've done in the past, we would still take data centers to the planning commission for a recommendation similar to the item that we're doing tonight, but they had given us direction at their January workshop or work session that they want to be the final decision makers, which is the reason that staff is now proposing that higher level of review. In practically speaking terms, every data center that we have seen in the city has large amounts of diesel that are going to require a use permit in and of themselves. They've all triggered site plan review. They've all kind of naturally required at least planning commission level review through the processes that we have in place. So this additional step would just be adding the one extra public hearing for the council for these very large data centers.

And so that's why with the CEQA process is the state mandated purview to assess what the environmental impacts are with the project, correct?

For the data centers that are 50 megawatts and above. For data centers that are less than that, we would be the lead agency for the CEQA process if it triggered the need for a CEQA process, which generally speaking, they all do.

Thank you very much.

Yeah.

Are there any other additional planning commissioner questions? Commissioner Hellman, go ahead.

Yes, just a couple questions. On attachment six, general regulations, will drive-through restaurants still be allowed in the airport corridor?

Yeah, there was just a change to allow them. I think it was in the ATC district. So yes, those use tables aren't changing. It would still be allowed in the various parts of town that it is allowed. The reason that we moved the drive-in regulations to the general regs chapter is because they previously lived in one small section of the commercial code, and then all of these other sections of the code referred to that. that specific zoning district, which is unusual. Usually when we have general regulations that apply to many different zoning districts, we tend to put those in the general regulation. So I know with the track changes, it looks like it's a lot of new text. It's actually just text that's copied from a different part of the code, and we're just organizing it in a clearer way.

Sure. Thank you on that. In the next attachment seven on alcohol, what is the current distance required between establishments that sell alcohol?

Let me look. I have our binder here. I think it's 500 feet. I tell this at the counter. Never quote this. Let me actually look. I want to say it's 500 feet. I will look that up. You can feel free to start your next question.

Well, it kind of was a leading question because in response to the public comment that was sent to us, I would like to see the owner of Puesto Market be able to obtain their alcohol permit, even if it is a foot less than that's required.

So under these updates, they would be able to because the ABC license type that they're applying for would now just be allowed by rights. So the distancing requirements would be specifically for liquor stores, whereas Puesto just wants to sell beer and wine, so they would then be able to get their license and sell.

Okay, that sounds fair. So you won't need to look up that number for me. I was in the section. And then I guess for attachment seven for the major conditional use permit, I guess I'm a little curious why

approval or denial of cannabis dispensaries and gas stations are now being removed from the planning commissions um from the planning commission making the final decision i just can you explain a little of the reasoning good question when those ordinances originally were adopted the cannabis ordinance back in 2018-ish and the recent update pertaining to gas stations that was linked in the staff report i think that was in 2021 At those times, similar to what they just did with us at the work session about data centers, they expressed to staff that for all cannabis dispensaries, we want to review that at the council level. So you've noticed, for example, that dispensaries that have come through here, you guys have given a recommendation, and then that's gone ahead to council. Similarly for gas stations, there's an ordinance that was recently adopted that said for any fossil fuel gas stations, so not like an EV charging center, but a fossil fuel gas station, council wants to be the final decision makers for those. So we're basically just clarifying that in the code, that direction we've previously been given.

I'll just add a little additional context. So when we adopted our original cannabis regulations, the dispensaries were obviously something that, as we all saw here last December, there's a lot of public interest. Council, in response to that, made the determination that they would really like to see those. however at the time when we adopted those new cannabis regulations we didn't have a permit type that automatically sent everything up to the council the way that the existing municipal code reads it does allow the planning director the authority at that point to have an item get forwarded to the planning to the city council of course the other option is that a council member could call up the item they that currently exist for any final action that would be up for consideration by the planning commission. And so the council does have the ability to call up projects. I think the problem was is that for a lot of applicants, there was not certainty after they left the planning commission and they didn't understand what was the threshold that would require them to go to the city council. And so in this process of doing this update, what we did is we created that new permit type MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT BY DEFAULT WILL BE THE HIGHEST APPROVING BODY WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE THE CITY COUNCIL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN BUT THAT WAS THE INTENT WHEN COUNCIL MADE THAT CANNABIS. IT'S JUST WE DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT TYPE ON THE BOOKS THAT WOULD CLEARLY NEATLY ALLOW FOR THAT AND DEFINE THAT. NOW WITH THIS UPDATE WE HOPEFULLY WILL.

Okay, thank you on that. So I guess it was last month we passed the truck terminal that had a filling station. Would that not have also then gone to City Council for final review?

Oh, good question. I know we talked a lot about truck terminals, something we also talked a lot with our industrial community about. That process is not changing. So that is still going to be a CUP process that's going to stay with the Planning Commission as the final decision, again, unless your decision is appealed or the council decides to call it up.

Another quick clarification on that is that you are correct that the truck terminal did have an individual fueling station for that particular operator. The council has been very clear, though, that public fueling stations like the Costco, maybe like a new Chevron, they would like to have the final say because ultimately it is a fossil fuel. I think they're trying to be a little bit more environmentally friendly and really make sure that there's a nexus to to support that new gas station that there's a need to do that so But that is not the case when you have a truck terminal with an ancillary fueling station specific for that operation Okay, I suppose Anyway, that's all my questions for that Thank You Commissioner Harmon

Any other questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Yorgoff.

Yes, just one quick one for me and thanks to staff for answering all of my questions beforehand. Just one additional clarification on the minor temporary use permit. So you clarified that the separate life safety permits are, you know, have to be approved by fire and building separately. When an applicant submits the permit, do they then do separate submissions or does planning staff like route to those divisions?

great question there are currently the way that the process would work is depending on the type of Temporary use if it was like a circus for example That's something that planning staff will route to fire to transportation to the different groups that need to review that but in addition to that if they were building structures and they would need to get the proper fire permits and the fire proper building permits from that another change that we didn't really highlight in the staff report but we've been working behind the scenes with our building staff and our fire department is right now the process is you first have to get your planning entitlement process a permit your use permit and then you apply for all of those things and that takes some time and often you know groups that are throwing these types of events Don't have like three months of time ahead of time to plan them. So we've worked with the building Division and the fire department to allow submittal of these concurrently so that the timeline will be shortened But yes at the end of the day potentially it would be up to three separate permits depending on what kind of structures they were installing and

Thank you for the clarification and actually explaining that added steps, because that's phenomenal. Yeah, I guess, is it made then clear to the applicant that if there's extra steps that got to be taken with the other divisions, they can do so, especially if someone's throwing an event for the first time, let's say, and don't have experience with the process?

That's a great question. That is a very common situation that we get. Yes, as part of this process, and again, as part of the kind of process improvements, the streamlining, that will be made clear on our website. As part of the online applications, we can say, have language in there that will say if you need a concurrence submittal for your building permit and fire permit. So that kind of direction will be made clear to folks because you're right. A lot of Some event operators go around to different cities and operate these events all the time. They're kind of used to the process, but sometimes it's just a community group that's like, hey, we'd really love to throw a festival and we've never done something like this before. So our goal is to make that kind of language very clear on our website and in our actual permitting software.

That's great to hear. Thank you. And that's it for me.

Thank you, Commissioner Myers.

Thank you, Chair. A couple of quick, very surface, easy, quick lob questions, I think. Regarding the last question, if a neighborhood just wanted to have a get-together or a few houses, does that require a permit for something like this?

Good question. The lower threshold for any sort of outdoor event permit is 275 people. So assuming you're not like shoving 275 people in your backyard, the answer is no. So for example, a lot of people will be like, I'm going to have a wedding in my backyard with 50 people or 100 people. That does not require a permit. It's only when you're above that threshold. And or let's say they wanted to close down the street and do an event, you know, or something like in between their houses. That would require special permits. But no, if they're, you know, getting together in their backyard and it's a handful of families, that does not require a permit.

Okay, so we'll only invite 274 people, including myself. Okay, also on attachment 10, again, another surface question. It really doesn't have to do with the rewriting because I believe this verbiage was in there already. But it says a maximum of 30% for compact car parking. I'm curious. That was in there prior, I believe. And where did that come from?

percentage come from is it was it from the state or just from other cities or what good question that actually wasn't in there before previously our code for parking said that industrial uses could allow up to 50 percent of parking to be compact spaces and residential uses could allow up to 30 percent and there was no mention of commercial um allowances for for compact parking so we reached out to our transportation division we're like hey are there standards around this They said 30% is about standard. It's an industry standard, so we applied that to our commercial as well. So that's actually a new allowance, which will help for some commercial uses that have really tight sites and need to fit in a number of parking. That extra foot or two can really make a big difference.

Okay, super. I had seen it in the other ones. I thought I just wasn't able to find it perfectly before. Okay, and then also, I know I read about the street vendors. Do we have a number on how many street vendors have actually completed the permit process and or are in the permit process?

I'm positive that one has. Jeremy, I don't know if it's any more beyond that at this point.

Yeah, so the city has approved one official. They've gotten all the way through the process. There's also been other vendors that are not selling perishable items, and so they're not required to go through Alameda County Health. So, for example, for Valentine's Day, people are out selling flowers. That's totally fine. Our permits that we offer here are for free, and we also have a great handout and great literature. We have been trying to coordinate with the vendors to hopefully get them to come in. But obviously, as you know, the state has really tied a lot of local jurisdictions' hands with what we can and can't do. But yeah, that is a constant, and we will continue to refine the program if we can. But obviously, right now, we're really beholden to the state legislators to make any changes before we can do that.

Okay, thank you for that. I know we're in the process of adjusting our business tax, and I know a lot of our restaurants are feeling double whammed, so I just wanted to kind of get some data on that. So thank you. And my last comment was going to be what Commissioner Hammond said, which was wondering if the staff had come to any agreement with Presto's market, but it sounds like we have. So that's it. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Lowe.

Thank you, and thank you for your report tonight. Very good. What I wanted to know is, for the ACUs, I'm wondering about the potential for more garbage in these areas that these ACUs might generate. or has there been any thought around preventing extreme waste in the streets, in the residential areas? Will they be issued different garbage cans or dumpsters? I don't know.

That's a great question. As part of our standard conditions of approval for these uses, they will be required to have, depending on the type of use, again, if it's like an architecture office, they won't have the same needs as like, you know, something that maybe will have trash, you know, or recycling that's generated from it. But they will be required to provide trash recycling and compost receptacles that are available to the public, but also not out on the street. So it still like maintains the feel of a residential area. So that'll be conditioned for every one of these. And then again, if it's there turns out to be a problem where there is a lot of trash on the street or our maintenance crews are having to deal with that we'll have a mechanism to revoke that ACU permit to make sure that they're complying with those conditions yes so I saw in the in the documents that we read about you know the trash has to be out of sight and that sort of thing I guess what I'm wondering is

if they have a greater need for larger cans or is there a mechanism for them to get some sort of different compost bins or different ones that are more conducive to having... Like a commercial level of...

Yes. stream kind of to it yes so these types of applications would also be routed to our solid waste folks and they have and i apologize i don't know them off the top of my head but specific thresholds for what can kind of be contained within a normal like residential style bin versus what might need a larger container a trash enclosure a dumpster that sort of thing um so that would be something that they would be reviewing and then requiring if necessary depending on the type of business

Thank you. And then lastly, the sign requirements seemed a little confusing for me. It said, obviously, non-illuminated. That makes sense. Wouldn't want a big flashing sign in your neighborhood. And it said not a banner, not a temporary sign, not on the roof, not freestanding. So what should the signs look like?

What we're imagining here by limiting the those types of science is a wall sign So a wall sign that's installed permanently not a banner that you've like strung up that could Fade with time and maybe kind of not look so great in your neighborhood, but like an official wall sign that you've put up Thank you very much for answering my questions

Thank you, I have very related questions to both Commissioner Hammond and Commissioner Myers, and that is regarding, is there a distinction that staff is making between fueling stations and gas stations? And the only reason I ask is that I know that some of our car rental, businesses and our dealerships may, they have fueling stations within their parcel and would those businesses be subject to the, would they be included in the language?

The major conditional use permit you mean? um good question no and this is kind of going back to what our planning manager was explaining earlier for certain types of uses that have ancillary fueling stations that are like not open to the public it's to fuel their own fleets it's not the main purpose of the site it's just a secondary purpose of the site that doesn't have to go through the same permitting requirements The addition of major conditional use permit for gas stations or fueling stations would be if that's a primary use on the site that's open to the public.

Got it. And then In terms of going back to the ACUs, I share concerns with Commissioner Low about the possible added trash and whatnot around the neighborhoods, and so I'm wondering what enforcement looks like. I know that they have to have a freestanding building and there's all these other requirements, and I'm wondering what,

How you intend to enforce that people are actually following the rules This would be something that our code enforcement division would handle just like enforcement of any other zoning regulations if some Generally in neighborhoods in Hayward if something is becoming a problem to the part to the extent that it's impacting neighbors we tend to get calls about those sorts of things so if a call comes in or requests through our access Hayward system then our co-enforcement team would go out, they would assess to see if there is a violation of one of those conditions of approval or just any of our municipal standards, and then action would be taken accordingly.

Okay, and then in terms of, back to the ACUs again, I had asked in our very first work session on this about renters, and I know that you weren't including renters, at least renters of multifamily units. Of course, any person that's renting a single family home would have to disclose their commercial activity to the property owner. And I'm wondering if maybe somewhere down the road we can think about ways to include renters so that they are able also to participate in commercial activity.

Absolutely. I think the way that we've structured the ACU language now is focused on detached homes or single family homes, as they're sometimes called, because we just for this pilot, we didn't want to contemplate like what happens if there's a triplex on the side and one of them wants to have a business and two of them don't like that. it's kind of similar to ADU law with the state. Like ADU law with the state first focused on single family properties and then as it evolved and things were working well and they kind of streamlined some things in the single family property process, then they introduced ADU laws around multifamily properties. So I think we will probably learn a lot through this pilot about like what works, what doesn't work. And then through that, absolutely. If there's planning commission appetite, if there's council appetite,

we could certainly look at expanding the program to be allowed for folks that live in more of a multifamily or rental capacity thank you and i think that's all commissioner questions anybody else have any more questions of staff okay this time we can move to public comment um on this item and i see we have miss leslie orista is she here come forward thank you

Is red on? Yes. Hi everyone, my name's Leslie Urista. I am owner of Puesto Market, so I wanted to formally introduce myself. I've been here a couple times. I am here regarding the strong 500 foot radius I've been in business for a little bit over a year now, since December 2024. I applied for the off-sale type 20 beer and wine licensing and was denied due to that strong 500 foot radius for the conditional use permit. So I'm hoping we could recategorize how grocery stores are being categorized under, for example, a liquor store. You know, I feel like it's two completely different businesses. I'm a full on grocery store, not a liquor store, and my business will never become a liquor store. I don't plan to sell hard liquor, just your go to regular beer and wine. So I'm hoping the planning department could look into that and make it a little bit more easier for, you know, businesses like mine to be able to move forward with the approval for this conditional use permit as required by the ABC office for licensing. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, at this time, I would like to entertain a motion and a vote on the proposed text amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 10 and all of the amendments or the articles after it. And there's a motion by Commissioner Low. Can we make comments? Thank you, Commissioner Harmon. Yes, you can make a comment. Go ahead.

I guess that means me. So, kind of start off with attachment five, industrial districts, data centers. First, I want to say that I'm not opposed to building data centers in general or in Hayward. I believe that allowing data centers to develop in the IP zone is the best way to make use of the existing PG&E power grid and to lower infrastructure costs. And furthermore, grouping the data centers would also lower these costs even more. Additionally, the utility taxes for the data centers alone would benefit the city with millions of dollars a year in tax revenue. Further, zoning in the industrial general zone will force potential tenants to either move to another jurisdiction or be forced to upgrade the power grid to their location at a greater cost. PG&E is going to upgrade their grid for data centers whether they stop in Hayward or San Leandro or Oakland or beyond. As a city, we would benefit in the long run from a modernized power grid But we will benefit even more if the grid stops here in Hayward and we as a city can take advantage of the utility taxes that will be generated from the building of data centers here in Hayward. I'd further like to say that I would like to see data centers find alternative fuel power sources in lieu of diesel or natural gas generators in order to eliminate the carbon footprint. for attachment six general regulations. I'd like to see perhaps added the temporary events. It should also include the current CBC and fire codes as part of the regulations. I'm not sure if they already are included by,

Those are already codified in the Muni code, so this ordinance doesn't necessarily need to specify that because every project that is subject to a building permit has to comply with the California building code in addition to the fire code or find an alternate means of protection.

So that gives a more specific to the, like the temporary events, that those would also be...

Those are, yeah, and those would still be regulated. So even temporary events, if somebody was, for example, if they were going to erect a temporary power pole, that would have to come in and they would need to be secure approval and review and approval from the city prior to doing that.

So they'd send a building inspector out there to check out the events to make sure that they're...

Yeah, and a lot of, yeah, we currently have a lot of the stuff that we see kind of happening in the right of way. We always already have a mechanism for encroachment permits that is reviewed by public works staff and development services staff. And we also verify to ensure that there are insurance provisions in there. Obviously, we have to make sure that anybody that's doing anything in the right of way, and a lot of times that's what ends up happening with these temporary uses. But for any permanent, again, anything that's happening would be subject to the building code. If it's not subject to the building code, then the city can't require they comply with it. If that makes sense.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, thank you on that. And then I would like to see the downtown theater considered as an entertainment center and developed to offer a place for music concerts, an orchestra, or a place to have a play or a graduation, and any other ideas are more than welcome. further on with ADUs. I approve of the conditions presented for the ADUs by staff, but if it's our goal to activate vacant and underutilized properties and storefronts downtown, then I would prefer to allow ADUs only after trying to fill up our downtown storefronts and businesses first, sort of like a backup if promoting the downtown doesn't work out or if downtown businesses grows past their capacity, then the overflow can be filled by ADUs. And we already went over the alcohol with the owner of Puesto Market. So it looks like that you've already worked on that.

Yes, the concern that was not allowing us to approve their application currently under the current code is addressed here so that that 500 foot buffer would not apply to them anymore.

Okay, and then for the definitions, again, I would like to see the downtown theater defined as a cultural facility as well as an entertainment facility and a live performance theater, if that's possible. And at this point I want to thank staff for going through line by line all the definitions, codes, regulations and maps for this presentation. I appreciate the patience needed to go through and clean up and consolidate this very large body of work. I approve the draft findings in attachment one and I approve of the amendments. to attachments four and 13, along with the zoning maps. I know we'll be getting to that later. And I will vote to approve and to recommend to the city council all of the proposed tax amendments to the municipal code chapter 10, articles one, two, 24, and 28, and chapter six, article two. And I know we'll be getting to the proposed zoning map, but I guess I'll just wait for that. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Stephens.

Thank you. I'm really pleased with the modifications to the zoning language. I'm also really excited that we expanded the data center application in different industrial tracks. I would argue that it should be in any one in the city. But I just want to point out a couple things. And again, I'm fully in support of this, but I just... I find this completely illogical because, you know, a 50 megawatt data center is trivial today. A data center that we're building for a hyperscale use, you know, starts at 100 megawatts and they're all trending towards 300 megawatts. And so Hayward sits in a really unique geography. It's right in line with the 500 kV main transmission line for PG&E. It's also at a crossroads of numerous different fiber optic infrastructure, broadband providers. So it's really an essential location to build this piece of infrastructure, even given that PG&E costs for power are extreme. I just don't understand the logic. We have a CEQA process that assesses what the impacts are gonna be. We have planning staff that can review site development and all the other ancillary issues. We have a public forum where we can illustrate these things and people can test them if they see fit. I don't understand why we have to make this threshold even more difficult to go to city council, especially if I'm gonna build a manufacturing facility, I might be able to just do it through the planning commission, or maybe I can do it even without anything. I mean, I'm troubled by the language of the city council when certain city council members have said that they want to assess special benefits. And when I hear special benefits, that says, well, we have a big, rich client, or a big, rich use, and let's take whatever we can out of them, because they're the new hot thing. And that's not good policy, in my opinion. And I think it makes these type of decisions Places go to other locations, other cities, other states, other countries, and I think it misses the point that we're kind of in an existential fight for AI and computer infrastructure and everything else associated with that, and we're just gonna watch it go by when we make it more complex. I really don't understand the logic. I really wish people would think deeply about these things. I really wish they would study the CEQA documents that are produced and really evaluate the way technology is going rather than have these sort of half-baked approaches to policy. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other commissioner comments or discussion? Commissioner Yorgoff.

Thank you, Chair. First of all, I just want to thank staff again for the lots and lots of hard work to take this through multiple rounds of our review, council's review, public comment. I know it was a tremendous amount of work, so congratulations for getting it to this point. It's great seeing so much simplification to the code. Really good to see flexibility added to our zoning code because that allows us to be flexible and nimble. I mean, I think a particular example. I think an attachment for previously there was a list of multiple examples of, you know, services right and this code amendment is taking that to personal services and I really love that because we can't predict what businesses will be, you know, wanting to build in Hayward in 10, 20, 30 years. This allows us to stay nimble and to not have to then go back 20, 30 years from now, right, and revise our code to pivot to whatever the business environment looks like. So it's a great change. And from the presentation, I want to thank staff for being so flexible with the pivot on the truck terminal definition, because after pursuing something for a while, it's difficult to drop it. But it's great to see that after confusion from the business community, you were willing to take that back and get more feedback before laying it out. So that's great. I think the MCUP is a great addition as a formalized item. Dispensaries, it was always a little weird to me that they were technically a CUP, but were required to go to council. So it's good to see a formalized process that will actually codify it, I guess. And with ACUs, I mean, I'm a huge fan of the program. I think in the previous meeting, I was pretty vocal about that. So it's really exciting to see it at this stage. And actually, I just want to thank my fellow commissioners for the concerns they raised, because trash, for example, isn't something I thought too deeply about. So it's good that that feedback is going to continue to be taken in. And with the vacant businesses that we have downtown, it's obviously a massive concern. And I would hope that this pilot program will actually act almost as an incubator, allowing us to, you know, if someone has an idea of a business, they can trial it out in a low-cost, small environment, and then hopefully fill the vacant businesses we have. So fingers crossed that's the way this pans out. And finally, with the residential office district language, it's great to see us moving from spot zoning to larger general districts that are more applicable. Always weird that the Costco had its own zone. So anyway, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Yorgoff. Anyone else? I would just also like to thank staff then for your work on this report and also just the outreach, the massive outreach that you've done to put this together. I was on the call, the meeting that the city sponsored with the industrial park partners, and I don't remember how many people were on that call, but that both Ms. Riddle and Blanton held their own and were prepared and it was wonderful to see the collaboration. And I think there's just more of that to come and it was a really good start. Thank you again for pivoting on the, on including, not limiting rather, the data centers to the IG and including them both in the IP and IG areas. I, too, am excited about the piloting. I enjoy pilot projects in general. And if it doesn't work out, if there are adjustments, there are additional pivots that need to be made, so be it. But at least we're putting one foot in front of the other, and we're innovating, and we're moving forward on things. Yeah. And with regards to the changes that now would allow Presto Market and other family-owned grocery stores in Hayward to expand some of the offerings that they offer our residents, I'm really pleased to have seen that and that you listen to the community and to our business owners. And I just wanted to wish the the family um you know good luck on on on your on your businesses and thank you for uh investing in hayward um and uh and that's all i i had to say i want to pivot to commissioner myers

Thank you. I know often we thank you guys. You really deserve it doubly this time. This package is amazingly huge. It's like an encyclopedia. And the fact that you guys know what's in there and actually understand what's behind it and answer our questions is very impressive. So I just wanted to let you know that I really am impressed with that. Just wanted to talk about attachment four, page two and three, was the rewording of the various zones. And I thought that was very concise, very well written, and I think it's a good addition to this package. So just thank you for that.

Are there any other comments from the commissioners? Okay, now at this time we can, there's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Low to recommend to the City Council that the proposed text amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 10, Articles 1, 2, 24, and 28 are accepted or approved, and we have a second from Commissioner Harmon.

Chair, just point of clarification, there was a minor amendment that I think staff circulated to the commission before, so I just wanted to clarify the recommended motion did include that amendment that staff circulated tonight, is that correct? Correct. Thank you.

Thank you for that. We can go ahead and vote now. And the motion passes. And at this time, so we want to move to the proposed zoning map revisions and the master fee schedules. So I'll go ahead and turn it over to staff. Right?

Or? Yeah, our presentation on that is the same from the first presentation. So we didn't speak a lot about the fee schedule. We talked about it in the staff report, but we're happy to answer any questions if anyone has any now. And again, the rezonings, we're removing the rezoning of the RO district other than changing one of those use categories or two of those use categories. But we're still proposing the rezoning of the CL and the CR district to CG. Just as a quick summary.

Let me just check in with my commissioners here to see if there's any additional questions or clarifications on the maps and the fee schedule. And again, these are on pages 14 and 15 of the staff report.

Correct. Attachment 14 to the staff report is the rezonings, the maps and the addresses for the rezonings. And then attachment 15 are the new proposed fees for the fee schedule. And they're all basically based on hourly rates, how much time we think that we would need to complete our review of these and our current hourly rates.

Thanks. All right, well then I guess we can go ahead and move to item two, which is the PH-26016, the capital improvement program. Just to clarify, excuse me.

We would need to vote on those other two items since you separated them out into different motions. Yeah, that's what I was. So we would need to vote on those other two.

Oh, okay, yep. All right, so back to item one. We have a motion on the floor to accept the zoning plan, the revisions to the maps. Is there a second?

Yes. Yes, I'll second it.

Okay. And then so for the third item on the fee schedule, is there a motion for the fee schedules to recommend that the City Council adopt the revised fee schedule?

Chair, since there's already a motion and a second on one item, you're gonna have to take a vote on that before you take a motion on the third.

So we took a vote on the first item. And so on the second item, on the proposed map, there was a motion and a second?

Correct, and now there needs to be a vote. It sounded to me like you were asking for a motion on the Master Fee Schedule item and the appropriate thing would be to take a vote on that motion that already has a second.

Okay, Ms. Corral, are you able to bring up the vote? Again, or should we do it orally?

We can do it orally if that's easier.

Would that be easier?

If that works, yes.

Okay, let's just do that then.

So for the second item, who moved the item?

I moved it.

So Commissioner Stevens moved it, and then the second was? I'll second. So Hammond, and then I'll take the roll. Commissioner Hammond?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardy is absent. Commissioner Low?

Yes.

Commissioner Myers?

Yes.

Commissioner Stephens? Yes. Commissioner Yorgo? Yes. And Chair Goodbody?

Yes.

So the item passes unanimously. And then for item three, do we have a mover?

So we now need a motion for the revisions, the update to the master fee schedule.

I'LL MOTION. I'LL SECOND.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER YOGRAFF AND A SECOND FROM EITHER HAMMOND OR STEPHENS, COMMISSIONER STEPHENS IS A SECOND.

AND FOR ROLL COMMISSIONER HAMMOND?

YES.

Commissioner Low?

Yes.

Commissioner Myers? Yes. Commissioner Stephens? Yes. Commissioner Yogo? Yes. And Chair Goodbody?

Yes. And it passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. Okay, now we can move on to item two. PH 26016, capital improvement program recommendations.

Thank you and good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Alex Emery. I'm the Director of Public Works for the city. Staff is pleased to be here this evening to present the city's FY27, FY36 10-Year Capital Improvement Program. The development of the CIP has been a process involving many staff from different divisions and different departments over the past several months. Public Works and Utilities team, has been managed by senior management analyst, Ellie Lowe, who is online. And the process was led by management analyst, Marissa Mata, who couldn't be here tonight. As always, engineers, planners, management analysts, and other staff in different divisions and departments have been involved and contributed to the process. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission finds that the FY2736 CIP is consistent with the City's 2040 General Plan. I now turn this over to Ellie to kick off the staff presentation. Ellie, are you there?

Yes. Can you hear me okay?

Yeah. Perfect.

Good evening. This is the fiscal year 2027 to 2036 Recommended Capital Improvement Program presentation, focusing on how CIP projects align with the Hayward 2040 General Plan. For the past several years, the CIP has been developed in an online budget book, OpenGov Stories format. designed to increase the user friendliness and the ease of navigation within complex budgets. It is also intended to help increase the depth where community members, planning commissioners, and the public can explore the budget. I will now open up the online budget book to provide a quick tutorial on how to navigate it. One moment as I switch my screen. The online version can be accessed at www.haver-ca.gov slash CIP. Scrolling down the CIP webpage, the public can see the first blue bar which will take the user to the online version of the CIP. This is the recommended viewing experience for the CIP because it includes a number of interactive tables and charts. The second blue bar here is to view the entire CIP document in a PDF format. There's also a section on the website for the fiscal year 2026 CIP semi-annual progress report where the public can view the status of current projects. Now I'll open up the online version of the proposed CIP by clicking on the first blue bar. Here you will see the homepage. If you scroll down, you'll see four main sections of the CIP. First, introduction. Second, the strategic priorities. Third, the explore the budget section, which is the heart of the CIP with key budget insights. And lastly, the table of contents page. First, we'll look at the explore the budget page. This page summarizes the fiscal year 27 CIP budget at a high level. The recommended fiscal year 27 budget is $264 million, with a 10-year total budget at $1.3 billion. Below are other key budget insights, such as the fiscal year 27 general fund transfers to the CIP funds, fiscal year 27 internal service fees, and the total identified funded capital needs. Scrolling down, you can choose to view the details of the recommended CIB by fund or by category. I'll start by clicking on buy fund link. Here the public can see an overview of the city's fund portfolio and the total recommended budget amounts for specific funds. If the public keeps scrolling down the page, they will see a description of each fund, and every underlying text will link to a new page that will show the various projects within each fund. For example, if I click on Fund 213 Measure BB Pedestrian and Bicycle Fund, I'll be taken to a separate page dedicated to Fund 213 projects. I can view the various projects within this fund and the category. Beneath the table, there's also a short list of feature projects with each having their own project page. For example, if I click on the High Injury Network Safety Plan Project, I'll see an image, a description of the project, revenue sources that contribute to this project, general fund or measures the impact, and expense budget. Now I'm going back to the Explore the Budget page. This time we will look at the budgets by category. Once again, the public will see a pie chart with the fiscal year 27 total budget, but this time broken down by category. Just like the fund page, the public will see a table with a list of projects, their budgets, organized by category. If the public continues down the page, they will also see links to pages for each category. For example, I'm going to click on the livable neighborhoods link. I'll see a description of what the category is and then another table with the projects. and budgets that are in this category. Similar to viewing by fund, the bottom of the page will also show all the featured projects within this category. Now back to the explore budget one more time. I would like to point out three helpful resources. First, the Appendix A allows a user to search for a specific project budget by using the Control or Command F function. Second, Appendix B allows the user to search for a specific project description. And lastly, I would like to point out at the bottom of every page has a link to the table of contents. When you open up the table of contents, you will see an overview of the structure of the CIP and links to every single page in the CIP. This is the best way to navigate to a particular section very quickly. This concludes the tour of the online CIP budget book. I will now return back to the presentation one moment as I switch my screen. This slide provides a snapshot of the recommended CIP budget breakdown by category. The amounts shown here are forecasted expenses that are planned for fiscal year 27. As you can see here, the largest portion of the recommended 27 budget has been programmed in the sewer system category in blue. This category encompasses a wide range of projects which support the ongoing replacement and improvement of our utility infrastructure. Projects include the annual sewer line replacement and the phase two improvement project at the WRF, which is stand for water resource recovery facility. The second largest category is the water system category in orange, which includes projects like the annual water line replacement, various groundwater sustainability projects, and the needs assessment for a new corporation yard. This slide shows a snapshot of our recommended budget broken down by fund as opposed to category. As you can see here, funds with the largest allocation of the recommended budgets are the water and sewer system funds in blue and orange. And the fund with the largest budget allocation is fund 405 for capital projects. Many projects fall within the livable neighborhoods category, such as Levista Park and the South Hayward Youth and Family Center. The rest of this evening's presentation will focus on demonstrating the proposed CIP's consistency with the Hayward 2040 General Plan. For any members of the public who are unfamiliar with the General Plan, it is a comprehensive document that contains the goals, policies, and implementation programs intended to guide the future development of Hayward. The full plan can be found at the link shown on this slide. The plan's goals and policies are organized into various elements, which are listed in the webpage. The proposed fiscal year 27 CIP includes a number of projects which support these elements. I'll be going over into further detail about some of these projects on the following slides. The following slides will also have the goal or policy number from the 2040 general plan at the top of each slide under their respective element. Projects related to the element, goal, or policy number will be showcased on each slide. First, the public facilities and services element establishes goals and policies to guide the overall provision of public facilities and services in Hayward. The South Hayward Youth and Family Center, which is a community center located on the corner of Tennyson and Ruse Road, as a prime example of a CIP project that supports this element. The Public Safety Center will also fit under this goal as well. Three additional examples include the Water Resource Recovery Facility Switch Gear Rehabilitation, WRF Phase II improvements, and water and sewer annual line replacements projects, which are critical to ensuring the continued operation of water distribution system and future growth of our wastewater treatment facilities and services. The mobility element of the General Plan serves to improve the mobility of people and the goods throughout Hayward. the Campus Drive Improvement Project as a key example of a CIP project that supports this element. This project is comprised of a series of traffic calming measures that have been implemented in the structure of Campus Drive between 2nd Street and Hayward Boulevard. The Patrick Gatton Complete Street Project and the Safe Routes to School Implementation Project are also examples of major CIP projects in alignment with this element. These projects will improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Patrick Avenue, Gatton Road area, and also near Hayward schools to create a safe and friendly environment for multimodal travel in Hayward. Several other mobility projects worth noting includes the pavement rehabilitation project, as well as new sidewalk projects, which are completed every year. They are intended to improve the city's pavement condition index and to expand the city's sidewalk network. The table shows the city's historical PCI for the last 10 years. It is measured on a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 means a newly paved road. The natural resources element establishes goals and policies to protect and enhance the natural resource within Hayward. Our recycled water projects support this element by providing treated wastewater to customers for irrigation purposes, which saves drinking water and reduces the volume of wastewater discharged to the bay. The city started delivering recycled water to about 31 Phase 1 customers back in 2022. Staff is currently in the process of developing a Phase 2 facilities plan to prepare for the expansion of the system. La Vista Park is also another major project that aligns with this element. The project is a 39-acre planned destination park located a quarter mile east of the intersection of Tennyson Road and Mission Boulevard in South Hayward. Construction just started last month and is expected to complete by fall 2027. Additional examples include the 1.4 megawatt solar project at the WRF through which the city is expanding its solar field. Efforts to transition the city's fleet to hybrid and EV models is another example, as well as the citywide EV charging upgrades project. These three items also directly align with the city's climate action plan, which has been adopted as part of the general plan. The community safety element focuses on crime prevention, emergency preparedness, and responses. The new public safety center project aims to develop the conceptual design of the new facility, including site assessment of two potential locations, the former California Air National Guard King site and the former city hall building on Foothill Boulevard. The scope encompasses identifying space needs, conducting site analysis and design, creating facility layout plans, and cost analysis. The land use element establishes goals and policies to enhance Hayward's neighborhood and districts with an attractive mix of uses and amenities. One of the main goals within this element is to create attractive corridors that serve people traveling through the city. The public art crosswalk and the Russell City engagement and art projects are examples that meet this goal. The hazards element aligns with various projects in the Water Improvement Fund for seismic improvements and upgrades. The City requires infrastructure and utility lines that cross the Hayward Fault to include design features to mitigate potential fault displacement impacts and restore service in the event of major earthquakes. The storm drain replacement at Kings Court project is another example. This project will replace or repair damaged storm drain pipes due to old age or erosion from the recent heavy rains over the past years. and will protect life and minimize property damage from potential flood hazards. The CIP also includes landscape material, median tree and shrub replacements project, and a hazardous tree removal and replacement project. Both align with the community health and quality of life goals, as well as the environmental justice element policy. These projects will maintain, enhance, and increase the city's urban forests, as an environmental, economic, and aesthetics resource to improve Hayward residents' quality of life. The CIP by its nature predominantly includes infrastructure projects and does not include direct educational or learning programs. However, the CIP aligns with the education and lifelong learning element by committing to the Community Workforce Agreement, CWA, with the Alameda County Building Trades Council. This requirement is applied to city projects with construction costs of $1 million or more. The CWA requires contractors to use local union hiring halls and encourages contractors to employ Hayward residents or Hayward Unified School District graduates. Similarly, direct economic development programs are typically not included in the CIP. However, maintaining and improving the city's infrastructure, municipal buildings, facilities, fleet, and equipment maintain and improve the economic health and vitality of the city. In particular, capital projects at the Hayward Executive Airport support growth and cultivate economic activities in the area. In addition to demonstrating the recommended CIP's consistency with the general plan, I would also like to take a brief moment to demonstrate its alignment with the city's strategic roadmap. The list of projects featured here is not exhaustive, but does demonstrate a snapshot of the priorities which the CIP projects support. For example, you can see that the CIP projects tend to directly support the invest in infrastructure priority. However, many of the projects support multiple priorities simultaneously. That concludes my presentation. It is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission finds the recommended CIP is consistent with the Hayward 2040 General Plan. Myself and the team are available for any questions.

Thank you, Ali. We are here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Director O'Meary. We can go to Planning Commissioner questions now. Does anybody have any questions? Commissioner Myers?

Hi, thank you. Thank you, Director. I'm wondering if on the great website we have for the CIP, If I'm looking at the pavement rehabilitation for the streets, is there a web page specifically designed to let us see what streets are currently being worked on, what's in the future, and maybe what was completed? I talk to a lot of the public that doesn't quite get the gist of all the work that it's doing and all the costs that it's costing.

All right, so... every year when we go to council and ask them to approve a list of streets to be paved is in the staff report and the staff report is online and it is available even after approval, as you know. So that's one way to do it. We spend about $12 to $14 million a year on pavement improvement. We spend about $5 million a year on ped and bike improvement, pedestrian improvements, and the records of those are available online.

And they're not on this CIP website, though. I can't find them, at least. I would have to look at the verbiage from the staff reports or something like that. Is that correct?

We'll look into if we can put it. That's a good suggestion. We'll look into seeing if we can put that on the CIP website.

Okay, I think the public opinion would hopefully sway a little bit on that if they were able to see all the good work that's being done. I'm not saying it's all bad, but for some of them.

Sorry, I just wanted also to add that we do have a map of all the streets on the city website as they become available. So at the time of the CIP budget book, we might not have all the streets yet, but we do, staff do periodically provide updates on the actual Hayward City website as they become available.

Okay, excellent. I'll look for that. Thank you, Ellie. The other thing is the public safety center. I saw and I know you've addressed it. That was one of my questions. It was on West Winton. And now we have the also the other option of the old city hall building. Do we know when we're going to make a decision on that by chance?

Council hasn't made the decision yet, but all indications are that this site on West Winton Avenue is the preferred site as far as not being next to residential, easier access, larger site, proximity to fire training center, and so on.

Thanks, not like anybody cares, but that was my preference as well. So thank you, that's all my questions.

Any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Harmon?

Yes, these are kind of broad questions. For the city infrastructure, it says that it's a priority and that it's to replace the placement of critical infrastructure that's reached the end of its useful life. Just as an estimate, what percentage of the city's infrastructure has already been changed out or vice versa, how much is still left?

So let me give you an example. We have about 350 miles of water pipeline, and we have a project to replace two or three miles of pipeline every year. in order to be able to keep up with the aging of infrastructure. When it comes to buildings and other facilities, likewise, we have, for instance, we had a library, as you know, that had reached the end of its useful life, and it was replaced by a brand new library. There are other needs, like our police department that was built in 1970s, and it is functionally obsolete, so we are investing in a new building hopefully soon. Our corporation yard that was done in 1960s is inadequate for today's needs, and we are doing a needs assessment as we speak to see what the cost and requirements are to update that for the next 50, 60 years. So it's a constant look at what we have in constant refurbishing and renewing the facilities.

So by the time you finish, let's say, replacing the sewer line, it'll be time to start it again.

Correct.

So, okay. And then regarding the Public Safety Center, South Hayward Youth and Family Center and La Vista Park, how close are we to completing these projects?

So La Vista Park has began construction. There is going to be an internal celebration of the start of construction next week. And I expect the construction to take just over a year. So by fall of 2027, the project should be complete. When it comes to police department, the cost is So we have to look into how we are going to fund that project and what method of construction we are going to use. Is it going to be the traditional design, bid and build with city financing or is it going to be a public-private partnership that would allow us to do such a large project?

So there would be enough money to finish these projects, right?

Correct. We have to determine how the funding is going to work.

Okay. Then the mobility element. Does losing the South Hayward BART or the Amtrak station affect the CIP funds?

Absolutely, positively, and we are not ready to accept losing anything. There was a conversation to that effect by And then they came back and they said, no, no, no, we did not identify any stations per se, and that is premature to talk about that. We will fight that to the end. We are not going to take that, losing one of our stations here in Hayward.

Okay, and are the new safe streets included in this CHP budget?

Absolutely, yes, yes, yes. The core of this budget is improving safety of our streets, safe streets for all, the high injury network, looking into A Street, B Street, Foothill, a part of Mission, and then Tennyson and Calaruga to begin improving, as well as there are 30 intersections in Hayward that have high injury, and we are going to be looking at the top 10 first to make some quick improvements and go from there.

Okay, and then a question about the airport. What projects are the airport currently working on

So basically, airports have two kinds of projects. One are the projects that are at the airport for the airport, like paving, for instance, a taxiway. Taxiway Zulu is being designed now and is going to be paved. Those are projects that are specific to airport. And then there are projects that the property is on the airport, but there is private development that leases the property and develops it. We have, for instance, a hotel home to suites that is on the airport property, or smart and final on airport property, Home Depot on airport property. So these are going to not only benefit the airport in terms of lease money, but also the city general fund in terms of taxes, sales tax, property tax, and so on. And of course, they generate employment in the city.

So the airport is self-generating? They don't take money out of the?

Absolutely, airport is an enterprise. So it only has benefit to the city, and there is no funding from general fund that goes to the airport. It's more or less like the water division.

And just, what are the long-term goals of the airport? Do they hope to turn it into terminals and commercial flights, or?

Not that I know of. It's going to be an airport. We are going to work on financial and economic sustainability of the airport and try to be a good neighbor to our residential neighbors and so on, and also serve the city general fund and also make the airport thrive itself.

Okay, and then for the unfunded needs, what strategies are available to find funds for the unfunded needs?

So we are looking at grant opportunities, we are looking for sometimes loans that are available, and there are some other times that we just leverage what we have in order to tackle the projects that are on the unfunded. For instance, I can tell you that several years ago, the payment condition index in Hayward was about 60, which is similar to other cities around us. We had an unfunded need of $140 million. But over the years, we've been able to leverage different grants, different funds that we receive from different sources, and improve our payment condition. Right now, as you know, last year was 78, which is one of the highest in Alameda County. So that basically removes pressure from the unfunded, and I don't know if the information is in front of you, but I have reduced that unfunded now from 140 million to $70 million, and we keep on doing that until that amount is further reduced.

Because you have a number here of $709 million?

That is the total. That's the total of unfunded, yes. Such as, for instance, police department, which we don't have funding for right now, and other things.

So you can just kind of add on to that. So how does the city raise more money for the CIP projects of bonds and lieu fees, measure transfers, and other funds are not enough to cover the costs?

So let me give you an example. The largest projects that we have done in the city, like Mission Boulevard that we completed, was over $100 million. The library was $75 million. The fire training center was $80-something million. In June of last year, June of 2025, The Water Board passed a new regulation that required the city to remove the amount of nitrogen or nutrients that are in the treated wastewater that meets all of the requirements, all of the requirements in our permit. So they asked us to reduce that by 50%. We have to take on a project to do that.

The cost of that project is $490 million.

So we don't have $490 million, but we have to raise that money through various sources and pay for it. The sources include revenue bonds, using some of our cash reserves or borrowing money from federal government. So these are different ways that we can complete the project, but then raise the cost through rates because sewer is an enterprise, and we cannot use money from general fund. There is a financial firewall between enterprises like water, sewer, airport, and so on, and general fund.

So somehow you find a way.

Yes, but sometimes it's very, very difficult to do that when the position is from the outside without regards to how the cities are going to be able to fund these humongous projects.

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

Thank you. Any other commissioner questions? Seeing no more, I wanted to thank Director Amiri, oh, Commissioner Stephens.

I just have a comment before we, I just wanna go on the record about one thing in this. If you look So the question before us tonight is that the Planning Commission finds the recommended fiscal year 2027 to 2036 capital improvement program is consistent with Hayward's 2040 general plan. I just wanna go on the record that I'm, I don't agree that it is. The specific section I find that's a little troubling is the specific section related to the Community Workforce Agreement with the Alameda County Building Trades Council. And this is mentioned in the educational and lifelong learning elements section. guess i don't understand how that's really connected to the general plan it seems to be that there is some sort of relationship with you the unions and the council members that advocate for these policies and i i would just suggest that the linkage between these two well i think staff did an awesome job of trying to link the two i think it's not consistent, I think there's something funny going on. And I would encourage folks to think if I could hire a non-union contractor and pay prevailing wage and save 10%, what would that do to cut into my unfunded liabilities? If I could cut 70 million out of my unfunded liabilities and other projects, that would go a long way. And so I just wanna go on the record of saying that. So thank you.

Thank you, any other commissioner comments? Director Amiri, I wanna thank you and your staff for putting together all the data and all of the work that's gone into the staff report and into the CIP website, everything that you've done.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Chair Goodbody, we did structure this as a public hearing, so I don't know if there's any public speakers that would like to comment on this item.

We don't have any, okay. Is there any discussion among the commissioners? Commissioner Harmon.

Yeah, I'd just like to comment also that I want to thank the staff for all the hard work you put into this. I know it's a lot of work.

Thank you.

Okay, see no more comments or discussion points from the commissioners. I think we are ready to take a vote. Or a motion first? And we have a motion from Commissioner Stephens and a second from Commissioner Yergoff. And again, the motion is to make the finding that the recommended fiscal year 27-28 capital improvement program is consistent with the Hayward 2040 general plan. I didn't get to register my vote.

It's not letting you register?

No.

I'm not sure why. I can reset the votes if that helps.

No, that's okay. You can just record my vote as yes. Thank you. And the motion passes.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Okay, now for our next item is the approval of minutes. And we have a motion from Commissioner Low and a second from Commissioner Stevens to accept the minutes. We can vote. And the motion is passed. And now on to commission reports.

All right, good evening, Commission. Hope everyone had a nice Easter with friends and family, if that's how you decided to spend it. I just wanted to report we have one item right now for the April 23rd meeting of the Planning Commission. It is a conditional use permit application. to allow outdoor storage for an automotive auctioneer that has another operation in Hayward. So they're looking for a location to place many of their vehicles. So you'll be presented that project at the next Planning Commission meeting. Also wanted to let the Commission know that we have completed our latest update to the DSD biannual report. which I will be setting out to each of you commissioners in the coming days. So you can be on the lookout for that in your inbox. And as you probably remember, the report itself, which is close to 30 pages, highlights all the great work of our housing, code enforcement, building, and planning staff that we have undertaken over the past six months. As well, it provides updates on many of the projects that this Planning Commission has, in fact, approved over the last couple years. So be on the lookout for that. Like I said, and we try to get that sent out every six months. It just gives you kind of an idea of kind of where the project status are. But of course, if you have any questions following that, please reach out to the staff member identified in that area. And that concludes my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Director LoCirico. Are there any announcements from the commissioners? Commissioner Yota.

I know we'll have another meeting in April, but I just want to flag that May is Affordable Housing Month, and there's going to be lots of exciting events in Hayward, across Alameda County, I think across the whole Bay. So, yeah, East Bay Housing Organization is an awesome place that really highlights those, so get it on your calendars early. Thank you.

Thank you for that reminder. If there are no more commissioner or staff announcements, we can go ahead and adjourn this meeting at 8.48 p.m.

recording stopped so