Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

necessity for parking that's on the other site, they are not able to increase the floor area of the building anymore, given the site area that they have.

Okay, yeah, that's very helpful. Thank you for that. And then page 2 of 10. No, I'm teasing. So it also says that the building, a taller building is more feasibly alternative because the constraints of the property, but we still are allowed 53 feet. I mean, we're only going 53 instead of 75 feet. Can you tell me how we made those decisions?

So if they went taller, they would be adding additional floor area because they would be adding more. So it would make the variance request larger if they went taller. Just because they go taller doesn't, it would, if they comply with the minimum street side setback, they'd have to make the building taller, which would make a bigger variance for the FAR. There's only so many levers we can pull to make a project feasible. Either they have to remove, open space or remove parking they'd have to ask for a variance from something they chose to do a variance from far street side setback because they saw the value in providing open space and parking for their operations excellent yes and you know that makes total sense um so i also see on the floor plans

There's four different areas. One is forensics one, forensics two, substance use disorder, and then the other one's special behavior. But I don't see an explanation for any of those. Is it possible to get kind of an explanation on what the forensics levels pertain to?

Yeah, we're happy to provide that over email and stuff because it's related to the use of the building. We can't share specific information because the use is not under review tonight because of that health and welfare code.

Okay. Well, the reason I ask is because I'm trying to understand the requirements or the need to approve the higher elevated security 14-foot fence. So I'm wondering if... if the different areas have different securities or facility requirements, like for security, that's kind of what I'm, the reason I'm asking has a purpose.

will say in general um lots of industrial lots of business within the general industrial district have fences that are this tall the difference is that in other places within the general industrial district they can remove it out of the setback and so they can have that 14 foot tall fence so even while the building has operational needs that may necessitate the 14 foot tall fence many industrial businesses have fences that are this tall because of general security concerns in the area.

Okay. And I guess keeping on the 14-foot fence decision, it does say the plans describe this as a secure treatment facility. I just live down the street from it, so I really want to do my due diligence because I'm the closest one to anybody here, although I would ask as many questions if it was across town. People are like, sure you would. Anyway, so I'm just interested in how the 14-foot perimeter fence relates to the fact that it's a secure treatment facility. Could you kind of explain what secure means?

I can try my hardest. Secure for us means two things. It means secure for the community writ large, and it means the security of our patient population and stakeholders, i.e., staff. We operate a plethora of behavioral health facilities throughout the, at this point, Northern California. you wouldn't believe how important fencing is. And I think we've learned a lot of lessons over time with various types of behavioral health residential treatment facilities. There could be instances where a fence is a secure division to contain the patient population. which is absolutely therapeutic and recovery oriented for the people we serve, as well as kind of reduce or eliminate kind of temptations to the outside community. So the entire design of this project is really trying to bring in as much natural community feeling to an institutional facility, while being both physical barrier, environmental barrier, and I think the height of the fence is really indicative of wanting to ensure both, again, the safety of the community and just the reduction of temptation of behaviors, frankly.

Okay, I think that was very insightful, thank you. Okay, so then I'll move on to the next segment here, which is parking. It looks like we are asking, I see the calculations and I get why we're at 23 parking spaces. On the blueprints, when they were doing the calculations for the garbage disposal, They described the employee count quite different. They said that the first floor will have 20 employees, the second floor will have 10 employees, the third floor will have 12, which is 42 employees. Is that accurate, or do we know what the staffing is going to be and how they base the parking?

So the parking is based on the patient beds. It's not based on staffing. There's a ratio for these type of facilities that's one parking space to every three patient beds. So it's not based on staffing. So they have met that requirement through the calculations described in the staff report. they are welcome to share what their staffings are. I will also share that there is a bus stop right across the street from the thing, so very accessible by bus.

Okay, and so by code, we don't have to allot for any staffing? Is that what you're saying?

The ratio of one to three patient beds, when those ratios are calculated, they take into account the staffing and the population that would be using the facility. So that one to three bed ratio was based on staffing assumptions.

Oh, okay. Okay, okay. And then the traffic, it says, is expected to generate fewer than 110 trips per day. Do we know the actual number of that? So that's a big gap. I mean, that's a big variance, a big option.

Yeah, that is based on, like, models that we use for CEQA purposes that... Transportation divisions kind of create these models to estimate how many trips we would have per day to see if it would cause an environmental impact. So the actual trips per day will depend on the operation of the building. That model is conservative and uses best assumptions based on the use of the building.

Okay, and that would include such things like medical transportation, deliveries, patient drop-off and pickup.

Yeah, not just people who are parking their vehicle here. Anyone who is visiting the site and leaving.

Okay, because that was the impact report, and I wanted to make sure I understood what that was. And then it says the property was previously used as an automobile wrecking and towing facility. Okay. Can you kind of explain what we currently know about the environmental conditions of the property? Is there anything else left still to investigate? I see there was also, like I made notes on your response to my questions too, so I'll ask quickly those. But yeah, just that one for now.

So typically our hazardous materials department requires a phase one, which is the document we attach to your comments. The phase one kind of identifies the hazards that may exist on the site. If there are hazards, our hazardous material department will ask for a phase two to get more information. Our hazardous materials division in this case didn't find anything in the phase one that concerned them, so they are comfortable moving forward with the condition of approval that they go through clearance with the county office of environmental health, and they will do further investigative studies to ensure that the building will be safe for the use. And this is very typical of all development projects in Hayward, not just this one, or ones that were used as previously as automobile yards.

Sure, sure, okay, good, good. And then regarding fire access, I see some of the fire access details are still gonna be worked out, right? Such as the curb and everything. Is the fire department at this point comfortable with moving forward with this?

Yes, they are. We wouldn't be here today if they weren't okay with it and crafted conditions of approval. That is because there is going to be changes to the median. The final design of the median will be at improvement plan stages because it's like a detailed engineering document. um, to do that. Um, and they needed to, the fire department needed to check with their vehicle manufacturer to see how much, um, a lifted curve could they land stably on and deploy their ladder system. But our architect who's on the project understands this and is willing to design it to meet the fire department's needs. Hence why there's conditions of approval related to that.

Okay, very good. Thank you. Um, and then, um, what was, um, And I know it's allowed by right, this project. If for some reason us as an entity is not able to make the findings or approve them, what happens at that point?

The applicant is, if the planning commission denies the variance in the site plan review, that you would need to provide evidence to support why you believe a variance isn't warranted on this site or the site plan review findings cannot be made. And then additionally, then the applicant is given the opportunity to appeal the decision or any member of the public to the city council.

And may I? Is that okay? I think it's a very important question and we've grappled with this quite a bit. We have a very divine kind of attachment to Depot Road because we ran our Hayward Navigation Center there that your city has funded for the last number of years. Alicia Gonzalez is our program manager. She spent more time at this parcel than a lot of us probably have. again in our 70 plus years operating behavioral health residential treatment facilities for people with severe needs which we're seeing such an influx of demand as everyone is across the state frankly we are so committed to this parcel because we think it's such a unique geographic location and we we didn't know that when we moved into depot road we thought is it a little too far far out are unhoused individuals actually going to want to stay and there's actually a health to the actual location of where it is in our city um and you know the 86 just the transportation our staff who have worked there for years um These variances, I think, we had to go through a lot of architectural design processes because it's such a unique footprint and at the same time, I think it's the variances that we are humbly requesting for approval that will make this work. So without them, I don't wanna say we'd be back to the drawing board, but we'd be a little bit closer back to the drawing board. So I appreciate the question because we've had substantial conversations about that.

Okay, and a lot of my questions, I live in the neighborhood. It's been a wide topic, and I'm trying to represent as many questions from the public as I can right now. So thank you for that. Also, is there any other facilities that you know of maybe in the county or in the General Bay area that are close to Waypoint that you can maybe give some examples of? like emergency service calls, unauthorized departures, you know, departures, items like that?

I would like to redirect us away from questions specifically related to the use of the thing. I am sympathetic to your concerns, Commissioner Myers, and we can answer them. I'll answer them offline. If you would like to send me an email, I will coordinate with BACS and get you all the answers about the use, but I would like to caution us from talking about the use.

Yeah, and I took a lot of these questions, and I vetted them against that, and this one passed through, so I apologize.

Yeah, no worries.

You're right. Okay, it shows an on-site generator. How's that? That's good. Oh, but that's not really a variance, Kenneth. I mean, that's not an issue with the variance either, is it?

No, but if you have questions about the variance located on the roof, I'm happy to try my best to answer for our agencies that will review it. But our fire department and our hazardous materials department and the building division have looked at it preliminarily and are comfortable with the location of the .

I'll start to wrap this up with the last few questions. So based on the assessment, so thank you for sending that assessment today. I didn't have time to read it all. It's 1,000 pages, but I got through a lot of it. It shows the assessment's based on 3788. Am I to assume that it covers both properties?

Yes, that is correct. The other property does not have an address assigned to it.

Okay. And then it also states in there that interviewing current and previous owners of the property is a vital and important part of that assessment. But it seems like they didn't interview really anybody. And it even says that the city of Hayward was unavailable, even though we owned it for the last six years. Could you speak about why even Hayward did not give an input on that property?

I can't speak to that specific consultant's reasoning for whether or not and how they reached out to the city of Hayward, but we have, and I have reviewed a lot of phase ones. You don't typically get information from previous property owners. A lot of the time, those phase one reports rely on mapping and old data to kind of assume what the operations were at the site and the potential exposures and then also like samples of the site itself. So it is not uncommon to not have testimony from previous owners.

I don't love that answer, but I think I can't get anything else besides that, right? Which I'm okay with. Okay, so last couple things is Thanks for clarifying the 83 beds question because it's not 83 rooms, right? It's 83 beds with a lot of double rooms. And then a couple more quick notes here. Oh, well, maybe that's it. I wrote them on my other page. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Taylor.

Any other commissioners? Commissioner Hammond?

Yes, thank you. Just for the record, I like this project, but in regards to the items received after the published agenda, given the current environment that the Planning Commission seems to be navigating through at this time, I'm a little uncomfortable perhaps approving a project that I've had very little time to read over a thousand pages. So I'd like to know do these a thousand plus pages have any bearing on the discussion that we're having tonight No as noted in the response to Commissioner comments.

It's not typical that we provide the phase one We provided it because Commissioner Myers requested it The hazard it's a technical document reviewed by our hazardous materials department to form their conditions of approval and it doesn't relate to the overall design and variance request and site plan review that you are reviewing today.

Or the site plan review? Correct. Okay. So with that, questions. So the structure will overwhelm the rest of the structures in the vicinity. Are there plans to develop this area with similar massing or is this a special circumstance because of the unique property line?

Uhm, yeah, the there are approved projects that are in that area that have very large buildings. They're a little shorter because their warehouse buildings and as I previously explained, the code allows for greater FAR for office and administrative uses. So if an office came in to propose next door and wanted to do a similar FAR, there are administrative options within the municipal code that would allow for that kind of massing.

Okay, are you hoping to get other such facilities also in this area?

The city of Hayward is always open to development and we would love to see a lot of these like vacant or automobile use sites be developed. Leah, our planning manager, worked on updates to the industrial regulations back in 2019 to kind of encourage that development. And since then we have seen a lot of redevelopment of sites. There's one just south of this that is a beautiful warehouse building that has a classic car restoration Use in it. So yeah, this is something we are seeing redevelopment in this area.

Okay. Thank you So this location for this type of facility is in a good location But being that It's a it's a good location if the facility is secure can you speak a little bit more about what security measures will be in place and

Absolutely and I think I will, if it's okay, bring up my partners here and introduce our team because I don't know, I don't think you want to get very technical so I can talk programmatically but we have Lillian Mitchell from Mitchell Holiday Architects who have been very involved on the security planning and then Andy Turner who's our chief consultant for the project. So I don't know if you guys want to come up and talk more about technical security or if you want more of a programmatic security.

I'm just concerned that this, or I'd like to be assured that this facility will be secure.

Yes. Okay, well, I can start with... facility design as it relates to the target population and the interventions, and then certainly rely on my partners if you have any more physical space security questions. So all residents that come through Waypoint will be evaluated prior to admission based on a very clear set of inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria that are dictated by the state of California government. All residents will have controlled access from entry point through exit point. So residents patients are not permitted to leave the site at any time. So it is indeed what we would say in the industry like a locked facility. And all of the design elements of the Mental Health Rehabilitation Center are two standards that we have to follow. There's very specific kind of hospital-based standards for this level of treatment and care. And that's where we can get into a lot of technicality if you would like. But one of the important factors and why we're presenting and asking you for the variance approval is frankly because we wanna ensure the health and safety, the security of both the community at large, like I said before, as well as the patient population and the staff population. So it is state of the art, it's built to the 2026 standards. We've actually over designed it because of prior experience to ensure that we are putting in every feature and it's very expensive, as we know, to do so, but to ensure that the patient experience, the resident experience, as well as the community experience is of utmost security. So that is where the fence really does come in as one example.

Okay, yeah, that's good. Thank you. So, let me see. Are the other businesses near the site aware of what this facility be?

Yeah, the notice included that this is a mental health rehabilitation facility. So everyone in the vicinity was noticed and it is included in the notice.

And was there any, what was the feedback?

We had one, only one comment related to it. And he... did not believe that use is suitable for the industrial district but we explained to him the welfare and institution codes and he ultimately understood that what the state was trying to do with those regulations but didn't appreciate it being in the industrial area and thought it was more suitable for a residential area

So are there any other facilities like this in that area?

So there are not currently facilities located within that area, although our Hayward Municipal Code would allow this facility with the approval of an administrative use permit. So it's not that we don't allow it. We do allow it just with an administrative use permit. And the City of Hayward has another one of these proposed currently located in the residential area in Hayward. And this is not the only facility we have.

Okay, thank you. The next questions are more about the structure. I did not see that you have solar panels installed on this site. Will there be solar panels on this site?

Yes, there will be rooftop solar. Those details will be provided. They're not within the project plan because they are construction level documents and they'll be provided at the building permit stages.

Okay, and then I saw in the comments after publication that there will be three EV chargers. Is that located on the site side or on the parking side?

Would you like to come up here, Lillian? Do you want to come up?

I think you should come up. Is that okay?

Yeah. I don't want to be up here on the stand by myself. Get up here.

Lillian Mitchell, the architect, assisting backs. We have three EV parking, charged parking on the Whitesell parking side, and then three EV ready will be there as well.

This is across the street in the parking? Across the street, yes.

One of the reasons that we don't have it on the larger property is that there is sewer easement, and... They do not want us to put anything permanent across that easement, and that's what would need to happen to have a charger at one of those three parking spaces.

In the likelihood that you and I might need to do some work on the easement, would it be still possible to install them and easily have them removed?

Now that I will defer to Stephen Wolf, Public Works Utilities to talk about what is allowed in and outside the easement. They did kind of propose other things and the Public Works Utilities Division does not want anything permanent within the easement. Stephen, do you mind answering that question?

Yeah, we want to make sure that our crews have access to provide any repairs as needed on the sewer line itself. So if we need to excavate to make repairs to the sewer line, so anything permanent, we wanted anything that could be removed easily.

Okay, is it possible on the parking side of Whitesell to put in more EV chargers or even to put solar panel shade over the parking to add extra solar?

We haven't looked into that. I suppose it's possible, but we have some pretty serious budget constraints, as Jamie Almanza has mentioned. I think that anything we're doing would preclude that happening in the future as well. So we can look into putting in whatever infrastructure would support that in the future.

Certainly, that'd be helpful.

It'd be wonderful.

I see that the mountable curb is mentioned. It's already existing.

I don't think the curb currently meets the definition of mountable that the fire department is looking for. And as Taylor mentioned, that exact criteria is going to be coming forward through Public Works and the fire department.

Correct, right now it's just a curb. It's not a mountable curb, so there's no kind of angle up for a vehicle to drive onto the curb. It's just straight down. So the fire truck couldn't mount it currently, but it will be redesigned so that can occur.

Okay, and then I noticed that it's kind of a long walk from the bottom of the parking lot up to the closest crosswalk. Is it possible to put a crosswalk maybe through the median?

Because of the current, like, median and the traffic circulation the transportation department would not support any additional pedestrian walkways in that area also as noted throughout the presentation white cell was just recently designed and stuff and that met their bike and ped master plan goals and things like that so an additional pedestrian crossing um would not be supported by the transportation division okay so they'll just have to get their steps in um

And then where's the nearest overflow parking going to be located? It didn't seem like there might be enough parking spaces for everybody that's working there. And I would hope that they would use the bus stop. But is there a plan for off-street parking?

There is street parking surrounding the site. And it's because of the area's development, it's really unused. There's a high level of vacancies.

Okay, and then I see on the plans that you're gonna be taking out a tree and replacing with another tree?

Yes, yeah, we are taking out one tree. Frankly, I don't believe it's that healthy, but we are preserving the nice redwood that's at the front. We consider it sort of iconic, I would say, and there'll be measures taken to protect the tree during construction and, of course, take care of it for its lifespan.

But you would have to remove one and you're replacing it with another. I was just wondering maybe if you might consider adding maybe a couple more trees to the...

We are replacing the tree. I think one of the issues is broadly speaking concern for the resident safety and so the plant selection is quite specific, although we've got some lovely landscape plans.

Yeah, I saw that. I like the landscaping plans. I just hate losing the trees, so you might be able to add some more somewhere else.

I can speak a little bit to the trees. The tree is located, the existing tree is located on the parking lot site, so they, unlike the redwood tree, there was no way to move around it without reducing the number of parking, and it was important for them to meet the parking requirement. Additionally, the tree they are replacing it with is a larger tree. So I think it is, I'd have to go check this out for, I think it's a 36-inch box tree, and the tree currently that's there is much smaller.

Okay, well, that's all the questions I have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Low. Thank you. And thank you for a presentation, Ms. Richard. You mentioned a little bit about the, you over-designed the fence. Can you just give us some of the features of the fence, please?

Absolutely. Lillian will need to be summoned back up here.

Thank you. Can you repeat your question and maybe a little more specific?

Well, she mentioned that the fence was over-designed, and so I was asking, I don't really have a concept for what that means, so I was just asking for a few examples of what that would mean.

The features, yeah, I think we're, unlike a lot of fences you see in generally this fence we are incorporating the design on the street side in with the whole building so it'll be a colorful fence utilizing the same materials as we're using on the face of the building some color palette and then further we will be on the inside for the residents, there'll be finishes on that side that are also conducive to this sort of therapeutic environment and their safety. So it's like a lot of fences, there'll be one sided, this one will have design emphasis on both sides.

And one of the things that you'd mentioned was the, or at least it sounded like, in the over-designing of the fence, the over-designing was for safety. What features are specifically geared towards safety?

Let's see, well, there's, The height of the fence?

Yes.

Yeah, it's the height and that it'll also be what they call an anti-climb fence so that no one can climb up, fall off, get hurt, try to climb over. So it's a very specific kind of fence and driven by that kind of safety concern.

Thank you very much, I appreciate your answer. So for staff, I wanted to go back a little bit to the variances. So as far as the variances are concerned, one of the things it says says we may approve or conditionally approve a variance request with the following findings. And you know what those are. But what I was specifically getting at is it talks about the variance doesn't constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations of other properties in the vicinity, and doesn't deprive this property of privileges that other property has. So can you speak a little bit to whether or not the variances for this property would result in like special privileges for this property?

Yeah, I will start by saying that this property does not resemble any other properties in the district. There is nothing in the IG district that is this small, also have this much of frontage and is that weirdly shaped. And it's partially because this one was formed through the eminent domain process. Because of its shape and size, it doesn't have the same privileges as other properties. As I noted previously, everyone is allowed a 14-foot tall fence in the industrial district. However, the other properties have the ability to set it back because there is just more area. um most of the projects also have larger site areas and not a large pg e easement that run through it which means that they can comply with the minimum street side setback because they have enough area to relocate the building and then lastly for the far they have additional area to balance the floor area ratio this property because of its size just doesn't have the ability to achieve any of those while all the other properties in the district are able to meet those standards and regularly In my time here, we haven't brought any variance requests because there are just frankly not parcels that qualify for these kind of exceptions because they meet the lot size and lot frontage and lot requirements. Unfortunately, because of the way this parcel was formed, it is just unique, and that is why variance findings exist in zoning ordinances for these special scenarios where the parcel just doesn't work.

Thank you very much for that explanation, and that's all the questions I have.

Commissioner Harding.

Thank you, Chair Goodbody, and thank you, staff, for the presentation. My first question, I'm not sure if it's for staff or for the applicant. What is the ideal height for a security fence for a project like this? Did we go with 14 feet because that is what some of the other businesses have, or is that actually a standard that you have in other places?

I would say from my typical review of applications, I have seen fences this tall. Specifically, we do see them for cannabis and other sensitive users where they really want to make sure that individuals are not entering the site. So there is no standard of how tall a security fence is. It kind of depends on the design and the property itself, but this is not atypical. May I?

I think it's a wonderful question. I don't think I've ever been asked that question before, but in treatment-focused residential care for people with very acute behavioral health needs, the height of the fence is hypercritical to, again, I hate to repeat myself, but keeping the resident milieu, if you will, safe, really staving off temptation. So I think the question around the design of the fence too is we wanna make sure people aren't passing stuff through the fence. And like Lillian said, having temptation or being actually physically able to jump over the fence. We have the staffing and the interventions and the tools in our toolkit to do so, but the 14 feet I think is exactly to my colleague's point on staff. And I think for us, we've just had a lot of learning lessons over the last, 50 years, I'd say, including in the unincorporated area of Hayward, where it's really just, it's so integral to the containment, I guess would be the right word for it. So I appreciate your question. It doesn't answer it directly, because if you wanna approve to a couple more feet, no, I'm kidding.

Well, not that I'm saying, that's it. But I was just wondering if that's just the standard that you always ask for in places, or? Yes. My other question really has to do with community engagement. Since there was just the one community member who spoke up about this, I'm just wondering if this were to be passed, if any plan there is for outreach. I know that it was addressed around the proposed use and that's not something we're gonna get into. following this either most likely. But even just the compatibility of the building with the surrounding area and just the neighborhood, like would there be any follow up with the neighbors with that? Even some of the things we learned tonight about the reasons for the fence or just security and the way it will look and just things that they may actually appreciate learning. Just people don't all watch Planning Commission meetings. Is there any plan or possibility for anything like that?

I will let Bax take this over. I will start by saying, while the city doesn't do notification after approvals, when projects start to get online, the planning division gets calls and we're happy to answer any of the questions about it. I will say I handled the other projects project that is similar to this facility and the community members will find it in common comment so the fact that we did not receive comments is indicative that the community is comfortable with the location of where this facility is and i will let backs talk about whether or not what their kind of notification process is moving forward as they begin construction if approved

Thank you, and if I may also invite up Andy Turner, our chief project manager for the site. I will say in advance of Andy sharing, BACS has a good neighbor policy, and we really embody that. That's why Alicia Gonzalez is here. She knows the businesses pretty intimately from when we operated the Hayward Navigation Center there. It's a very different environment facility, and in fact, just thinking about general neighborhood concerns, this facility, like I said before, has controlled access for residents, whereas the Hayward Navigation Center is voluntary. People can and should come as they go, or come and go as they please, and so just to say before I pass it over to Andy, we absolutely do community engagement. Neighborhood events, we invite communities, neighborhoods, both businesses and residential to come. People are curious, you know, so we tend to before like a grand opening wanna just like, do people wanna tour to see what's going on in their backyard, those kinds of things. And then also being ultra responsive to community challenges. neighbors have my phone number, my cell phone, and our leadership teams, and it's on our website. And so we can't be successful if it's not for us being good neighbors. And I'll pass it over to Andy, if that's okay.

Sorry.

Thanks Jamie Thank you to the Commission for the question appreciate it, I would just like to point out that, unlike a lot of projects, you know, this is a pretty specific facility. So a lot of our public outreach is not going to look quite the same as it would for a typical commercial or residential use we're not necessarily inviting people in to think about the colors. We're really spending that type of effort and time consulting with our colleagues at Alameda County, in the health department, at the state and other subject area experts really across the industry to make sure that this facility works correctly for who it's designed to serve and what it needs to do. So I think that the level of intensity is probably even higher, but it's a little less outward looking and a little more focused on how this facility is going to work, you know, for the environment that it's creating. And I think that sort of follows up what Jamie's been talking about security as well. That said, from a construction perspective, I can say we have a great team. When we get there, they will be out there talking about dust, noise, parking, deliveries, and all the rest of it, but that's a moment in time that's not necessarily the purview of this conversation, just to let you know. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Commissioner Stephens, do you have any questions?

No.

Okay. All right. I'm going to go ahead and ask my questions. This is for staff. So going back to Commissioner Meyer's discussion about the state law, So the project summary states that the state law prohibits the city from issuing conditions of approval, but yet on the, one of the beginning paragraphs in the staff report, says that we are, the recommendation is for the Planning Commission to approve the proposed variance and site review plan subject to the attached findings, attachment to, and the conditions of approval. Was that a typo or?

No, we do have conditions of approval, they're just not related to the use. They're related to the building and the development itself.

Thank you. And then on page three of the staff report, can you clarify what is a class three bicycle facility?

It is a typical bicycle facility that you see on the road, so it has no protections or separations from the vehicle roadways.

Okay. And then in terms of the... On page seven under the site plan review, can you clarify how this project has compatible on-site uses?

So This is specified in the project findings. As noted, the building is, without discussing the specific use, operates similarly to a hospital or an office building, which is a use seen throughout the industrial area. So it is compatible with other uses in office buildings that are seen throughout the site operationally.

Okay. Um, and this is just a question of just a general question about sort of maybe the industry. And I, you know, I don't want I want to be careful not talked about the uses. But I When I first heard of this application, I expected something totally different. I expected to see something maybe that was closer integrated or co-located with an existing clinic, St. Rose Hospital or Eden Hospital, whatever. And I'm wondering if that, if this, have we moved Are we way past that? Is that something that your organization or others in the industry are doing or would consider? It seems to me that it would be more of a holistic integrated care for the residents that need the services. Can you comment on that?

Absolutely, it's such a wonderful question. In 99% of every other intervention in the behavioral health field, we absolutely prioritize looking for geographic spaces that are co-located for the resident or the patient population. This type of facility and intervention is self-contained, if you will. So the treatment by the practitioners, whether it's medical doctors, which are psychiatrists, nursing staff, behavioral health clinicians, et cetera. The services need to be deployed at the site because the type of facility and it being a mental health rehabilitation center, it is controlled. So it's the only intervention that I would ever say that about, but we do bring in partners, so local FQHCs, et cetera, to provide onsite services.

Thank you. Commissioner Myers, do you have an additional question? Go ahead.

Thanks. A couple things I found. I've been looking at the environmental site assessment, and it shows it's three years old. Do we have anything that's more recent?

um no but they the uh assumptions made in the report are still standing because the site isn't like it hasn't been introduced new environmental hazards okay um yeah and i also see on here based on all the old um

and the previous former owners, which spans a lot of different companies. But the last line of the paragraph in the assessment here says, however, it should be noted that if the land use changes in the future, additional investigations may be warranted. Now, doesn't this constitute a definite land use change?

Yeah, which is why there's a condition of approval requiring that the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health provide site clearance.

So when they reference that additional investigations may be warranted, it's not actually of the site, it's just that we have to give a different level of approval, is that what I'm asking?

So the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, which provides the clearances, does typically ask for some soil samples or other things to screen the site. So there will be additional information requested of the county department. But based on the information we have right now, we don't see any hazards that would prohibit this development from moving forward.

Excellent. Okay. And then lastly, let's see, how do I word this? So first off, this is a comment, but there's a question after. I adore BACS. I think what BACS does is amazing. I have a son who is unhoused and probably undiagnosed mental. I've been to one or two of the St. Regis meetings regarding before when this was amalgamated. And right now you kind of have the floor because you heard the people at St. Regis and a lot of their questions. We're in another neighborhood right now. You don't have to because this is not what it is. It's not our purview. But is there anything you're willing to say about... the project that could help alleviate the hundreds of residents who have concerns about why it's not at Regis or what kind of safety measures we have. Again, you don't have to. I'm just asking you for, if you have the floor, would you like to?

Yes, and I'm trying to stay within your rules tonight, because I'm usually, would be very quick to want to have the floor and comment on this. I think this project is so uniquely different than the interventions in most other projects, including Regis Village. The main one being what I just commented to around, this is a certified locked mental health treatment facility for those individuals who have such acute needs that they need not only institutional care, but they need involuntary care that is in a setting that is completely protected, which is the opposite of Regis Village. And I think there's an opportunity to continue to engage the community around like the education of various interventions, because it's not obvious. And so I've gotten questions about other sites, including Regis Village, around like, can people come and go? Absolutely they can, it's voluntary, versus this is very, it's just on the opposite side of the spectrum. Which I think, makes this specific location, the specific design, and the, again, the humble request for these variances so integral, because as you know, we know the feedback we get from the community every day, what we experience is the demand for individuals that are suffering so, so much right now that we drive by, we see on the streets every day. this intervention is for that individual to, again, be protective for themselves from a human rights and health and safety perspective, and then, again, the community at large. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all, Chair.

Are there any more questions from the Commissioners? Okay, at this time, I'd like to open it to public hearing. Members who wish to address the commission, if you would please provide your card to Ms. Allen. Ms. Allen, do we have any speakers? We do not. Okay. I will close public comment then. And at this time we can move to discussion among the commission. So at this time we can ask questions of the applicant or just deliberate. Commissioner Stevens.

Thank you. So first off, I'm sort of depressed because this land use would have fit a nice data center, a nice 25 or 30 megawatt data center. That would have been great. But in all seriousness, I'm really excited. I think it's a really creative use of the site. I compliment the architect. The articulated facade on the 600-foot radius is just absolutely amazing. So excellent work, really supportive of this. And I'd be happy to make a motion to... approve that the Planning Commission approve the proposed variance in site plan review subject to the findings and conditions of approval that were attached here tonight. Is there a second?

I'll second. Moved by Commissioner Stephens and seconded by Commissioner Hardy. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Hammond?

Yeah, I also want to say for the record, I like this is a really good use of the infill space. And I think this, I want to say that I appreciate all the work that the architects had to do to make this facility fit on the site. So with that, I also like to say that I appreciate the proximity to the bus service. And I hope that frequent service will help encourage people to use transit instead of driving, and I'm also aligned with staff's recommendation for approval of this project, and I'll wait for the vote.

Great. Ms. Allen, if you want to call the roll, roll call vote.

Are we going to do it verbally?

I have it up on my iPad. Do the other commissioners able to vote? We'll have to move to a roll call vote.

Commissioner Hammond?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardy? Yes. Commissioner Low?

Yes.

Commissioner Myers?

Just wanna say to BEX, thank you for what you do. Please keep doing that, I'm a yes.

Commissioner Stephens?

Yes.

Chair Hardy? Chair Goodbody, sorry.

Yes, thank you, thank you for investing in Hayward. And the motion passes. Next we move on to item 2PH2636.

staff could we pause for a moment of course yes to give just take a five minute break thank you we'll take a five minute recess

Are we ready? Welcome back. We are now considering item two, PH 26036, consideration of proposed amendments to the Hayward 2040 general plan. Turn it over to staff now.

Hello again, Hayward Community and Planning Commission. For those who might have missed, I'm Taylor Richard and I'm joined by fellow associate planner Dulce Ochoa to share some proposed general plan text and map amendments to implement the Hayward downtown specific plan. Back in 2019, the Hayward City Council adopted the Hayward Downtown Specific Plan to achieve the community's vision of a resilient, safe, attractive, and vibrant downtown. The Downtown Specific Plan included programs to achieve this vision, which include the two programs identified on the screen and in the staff report. This project aims to implement these two programs to ensure consistency between the Hayward 2040 General Plan and the Hayward Downtown Specific Plan. These programs were crafted through an extensive community outreach process, which included the formation of a downtown specific plan task force, a community workshop, a five-day design charrette, and a community open house. To implement these programs, we conducted additional community outreach, which included tribal consultation, notification to the community, and a community meeting. To date, public comments have expressed a desire to create consistency on their sites between the general plan and the downtown specific plan. With that, I'm gonna pass it off to Dulce to describe the proposed amendments.

Thank you, Taylor. The proposed tax amendments to the general plan land use designations, city center retail and office commercial, CCROC, and city center high density residential, CCHDR, can be found in attachment three. Currently, the CCROC and CCHDR designations have no minimum density and allow a maximum density of 110 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendments would establish a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre and increase the maximum density to 210 dwelling units per acre. The amendments would not change the allowable uses or building forms within the subject land use designations. The general plan land use designation map amendments can be found in attachment four. The map amendments would redesignate 130 parcels identified in the downtown specific plan from their existing land use designations to the CCROC designation. Those 130 properties currently have the following land use designations. Commercial high density residential, medium density residential, parks and recreation, sustainable mixed use, and lastly, public and costly public. Only seven parcels with parks and recreation land use designations between Mission Boulevard and A Street are proposed for remapping to address zoning inconsistencies. One BART-owned parcel would be remapped from PQP to CCROC to match the surrounding BART-owned property for future redevelopment purposes. On the left is the existing general plan land use designation map, and on the right is the map showing the proposed amendments. As discussed in the staff report and shown on this slide, the proposed general plan text and map amendments are fully consistent with the city plans and policies and will strengthen the city's competitiveness for grant funding opportunities and support BART's redevelopment efforts at the downtown Hayward BART station. With that, I'll pass it back to Taylor to discuss CEQA.

Lastly, the implementation of these programs was fully analyzed under the environmental impact report prepared for the Hayward downtown specific plan adoption. As such, there's no additional analysis needed under the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA. And with that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they approve the proposed amendments to the Hayward 2040 General Plan to implement the adopted programs within the Hayward Downtown Specific Plan and review findings that the project is fully consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This concludes staff's presentation and we are happy to answer any questions you may have. We are also joined by Byron Tang, Deputy Director of Public Works Transportation.

Thank you, Ms. Richard and Ms. Ochoa. I'm gonna move now to planning to commensurate questions. Let me just. Okay, I don't see any requests to, oh, hold on, Commissioner Lowell.

Thank you, thank you for your presentation. What I was wondering is currently you just said that the CCROC and CCHDR designations have no minimum density and allow a maximum density of 110 dwellings per unit, units per acre. What was that based on?

I can't specifically say what that is based on, but it is in line with the upper kind of end was in line with less dense like industrial or residential areas. So like 110 is aligned with that. I believe that the when we adopted the downtown specific plan, they intended to adopt a 40 but unfortunately the way they was adopted, it didn't clearly state that. So I think at the time we were supposed to adopt a 40 minimum. It was fully analyzed and in the environmental impact report as always having a 40 minimum. So I think the zero minimum was a mistake.

Thank you.

That's all I had. Commissioner Hammond.

Yes, thank you, staff, for your report. So some questions. What is the long-term goal for the remapping of the 130 parcels to the CCROC land use designation?

So currently there's a lot of inconsistencies between the general plan and the zoning, so through this effort we would fix that. So bring those properties to be consistent with their zoning and their general plan land use designation.

Sure, but do you have something planned for that?

Not necessarily. I mean, Hayward's always open to development rights. It's whatever comes, and we'll analyze it whenever it comes through.

And I will add the downtown-specific plan created that vision. So when the downtown-specific plan was adopted, it identified types of buildings, types of uses, and all of that that were going to be allowed in the downtown-specific area. We are cleaning up the general plan, so that way those documents are consistent so that vision can be achieved.

So then you might be up to building taller buildings?

We are not proposing any changes to the heights that are allowed in the downtown specific plan.

But this will, if we approve it, then this potentially could allow for higher buildings in that zone?

We are not changing any of the height regulations within the zoning districts. So whatever is currently allowed would be able

So, okay, then approximately how high could we build with a density range of 110 max?

Currently, across the downtown specific plan zoning districts, we allow a height range of, or a maximum height range in certain districts between 35 feet in the areas that are farther away from the BART station, and then closer to the BART station, we allow a maximum height of 124 feet.

Okay, very good and then What is our goal for the existing residential development near the water tower along the The new opens in the new open space on the hill so I don't have them if you have the map just north of the old city center and way up on the top right corner. There's an empty space, a water tower in that area. Are you planning on potentially developing that area?

We spoke, that's a HOA-owned property, I believe. There's a community of townhouses, I think you're referring to that as there, and that is a portion of their property. Through our outreach project, we talked to a couple of the people who own condominiums projects right in there. The HOA doesn't have plans to develop it at this time, but creating these consistencies would allow development there more easily.

Is there any plans for them to take out what's there and then?

No, there are no plans right now.

Okay. And then I have a question about, can you answer what parks and recreation changes will be made at the Mission and A Street location? That one kind of had me a little confused. Was that parcel ever used?

Yeah, so there's seven parcels that currently have a parks and recreation general plan land use designation. They're going to be changed to CCROC. Those seven properties currently have commercial and residential on them, so they don't have any parks and rec uses on them right now.

Was it before?

I don't think so. No, yeah.

Okay, then on to, in addition to the One Bay Area Grant, what other grants are we eligible for if we make amendments to the general plan?

Um, I think the consistency of these consistency updates would also be something that was called for in our pro housing designation. So those are state that makes developers like backs or affordable housing developers more competitive when they apply for affordable housing funds. Um, and so and then in addition, I think besides one Bay Area grant, there are other T O C like NTC TOC projects and so these amendments would bring us TOC is transit oriented communities would bring us into closer make us more competitive for grant funding so when you look at certain points we would be weighted lower if we're less consistent and weighted higher in those grants if we're more consistent. At this point, they're just probably still gonna be rolling out grants and using the TOC guidance as a measure of competitiveness, because we're all going after the same grants. So you want to increase your points as much as possible.

So the city receives money from these grants?

The city, so you're talking about OBAG grants? The city received OBAG II grants.

Can you clarify just for the public the acronyms?

Oh yeah, one Bay Area grant, OBAG. The OBAG III cycle, we did not get any grants. So in getting in compliance with OBAG IV, the TOC, which is the next cycle coming up, OBAG IV, that's what we're trying to be eligible for. And we have about a year to reach that point.

And so how would the money be spent?

So, MTC will release call for projects, and we would apply for that, and if we meet the requirements for the TOC, the TOC requirements, that would allow us to go after that. In addition, if we meet the TOC requirements, we will be kind of, there's another category we will be eligible for, it's about 45 million expected. That will also be something we will be competitive for if we meet these requirements. Okay, so is that also for the future MTC grant funding opportunities? Yes, and right now it's vague. There's not a lot of, they haven't really sent any call for projects yet or anything, but it is expected in the future. And the money would be spent the same way?

Yeah, yeah. Okay, and let me see. These are just kind of general questions. Is there a way to expand the present required radius? I'm not sure if it's 500 for public outreach notification. There's a certain radius around the site?

So we notified every single property owner that was being remapped. So it wasn't, it's not a radius thing for that. If you're talking about general, like planning things, we can defer, that's not kind of within the scope of this project, but we're happy to look at that.

Sure, I understand that, but kind of, again, it seems like there's a lot of concern about the public not being informed of these things, and I was just wondering if it's possible for a larger area of the Hayward population to be notified about this and, well, maybe like the last project and any other projects that we have going on.

Yeah, so we notify in accordance with the municipal code and state law, which is if there's a specific project site, it's within 300 feet of the project site. That's municipal code and state law. State law only requires us to notice a decision or a public hearing. but we also send out a notice of receipt of application. So we get an application, we send that out. That is just, that's a courtesy notice over and above state law. In a situation like this where it's city initiated and it impacts more than 1,000 properties, we do not mail notices directly to people unless, as Taylor pointed out, people's own property zoning was gonna be impacted. Those people were directly informed. But in a situation like this, we publish in the newspaper in according, to state law, if there's over a thousand notices due to the cost of sending this out, notification in the newspaper is adequate.

And in general, what is the, it doesn't seem like we get a lot of feedback from all of the outreach that you do, whether it's a newspaper or in the general vicinity, it seems like a somehow the word's just not getting out there. I guess I'm just trying to figure out a better way maybe of informing the citizens of Hayward that the projects are going on to give them a better chance maybe to weigh in. I guess that's more of a comment, huh? Okay. And then here's just a, I see this come up a lot in all of the projects about feedback. How much feedback does our local tribal organizations provide and how much say do they have in zoning decisions or potential upcoming developments?

So state law requires us to notify all tribes that have requested to be notified for a project. So we notified all of them and two tribes requested consultation. City staff has to work with the tribe until kind of like consensus is met so we met with the confederate nation of the confederate tribes of legion nation and we had a meeting with them where we discussed the project um they were generally supported they were really excited to see that the san lorenzo creek area was not being reason the general plan wasn't changing there was remaining a park in wildland areas and they were excited to learn about the existing policies that the city has about future development and how they could be included in projects that would occur within the downtown area so following that meeting they said that all of their questions had been met and they closed the consultation period as for the other tribe we reached out to them via email after they requested consultation five or six times and they never responded to us so we were forced to close public comment without having the chance to discuss with them

So if there is negative feedback from a local tribe, can they stop a project?

Um, we have to make a best faith effort to work with them, um, to make, ensure their needs have met what mostly the tribes are concerned about is actual development projects, less about policy work. And they want to make sure that when there are development projects that could potentially impact their tribal resources, that a tribal leader is on site to be able to watch excavation and things like that. That is mostly what they express to us is their desire. So they are involved in kind of that process. Based on my conversations with them, that is their key point, just having site investigation and being able to watch construction occur.

All right, thank you. That's my question, thank you.

Commissioner Myers.

Thank you, Chair. Some of my questions have already been answered, so you guys can relax. No. Regarding the height again, SB 79, does it not allow for nine-story buildings where our downtown code allows for seven-story? And if that's the case, does that mean we're going to sometimes have nine-story buildings around?

Yeah, so SB 79 allows up to 95 feet at the maximum, right? So yeah, it might be nine stories, but that's through SB 79 if the developer chooses to go through the SB 79 route.

Okay, and that would only be for those projects that use SB 79, right?

Yeah, exactly.

Okay, cool. Okay. And then also, we're going to be rezoning some of the many properties. And we're almost doubling the 110 to 210, really. Do you have any properties that might not be able to adequately appease that requirement?

So that is the maximum density. So they need to hit between 40 and 210. Me and Dulce did a lot of research about what currently density ranges we are seeing with the projects that this planning commission has previously approved. Of all the projects we have recently approved in the downtown specific plan area, The densities typically range at the lowest as to 40 dwelling units per acre, and then we had some in the 180, 190, and those are projects that included density bonuses. So they had to use a density bonus to go above the 110. So while this is a change, it's not different than the development we have been seeing proposed in downtown.

Okay, yeah, that totally makes sense. And then I know, I think it was 2019, we had the EIR done for the downtown improvement thing. we're totally okay, we think that all of these adjustments are gonna align fine with this impact report?

Yeah, so they analyzed this development build out at that density range and they assumed that these parcels would change general plan. So that EIR fully analyzed it and was certified and all good. So we're just using that same document because we're just implementing the plan.

Okay, cool. My other question had been about my concerns on who all was notified, but I think you guys answered that. And then regarding the parks, I believe you answered that online. Okay, I think that's it. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Hardy. Thank you. I think maybe all of my questions have been answered, except for one. So can staff explain how the seven PR parcels became inconsistent with the zoning?

I did my best to research that. It's not very clear. So that change may have occurred in the most recent update of the general plan or the previous. It's unclear. But through the outreach process with the downtown specific plan, which was a very extensive outreach process, that community wanted to see kind of this vision of downtown. And there is ample park space that is actually used as park right now and maintained and has been enhanced since the adoption of the plan. So while I can't speak to specifically, my gleaming from the outreach was that this wasn't needed. the current condition current conditions on site mean that the existing development that there that is currently there is all non-conforming to our regulation so by doing this we'll bring them all into conformance with our current regulations so there was never any actual plan for any recreation or no the buildings that are there are very old they're like constructed in the like i would say like 1920s to 1940s so they're quite old so there hasn't been plans and they're all privately owned it's not owned like by hard or a park district so yeah i don't believe there was any plans to ever put a park there thank you that's all any other commissioner questions

Okay, seeing none, then I will move to the public hearing. Ms. Allen, do we have any speakers online or in the chambers? There are none in the chamber nor online. Okay, thank you. I'm gonna close public hearing and move to discussion.

Commissioners?

Commissioner Hammond.

Sure, so I just have some comments. So if we're going to develop a transit-oriented community, then we must also develop an efficient, reliable transportation system. I'm in favor of developing the property surrounding the Hayward BART station to high-rise development with ground floor commercial and upper floor mixed office and residential uses. For a business-friendly Hayward, I'd very much like to see parts of downtown Hayward become vehicle-free and more pedestrian-oriented. And I approve the proposed land use text amendments found in the attachments three, 4A, 4B, to the 2024 general plan, and I find that the project is fully consistent with the downtown specific plan environmental impact report pursuant to the CEQA. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Low. Sounded like you said thank you, Commissioner Low.

I was like, wait, did I speak already?

I am definitely for consistency, and especially when that consistency has the potential to bring more money into the city. So for that reason, I am prepared to move this item and I will be very formal with it once I find my notes.

We have two other commissioners that wish to speak and I ask you to. Oh, okay, yes.

Commissioner Hardy. Thank you, I just wanted to give an appreciation to staff. I often ask about community engagement and I felt like there was just a lot of community engagement that happened with this and so just wanted to note that and I am also very appreciative of consistency and in support of this.

Commissioner Myers.

I'm along the same page. Any chance we can to clean up our general plan, controversial, you know, the discrepancies, I think I'm all for that, and especially as Commissioner Lowe says, if it helps bring us grant money and everything, that's so much better. So thank you for that.

Commissioner Lowe, do you want to go back to your motion? Oh, Commissioner Stephens.

Thank you. So I just want to make a couple of observations before we move on. So there's like hordes of people here, and there's hordes of people online. Look at all the people. They're lined up out the door, right? This is like a major land use thing, right? And so this seems really minor now, but I don't know, five, 10, 20, 30 years from now, there's going to be people that are frustrated. And so I get it, this is the world we live in. But I just would like to draw attention to one point, which I personally find very frustrating. So the One Bay Area Grant, OBAG, is something that funds a lot of major transportation infrastructure projects throughout the Bay Area. And I'm very well aware of this, because I implement a lot of these projects. And I find it frustrating that the MTC, is using the grant funding as a tool to regulate land use on a local level. And if you want to know who the MTC is, you can go to their website, and they're a group of commissioners that are represented from Bay Area elected folks, and our person is the mayor of Alameda. Boy, we don't even have a person from Hayward on the MTC. So my point being is that these decisions are made by people that live in ivory towers, and that real people are not really apprised of these things, and the repercussions aren't tonight. They are what happens in the future. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Stephens. Now finally, back to Commissioner Lowe. Are you prepared to make a motion?

Never mind, I give up. I move that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendments to the Hayward 2040 general plan to implement the adopted programs within the Hayward downtown specific plan, namely establishing a density range of 40 to 210 dwelling unit per net acres for the city center retail office commercial and city center high density residential. and remapping a total of 130 parcels to the CCROC land use designation to be consistent with the existing zoning.

And we have a second from Commissioner Hammond.

We can all vote now.

And the motion passes. Now to our third and final item, and that would be the approval of the minutes.

I move to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting. Sorry, pulling it up. June 11th. Thank you, June 11th, 2026. Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Hardy and a second by Commissioner Lowell. We can go ahead and vote. I think we temporarily lost a connection. Oh, here it is. And the motion passes. All right, now we can move on to commission reports.

Welcome back. I hope you guys all had a really great summer. It's so nice to see you again and get started on business. And with that, I want to congratulate Commissioners Lowe and Yorgov for being reappointed to the Planning Commission. We will miss Commissioner Myers, But he's been replaced by a new commissioner, Daisy Maxion, who I think is coming from the Community Services Commission. So familiar with Hayward and being in this room and sort of reviewing staff reports. So I'm really excited to have her join the team. think that at the September 15th City Council meeting there will be the swearing-in and then we'll do some trainings as of right now I don't have any items scheduled we don't have anything on the agenda for September there may be an item at the second meeting so we would have Daisy Commissioner Maxine joining at that time but we'll let you know as soon as as we know if if there's anything scheduled and I think that that's it for reports

Thank you, it's good to be back. Do we have commissioner announcements and referrals? Seeing none, I am adjourning this meeting at 8.56 p.m.