Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The 10/03/2024 meeting of the planning commission is called to order. Would everyone please stand for the pledge of allegiance? Will the secretary please conduct the roll call?

Yes. Chair Zuber. Vice chair Tejada.

Present.

Commissioner Bull.

Present.

Commissioner Mendoza?

Present.

Commissioner Rich? Present. Commissioner Solis?

Present.

And commissioner Chubbjulu?

Thank you.

We'll now move into public comments. The public is invited to make any comments related to the agenda, items that are not listed under public hearings, or other items of the public interest at this time. If you wish to speak during public comments, please fill out a speaker card and hand it to the administrative assistant, Lucy, and speakers will be invited to speak. Public comments are limited to three minutes per person. If you wish to comment on an item listed under the public hearings portion of the agenda, you'll have the opportunity to do so when the item is heard.

Please fill out a public speaker card and hand it to the administrative assistant. We are now taking public comments. This is the time when any person may address the board on matters not listed on this agenda. And I have three cards here. I will now call our first speaker, Kat Wellman.

President of the Bayo Vista Improvement Association, and we have been asking the city to temporarily open Lake Chabot Road to alternating one way traffic with signals at either end until permanent repairs can be made. Why? One, the closure of Lake Chabot Road has created a serious public safety risk. Two, the research has been done. Three, we will help secure funding for permanent repairs.

First, public safety is at risk. Vail Vista's 3,500 residents need all evacuation routes available in the event of an emergency, whether it's fire, earthquake, flood, or dam break. The city's 2022 Kittleson report confirms this. Additionally, the diverted traffic from the road closure has turned extremely steep aster and view drives into unsafe arterial roads, putting hundreds of lives at risk. Opening Lake Chabot Road to alternating one way traffic will alleviate these dangers.

Second, research has been done. In May 2023, city staff proposed this temporary one way solution to the Facilities and Transportation Subcommittee, but it stalled. A public record search shows that consultants subsequently found no technical barriers. Traffic flow, power sources, and safety were addressed with a cost of under 300,000. Why has this low cost, temporary fixed, used successfully by other cities and public entities not moved forward?

Finally, we are committed to securing funding for permanent repairs. We have consistently forwarded grant information to the city and are working with assembly member Liz Ortega, who is seeking federal excuse me, state funds. We'll continue these efforts to get federal funds from congress members Eric Stallwell Sawwell and Barbara Lee. We are willing to help, but we need the temporary one way traffic solution to protect not just Bayo Vista's 3,500 residents, but also those in neighboring areas. It's an affordable, fast step the city can take before it's too late, and we hope to get your support. Thank you very much.

Anne Kaywood?

Good evening, commissioners. Many of us in the Bay Of Vista neighborhood are very concerned about fire risk. We are the only neighborhood in San Leandro designated in high very high fire severity risk by CAL FIRE. In 2022, San Leandro engaged the nationally recognized firm of Kittleson and Associates to conduct a hazard mitigation study in response to California laws a b seven forty seven and s b 99 to evaluate evacuation routes. The wildfire model from that study indicates substantial and immediate dangerous congestion for evacuation routes in Bella Vista in the event of a wildfire disaster.

That report determined that both Vista Grande and Benedict Drive will be dangerously overcapacity for wildfire evacuees. This report was done when Lake Road was open. Without Lake Chabot Road, evacuation routes will be even more severely impacted. Thousands of panicked drivers trying to escape the neighborhood at the same time need as many evacuation routes as possible. The 2021 report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology documents CAL FIRE's synopsis of recent California fires where wind gusts of 30 mile per hour can ignite buildings and vegetation 12 miles away, causing burnovers, which stifle evacuation efforts.

The report further documents that in recent CAL fires, fire agencies all had a plan to keep communities safe until the fire's speed and intensity drove them to abandon all firefighting efforts to focus on saving lives. This is why our community has been active in promoting the need to reopen Lake Chabot Road. We have done research looking for grant monies to help pay for fixing this road. Many of these grants are looking for infrastructure projects that will improve safety, environmental sustainability, conservation, innovation, etcetera, using nature based solutions. The National League of Cities has published articles about harnessing the power of nature based solutions.

These are strategies that are inspired by, supported by, and copied from nature. There are many different types of nature based solutions, and many of them are both more cost effective and more efficient than traditional hardscape. In the case of Lake Chabot Road, using nature based solutions to stabilize very steep slopes with bioengineered systems of short fences, native plants, netting and mulch, or mesh and bio bio wall slope stabilization could be used for long term benefits, significantly reducing maintenance costs. Other types of nature based solutions can

be used for green storm water infrastructure, flooding protection due to sea level rise, heat related illness mitigations, etcetera.

There is federal funding now available through the Nature Based Solutions funding database. We ask that you investigate this option further to determine how Nature Based Solutions would be a valuable tool for this city. Thank you.

Thank you. Mary Anne Miller?

Good evening, madam chair and members of the commission. I'm Mary Anne Miller. I am a Former San Leandro City planner and a Bayofista resident. So tonight, I have my planning hat on. And I want to, just bring to the commission's attention the fact that it's it's really feeling like our local streets have been reclassified, in sort of a de facto method in terms of keeping the, like, Chabot Road closed.

So what's happening is all of the traffic that was going in fact, 17% of the traffic that goes between Castro Valley and San Leandro uses Lake Chabot Road. That traffic and the speed of those, cars and that traffic volume is now going up our residential streets. In fact, there have been a couple of instances where the freeway has shut down, and we had the entire 580 Freeway going by our house with semi trucks and all kinds of vehicles. So it's it's really critical that we get this road reopened. I know there's funding issues, but, I just wanna suggest that we take a look at the San Leandro general plan, which designates Lake Chabot Road as a collector and Aster Drive and View Drive as local streets.

And now it's it's really looking like our streets have been reclassified, which then triggers a general plan amendment possibly in addition to CEQA analysis for noise, air quality, and traffic impacts. And none of that, I don't

believe, has been done.

I don't wanna say anything, about staff because I know how hard everybody works here. But I just wanna bring to your attention that there does seem to be, some gaps in terms of communication with our our neighborhood. And I'm also just curious about why there's been no initial study done per CEQA and those impacts about the general plan. So those are my main comments. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Draft minutes for the meeting of 09/05/2024 were provided with your agenda. If there are no errors, additions, corrections, it should be moved that they that they be approved as submitted. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve the minutes as submitted.

Second.

It has been moved by commissioner Solis and seconded by commissioner Bolt that the minutes of 09/05/2024 be approved. Please vote on your screens. The motion passes unanimously. The secretary, are there any items of correspondence? No.

Any items of oral communication? Tonight's public hearing has two agenda items for consideration by the planning commission. If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please submit a speaker card and state your name and address for the record. Meetings of the Planning Commission are recorded and televised, so please speak clearly for the record. The first hearing item is agenda item six point a, PLN twenty two zero zero zero six, consideration of a recommendation to the city council regarding a zoning map amendment and plan development to establish a PD overlay district and administrative site plan review and tentative track map eight seven 03.

Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Lourdes Juarez, and I am an associate planner with the city of San Leandro. Tonight, I will be presenting project PLN twenty two dash zero zero zero six. The project is a zoning map amendment, a plan development, a site plan review, and a tentative track map for 13489 East Fourteenth Street. We will review all these entitlements in detail.

But first, a project summary. The project consists of building nine townhomes for sale on simple fee lots. And so a tentative track map is being requested for nine unit lots and one common lot. A planned development overlay and project approval is also being requested to apply the development regulations flexibly on the site. The property owner and applicant is Shunya LLC, and the representative is here tonight.

The project is located on a 12,588 square foot vacant lot at the corner of East Fourteenth And 130 Fifth Avenue. The zoning district for the site is SA 2, which is corresponding to the McKinley residential district of the South Area Plan. The official name is the East Fourteenth South Area Strategy. We'll abbreviate it. The site is surrounded by residential uses along the west property lines of the site, including a block of duplexes along 130 Fifth Avenue and a trailer haven on East Fourteenth Street.

There are commercial and service uses across the street and also an apartment complex, and there's also a small restaurant there as well. If I can use this. Sorry. I didn't make use of that. Okay.

Approval of the PD overlay would comprise the rezoning of the site from SA 2 to SA 2 PD. As shown as it on this proposed zoning map, we would basically append the PD to the to the naming for the zoning district. The underlying district itself would remain the same, but the PD that would be appended would bring along with it the flexibility of applying the development standards to make the townhome development possible. More specifically, the plan development request is being applied to the the project could go ahead and apply three main development regulations flexibly. These are the minimum lot size, the minimum lot width, and the minimum and the setbacks.

These regulations were not intended for townhome developments, and the strict application of these developments would make the attached townhomes impractical. However, providing the flexibility to support these townhomes is consistent with the purposes of the South Area Plan, and in particular, consistent with the McKinley Residential District, which calls for housing in this particular section, the south area of East Fourteenth Street. As this project as this project is proposing to build dwelling units, the zoning code requires a proper site plan review. You can see here on the site plan, the project is proposing key fencing locations for the site. It's also providing trash enclosures, mailboxes, and utility meters that are not visible from the public right of way.

And it would also include a landscape yard and front yards for the units that are facing East Fourteenth Street. Finally, it would also include parking for the residences and for vehicles and also for bike storage within the units, all accessible through a central driveway off of 130 Fifth Avenue. Let's take a look at the building design. On these elevations, you can see the balconies that are being provided to meet the required private open space areas and also the entrance gardens that would be on Building A, which fronts on East Fourteenth Street. You can also see the landscape buffer along 130 Fifth Avenue.

And in the blue here, you see on private property an extension of the sidewalk that is required by the south area plan and specifically for that area of the McKinley Residential District. It would create a 13 and a half foot wide sidewalk. The zoning code also requires inclusionary housing. The applicant is proposing to provide unit 1 as a moderate income unit. The others would be obviously a market rate.

Proposal of this unit to be moderate income would be in compliance with the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. The development regulations call for building design and certain sign design requirements. They are embedded in the SA two development regulations, but also in the multifamily development regulations that were adopted most recently. You can see here the project itself meets most of these regulations. With the PD overlay applied, they would meet the minimum lot width and minimum lot size as well as the setbacks for the prop for the project.

However, the property, given that they're providing this moderate income unit, they do qualify to apply the density bonus law allowances. And that, you know, they can go ahead and do a density bonus, reduce parking, etcetera. But they are also allowed to do one concession and any number of waivers that are necessary to build these units. So the applicant is requesting one concession, and that would be for the daylight plane on Building B. And two waivers, and that would be for the ground floor height.

Instead of providing 10 feet as required by the south area plan in the zoning code, they would provide an eight foot ceiling, which is pretty standard. And the other one would be for amenities. Instead of providing the required four amenities, they would provide two of those, which incidentally, it makes sense. The list itself is created more so for larger rental developments. The amenities that they're providing are more appropriate.

The project, of course, would require the, recordation of a track map. So tentative track map eighty seven zero three was submitted for review, and it complies with all the regulations. As you can see here, Lot A would be the common lot, and it would contain the mailboxes and, again, the trash enclosure in the central driveway or saw the shared areas. You can see for Building A, they would front. They would have their property lines along East Fourteenth Street.

But, of course, Building B would be internal, and they would get their access, of course, through the shared lots. The site itself is actually a housing element opportunity site. Early on, identified in the South area plan, but in the most recent housing element site sorry. In the most recent housing element that we adopted for twenty twenty three, twenty thirty one, This site was an opportunity site with a realistic development capacity of 12 units for above moderate income levels. However, they are only submitting a proposal for eight units above moderate income and one unit moderate income.

However, this wouldn't be a problem to continue to meet the requirements of the housing element. The city did build a buffer of 1,052 above moderate income units beyond the RENO requirements, So San Leandro would continue to have sufficient capacity for these types of units even with the approval of fewer units. In order to approve the zoning map amendment, we would have to make findings that that would be conforming that would be conforming with the general plan in the South Area plan. There are many policies that the project complies with, including locating multifamily along major transit quarters like East Fourteenth Street, promoting infill. This has been a vacant site for about four decades, providing a mix of unit types, the townhome developments.

You know, we don't see too many of those that often, but when they're done well, they're quite successful. And, of course, creating a safe and attractive pedestrian oriented streetscape environment with the provision of the additional sidewalk and the entrance gardens. You get those levels of public, semi public, private, and whatnot. So with something that is attractive and with eyes on the street. With regards to environmental review, the project falls under CEQA guidelines section one five one eight three.

This section states that the projects that projects that are consistent with the density established by the general plan for which an a r EIR was previously prepared and certified and which do not have any project specific significant effects that are peculiar to that project or its site, these projects are not required to undergo environmental review. To document this, staff in coordination with Rincon has prepared a CEQUA consistency checklist, which was attached in your staff reports. And the conclusion was that there were no specific no project specific significant effects, and therefore, no further environmental review was required. In terms of public noticing, staff completed the required noticing for this project, which includes posting in the, East Bay Times daily review and sending a notice to property owners within 500 foot radius and as well as posting notices at the project site and also at city hall. No comments were received as of the beginning of this meeting.

Staff is recommending approval of the project because it provides a high quality urban design project. It meets all the standards for approval of the site plan review, and it is designed and subdivided appropriately for the townhome development that it is proposing consistent with the general plan in the South Area plan. As such, staff is making a formal recommendation to the planning commission that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve PLN twenty two dash zero zero zero six for zoning map amendment, land development, administrative site plan review, and tentative track map eighty seven zero three for the construction of a nine unit townhome development at 13489 East Fourteenth Street based on the recommended findings of fact and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. This concludes my presentation. Staff is available for questions.

Thank you, miss Suarez. Mister Bolt?

Yes. Thank you. Just wanna be clear with that last slide. You said we sent it out to 500 foot radius of 1680 Washington Avenue. That would not be the case. We would have to send it out to or so if you go back to that last slide

I apologize. It looks like we forgot to switch out the the notice map here. No. The noticing was done for this address in particular. I believe the yeah. I think the I apologize. No. The notice was done accurate.

All human. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that we were good, and it's on record we sent to the right place. And secondly, the sidewalk Mhmm. It's almost 13 feet. You said we're gonna be and then it's and then on one of the slides, I didn't catch it before, but it says it's 10 foot. From the front of the properties on East Fourteenth is 10 foot. My question is, is the additional three feet coming from the property, or are we bumping out sidewalk?

The additional well, so the let's see here. I'm zoom in if that's possible.

That's it right there.

Let's see here. So this is actually the property line here, the red. Uh-huh. So the sidewalk needs to be 13 and a half feet to meet the requirements. So in order to do that, portion of the sidewalk is gonna be on private property. The 10 foot setback is actually from the property line into the property here. So it's sort of from this property line to these dash lines here.

Oh, the green and red. Okay.

Right. So, basically, the the 13 and a half foot sidewalk overlaps. So this that being it, overlaps in this area with the 10 foot setback.

Okay. So we're not making the sidewalks wider. We're gonna go into the property. Yes. And and so at the end of this property, I know on the other side of it, it's just gonna kinda go at an angle then until that gets redeveloped. Is that the way that okay. Alright. Thank you.

It's effectively it's not like a dedication to the public right away. It is design is it basically putting in concrete pad to enlarge the sidewalk.

Thank you. Great presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rich?

Thank you. I appreciate that presentation. I've got two minor questions in there from this, slide that you have, up right now. The first one is, Unit 1 in the upper left hand corner is showing as an ADA unit Mhmm. With stairs in the unit. Is is the a d what makes it an ADA unit? The bathroom on the Ground Floor and the the parking stripe?

I believe they'll sort that out when the building permit comes in, but I do believe that the bathroom is a portion of those requirements. That the parking that would be ADA.

K. It it seems the ADA see it seems it may be visible or some other I'm not I I don't mean to it's outside of planning. The second one, on the same slide, we're looking at this is the Ground Floor that we're looking at right here. So this is where the waiver is being taken for the having eight foot ceilings instead of

For the height. Yes.

What I'm seeing, the majority of the Ground Floor is eight foot ceiling for the for the parking, basically.

The majority of the yeah. You you could say two thirds or so. Mhmm.

Thank you.

Mister Tahara?

Thank you for the presentation. Lot of good information there. Just had a couple of questions here. One of them traces back to the, documents produced by staff and mention of the site being barren for three plus decades and the last use of the site being a gas station. I know you were mentioning that the site itself is exempt from an e n EIR needing to be performed. But in terms of any historical information or other that we would have on hand, is there any information to the effect that the site being that it was a former gas station doesn't contain contaminated soil, doesn't contain any unknown abandoned structures, fuel tanks, or other. Do we know that much?

Indeed. Yes. The applicant submitted an environmental site assessment for the property, and so they have cleaned up the site post the, gas station use.

K. So the site itself has been remediated.

Exactly. It was on the list, and now it's on the Cortesi list, and now it's not.

Okay. Perfect. Let's see. In terms of amenities, I noticed that that was a waiver that was being listed in one of the slides. If I had it right or if I understood it right, there were a total of four amenities required as part of the s a two s a two PD designation. If four were if four are required and two are being proposed, I'm just wondering if there's any flexibility or if there's a running list of additional amenities that might be entertained or could be entertained as part of the project to get to that listing of four.

I feel like that was two two different questions, so I could start by explaining. So

I guess, did I have it right with they need four amenities and they're providing two?

Two out of four. Oh, did I completely leave? Okay. So two out of four would be provided. The list itself does have several options. However, not all of them are really adequate for a site like this. We in reviewing this, we realized that, basically, these are made for larger projects that are rental. So you'll see, for example, conference room, you know, shared in building amenities, right, when you end up with, like, shared hallways and whatnot. Lap pool. It's You too small of a site for things like on-site commercial child care. Right? Public art, this is really the SA 2. There's SA 12, and three. The SA 2 is more residential. It really does not bring people it's not like bringing people downtown.

It's not a destination kind of place, so having public art really wouldn't be appropriate. So we in general, we identified, you know, for our own zoning code updates in the future that that this list can be a little bit better, the smaller projects. And so it it really doesn't make sense. However, I feel like another portion of your question was regarding would there be flexibility to apply more? You add any one of these or add more or something not on the list with that?

Maybe it's a question for the applicant if if they would be open to exploring this list further and seeing if there's an opportunity to incorporate two more amenities so that we're at that quota of four amenities being provided versus a waiver being entertained.

Can I ask Sure?

Have our city attorney here. I think the question is if the applicant has requested to use their concession entitled through the density bonus legislation, whether that's something that the commission can or if

Require.

Is the question to require, or is the question just inquiry?

Well, the question is, I guess, an inquiry. It's in line with a waiver that I'm understanding as part of the process through the density bonuses being applied by the applicant. So the waiver is being applied against the amenities, but still as part of s a two p d, there's a quota of four that need to be met, and they're coming in at two. So just kind of wanting to see if there's an opportunity there through discussions with the applicant to explore this list further.

I don't think that there's we can't require them, but staff think the applicant is here. But I think that we have a recommendation. Certainly, staff I mean, the applicant can be can be asked the question.

Okay. I'll table it then for the applicant. And then just so I'm clear, on this listing here, the two amenities, if I understood it correctly, one was the mail, the mailbox area. No? Okay. What were the two amenities?

Sorry. I apologize. So, yes, the electrical vehicle charging stations. So in lieu of the amenity being 25%, they're doing that for all the units. And then the other one was the tenant activity area near the mailboxes where it makes sense to have a little bit more of a private area.

Okay. Got it.

Considering the the exposure to the main streets.

K. Understood. I think that's it for my questions. Thank you. Thank

you. Sure, Rich.

Yeah. A a follow-up question about number two, electric vehicle charging stations. Amenity shows that for 25% of the, parking the required parking spaces, you mentioned that they have EV, charging stations for all of the units. Would it be fair to say that the charging stations for all the units are more than 50% of the required parking spaces? Do understand what I'm saying?

Yes. It was. So it's more than 25%. You can see it on that slide we were just looking at earlier.

My logic being

They are.

They basically City. Implied with that waiver twice.

Yes. As an if you wanted to tabulate it that way, double the amenity, I suppose.

Seems like a real positive for the project.

I just have one question. Could you provide a little clarity around the cons I think it was a waiver for the height. So that's just the waiver for the First Floor. And the First Floor is usually supposed to be a minimum of nine feet?

10 feet. 10 feet.

And that's from the finish floor to the ceiling?

Precisely.

K. And it looked like for the most part, all the First Floor was, for the most part, garage and restroom. Is that the case?

Yes. There's an entrance vestibule and sort of some you know, people can do their little storage or their little foyer kinda reception area. Underneath the stairs in the garage area, you are able to store a bicycle as well. That's part of the bike storage that they're providing, then that's required. So there's it's sort of a multifunctional space. It might be big enough if somebody wanted to do a home occupation and work from there as a little office kind of thing. But this is a residential project in general. You know, the South area plan required it. It ended up being codified. However, they are requesting for them to be a fee high instead.

Mhmm. So then that would really put the living space on a major street at about nine feet above street level.

Yeah? Right. If if they were to do the 10 foot, you mean?

No. The eight foot they keep it at eight feet Yes. Then then really there's only Mhmm. Nine feet between living space and the main thoroughfare there on East Fourteenth. Have were there any acoustic studies done or security studies done about the distance there? That's that's my main concern is that I understand it's a waiver. I I believe they're doing it because it saves cost. But I'm wondering if the staff feel that there are any safety risks or acoustic concerns.

There were no acoustic studies done. I think in general, when you got the general plan asking for that kind of residential along major transit corridors, you've sort of already analyzed for that happening. It's one type of urban design where that's going to happen. But the building codes themselves may speak may address a lot of that already. Mhmm. You know, that's not unusual to have this kind of design. You also have a little bit further setback. And the floor plans do follow a typical townhome development where you might have the common areas below sorry, on the Second Floor and then the more private bedroom areas on the Third Floor.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner.

Well, that's partially is gonna be in the private property. I mean, how does the maintenance of the sidewalk on the private property work, and who would be liable for any issues in the future?

Right. So it we get this every now and then where private property well, let's see here. You've got private property. And then if there's landscaping on public property, the owner has to maintain it anyway. But everyone would be responsible for their own. However, that's something we can explore with engineering when they come to do the encroachment permits and, you know, do all the work inside. Because they are closing up two driveways on that end. So I suppose we could certainly add or modify the conditions or, you know, as part of the standard conditions, add to that process to confirm and make it clear.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Is the applicant here? Yes. Would they like to speak? I believe we have at least one question.

My name is Krishna. I'm the 100 developer for this project. I would like to address questions raised by the commissioners. First question on 10 feet versus eight feet on the Ground Floor. It is not because of the cost reasons we have to go with the eight feet. It is because of a fire requirement. We make it 10 feet. We are going to make the are going to go beyond 30 feet elevation. And if we had to go above 30 feet, we have to increase the drive aisle from 20 feet to 26 feet. And we will not be able to accommodate Building B to do that.

Thank you. Yeah.

And for the question on the amenities, we looked at all the amenities, and we try to incorporate as much as possible. As you you can can see, see, there is, like, lot of space constraints. And even if we wanted to add more amenities, we had to sacrifice probably, like, one of the units, either a fitness center or lap pool. Also, those amenities appear, like, more relevant for bigger communities. Our nine unit community, we felt, you know, probably the the end count is too small to accommodate those type of amenities.

I would like to request my engineer to come here and explain about the 13 feet sidewalk.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Dilip Krishnani. I'm the civil engineer for the project. I got involved a little bit later. But the reason, we have shown on T M three the, between at the right of way, a cold joint. So they'll so when the city comes back and later replaces a sidewalk, there's a cold joint. So and and then beyond the cold joint is all private. And the reason for that extra two feet or three feet that's varying along fourteenth is because of a 10 foot sewer district easement, Oraloma District, that we had to avoid. So the buildings don't encroach on it. So that's why you see the sewer sewer district easement is, angled.

It's not parallel to fourteenth, and so that's why you see the buildings dodging that. And so the gap between the right of way and the face of building is where the extra concrete is. That'll be privately maintained.

Mister Tadah?

Thanks for the explanation. Regarding the amenities, commissioner Rich pointing out the fact that you guys are meeting the amenity requirement by providing the EVs to per per townhome. That makes sense to me. I can I can totally see the worthwhile nature of having the EV charging set up for each one of the units? The other amenity that you're providing is the tenant activity area, the picnic area.

Just a couple of thoughts in terms of the additional amenities that come to mind, not necessarily thinking that you would incorporate a conference room or a washing station or anything to that effect. I I realize that there are space constraints. But I wonder for some of the smaller amenities that could fit the bill, a pet relief area per se, sizing it off accordingly so that it makes sense. It's maybe a useful amenity if this is gonna be a pet friendly townhome development. Maybe there is a section that could be carved out dedicated for pet relief.

It seems like it might not take too much space in order to to account for that. And then, also, there was mention of bicycle storage. I think in each one of the units, storage or a dedicated use was one of the items that classified as an amenity. But maybe it's just a matter of structuring the bicycle storage as a classified amenity so that it's counting up towards that required limit of four. Just hoping that there's some exploring from the development side that you guys can undertake to see if potentially these low hanging fruit items that might fit the bill or just need to be reclassified to fit the bill could potentially be explored further further to make up that quantity of four.

Absolutely. Thank you. Oh, and lastly, sorry, EV charging being provided per unit, can you talk to any other sustainable features that you plan on implementing as part of the development, I e, electric, solar? What other type of sustainable features are being contemplated?

It's gonna be all electric, solar.

All electric and solar with the EV. Okay. That's great. Thank you.

Any other questions from the commissioners? Is there anyone in the public who wishes to speak on this item?

Thank

you. I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back for discussion by the commission. I see no no no one in the queue. Do I hear a motion to adopt a resolution?

I make a motion to adopt.

Second?

Thank you. It has been moved by commissioner Bolt and create and seconded by commissioner Bolt sorry. Commissioner Rich to adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve PLN twenty two zero zero zero six for zoning or zoning map amendment, plan development, administrative site plan review. No? Is it?

Okay. Tracked 8703 for the construction of a nine unit townhome development at 13489 East Fourteenth Street based on the recommended findings of fact and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Please cast your vote. Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

Our second hearing item is agenda item six point b, PLN twenty three zero zero two six, consideration of a vesting tentative track map, b t t m eight six forty three for the single family element of the shoreline development project. May we please have the staff report? Sorry. Commission Bolt?

Yes. I've been advised that I need to recuse myself of this this next agenda item due to own property.

Thank you.

Right. Good evening, members of the planning commission. My name is Kelly Beggs, and I am a consulting principal planner with Good City Company working on behalf of the city of San Leandro. I'm pleased to present the item before you tonight, which is the shoreline development investing tentative trap map for the single family element of that overall project. Also in attendance tonight are city of San San Leandro staff with technical expertise and historical knowledge of the project, including Dane Rogers, senior engineer with the public works department, Avalon Schultz, assistant, community development director, and city attorney Rich Pieroda.

Alright. This slide presents the project summary as well as the location. The applicant is Monarch Bay For Sale Residential LLC. The location is a 15.86 acre site located on the western side of the Marina Golf Course to the northeast of the intersection of Monarch Bay Drive and Fairway Drive. It's zoned RM 2 Thousand PD, and the vesting tentative track map is the application before you tonight.

So as you know, the single family element site is part of a larger shoreline development project, which is a public private partnership between Cal Coast Companies LLC and the city of San Leandro. The partnership began in 2008 when Calcos was selected as the master developer for the Shoreline project, proceeded to a 2015 EIR with general plan and zoning amendments, continued with negotiation agreements. And in 2022, the city council adopted a resolution adopting a third addendum to the project's EIR and approving a development agreement, planned development project, and site plan review for the private elements of the Monarch Bay shoreline development project. This slide shows the overall plan for the shoreline development project, including the private elements. Those include a a hotel element, which is a 156,934 square foot five story hotel, a restaurant element, a market element, a multifamily element, and the single family element.

The single family element is a for sale development of a hundred and forty four two to three story detached single family homes and sixty two two to three story townhomes. Item before you tonight is the vesting tentative track map for the single family element of the Shoreline development project. So before we get into the proposal, I'd just like to give a brief overview of the subdivision process for the planning commission. So the vesting tentative tract map is an initial step in land subdivision that shows the proposed layout of a subdivision. So that'll include the lot details, infrastructure, proposed utilities.

It locks in the development regulations that are in effect at the time of the filing, but it's important to note that the vesting tentative track map is not permitting any kind of construction. After the vesting tentative track map is approved, the applicant is required to submit and receive counsel approval of a final map that aligns with the vesting tentative track map. And after that, approval of the subdivision can officially be recorded and individual lots are created. So this slide shows the project proposal in full. It's in conformance with the 2022 entitlements.

The proposed VTTM would establish 144 residential fee simple lots ranging in size from 2,104 to 4,880 square feet. It would create two larger condominium lots where the townhomes are located. So those are here and here. And then two common lots would also be created. So those common lots generally hold more communal items like a trash enclosure, bioretention areas, and streets.

Staff has reviewed the proposal and find it to be consistent with the San Leandro 2035 general plan, specifically due to its inclusion of mixed unit types at a mix of price ranges, including affordable and market rate and its redevelopment of the shoreline area. Specifically, the project is consistent with goal l u three to provide housing opportunities and improve economic access to housing for all segments of the community and the underlying policies of that goal. It's also consistent with goal l u nine and related policies, which seek to enhance the San Leandro waterfront. It's consistent with the R M 2000 P D zoning approved with the Shoreline development project entitlements in 2022 and all other applicable provisions of the zoning code. In addition to the findings that are made in the staff report and resolution, in order to approve the project via the subdivision map act, there are also additional findings that would need to be met to merit denial of the project, which are shown on the screen here.

The proposed fasting tentative track map does not meet any of these findings as it's consistent with the general plan, is physically suitable for the type of development, is physically suitable for the density of the development, and would not cause any substantial environmental or wildlife damage. Lastly, I'll just provide a CEQUA overview of the project. In July 2015 and that initial review of the conceptual development for the shoreline development project, the city council certified an EIR. Since the certification of that EIR, three addenda to the EIR were prepared to review more detailed iterations of the project as the concept was developed. All agenda concluded that the proposed project would not create any new significant impacts or increase severity of impacts identified in the certified EIR.

The VTTM is consistent with the project evaluated in the third addendum. So, lastly, this slide shows the recommended action. Staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending the city council approve the vesting tentative track map to establish a 148 lots, and then also to determine that the vesting tentative track map is consistent with the project analyzed in the 2022 addendum, which concluded that the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of those impacts, and then also to determine that no further environmental review is required. So that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

And as I mentioned, we also have other staff here.

Commissioner Rich?

Thank you for that presentation. I've got a question regarding inclusionary zoning on or inclusionary, housing plan or an alternative inclusionary housing plan. Believe I I I read in the resolution that the city council previously approved in 2022 that, workforce and moderate income inclusionary units in the single family and townhome development will help the city address the shortfall of above moderate income housing. Can you help me translate that sentence where moderate units are being used to satisfy Rina above moderate?

I'm gonna defer that question to Avalon.

Yeah. So the on-site well, I'll just take a step back. This project was in the in process for quite a long legislative environment changed during the review of the process. So it's one of a handful of projects that were subject to an alternative method of compliance for the inclusionary zoning requirement, which typically requires 15% of a project to be set aside for income qualified households. So the approved plan from the council included units provided at a moderate and technically above moderate income that was called workforce housing.

So it's kind of the very lowest income level on the above moderate line, which is why it satisfies some of our above moderate needs. But it's considered workforce housing or often referred to as missing middle housing, where there are households who don't earn enough to compete on the market for housing, but they earn too much to qualify for subsidized And so that's kind of the niche that this project would be would be providing on-site in addition to a lump sum payment that could be utilized by the city, you know, to help spur affordable housing elsewhere in the community.

And so there are units that are deed restricted to something above 120% with some cap at that?

Correct. K. I believe it was a 100 like around a 130% AMI, if if that helps.

This appears to be a phased project. There's the single family housing element. There's a number of other elements, and you you showed them to us. Is there are you aware of a schedule for these phases of the different elements of the project?

So a phasing plan is required before on-site work commences by a condition of approval number 17 on the twenty twenty two entitlements. We do not have such a phasing plan at this time as this this permit does not permit any on-site work, but it is required. And then there are other timing obligations that the developer is required to meet pursuant to the development agreement and the development and disposition agreement.

Do you know if the phasing plan includes the phasing for the development of the multifamily housing or if it's phasing for more of the horizontal infrastructure?

I believe it would be required to kind of include how the all of the different elements of the project would proceed.

Yep. The there are a number of mitigation measures of the project, and I'm gonna use the the capital p term for the project to include this element and all the other elements of the project. Do you know what mitigation measures are to be completed in this first phase, the housing single family housing phase?

So with the vesting tentative map, there's no physical construction that's being permitted, so mitigation measures don't exactly apply to this exact permit. But the city did adopt a mitigation measure mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. I always struggle with that one. And that sets forth the timing of all of the different mitigation measures.

The density on this Mhmm. If I have this right, the general plan designation is medium density in this area. Does the single family element why? Is it consistent with that?

Yes. It is. The density the general plan density is a 12 to 18 units per per gross acre, and the project itself has about 13 units per gross acre.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister Mendoza?

So is this the same project that is being on since 02/2008, about sixteen years now? And there's been some news recently about Calcos defaulting a 25,000,000 loan that the city made to the company. Is this the same the same project we're talking about?

This is the shoreline development project. Yes.

And what is the situation right now with that? I see that they're they have further plans, but there is obviously a default of the loan. It's been sixteen years. During that time, we also saw that the the Marina area, you know, fell into disrepair. So I just wanted to know if what is the situation right now with the with the loan and the default and things like that?

I'm gonna ask the city attorney to answer that question.

Thank you, commissioner Mendoza. Indeed, the the property, the developer developer's entity, which is the for sale it's Monarch Bay for sale residential LLC is the, single purpose entity that owns the property. And they were in default on the take back loan, take back financing loan. And, the city exercised its rights under the promissory note to foreclose on the property, and then the developer filed for bankruptcy June. So currently, it's in the bankruptcy process.

The property is in The US Bankruptcy Court Trustees, management, if you will. And the entity, Monarch Bay Residential, is what is termed under bankruptcy, chapter 11 bankruptcy law, as a debtor in possession. And so they continue to prosecute the entitlements, continue to do the applications as they're required to do, and the city is will continue to process the application because it is a denner in possession. There are obligations on both sides to maximize the value of the property for a bankruptcy chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization purposes.

I have a quick follow-up. So so and I I don't know, and you can tell me, if this is appropriate or not. But the reason I mentioned in the, the public private partnership is because there is a historical data out there and research that oftentimes show that when that happens, supposedly, you know, public private partnership, the taxpayers end up well, let me back up. So like I said, in the sixteen years, for some reason, the Marina area fell into this repair. They stole the dredging because they say it was too expensive.

So that tends to lower the cost of of public property. And then, you know, private enterprises come in, get it at a at a very low price, and the taxpayer ends up, you know, with the bill. So, again, I don't know if that's appropriate to to mention that, but that's a concern for the taxpayers and, you know, look at these type of deals, you know, all the partnerships. That was the only comment I have.

Thank you, commissioner Mendoza. Commissioner Tejada?

Thank you for the information. Appreciate the presentation. Somewhat of a follow-up here to commissioner Mendoza's question just so I kind of understand what's been presented in front of us versus where we stand with Calcoast. It sounds like Monarch Bay, the entity that is in default entertaining the VTTM that's in place by way of the entire shoreline development is more so kind of using your description, more so a means of exercising the responsibilities on both sides, the city side and Monarch Monarch Bay side in order for the property itself to continue to maintain equitable value? I'm just trying to understand what was said exactly.

That's that's that's a good description. Okay. Okay.

Just just to add to that, the agreements that the council entered into include obligations for the developer to continue actively pursuing development with certain milestones, obtaining the map approval, moving forward on permitting are some of the requirements that the developer has. And the city has requirements to fairly and efficiently process those applications. So in addition to specific bankruptcy case that was mentioned, this milestone was absolutely identified, and we anticipated it coming when we brought the entitlements up in in 2022.

Okay. Got it. There is mud. There is mud. Let's see here.

Regarding maybe the phasing the phasing aspect of the shoreline development, so there's the park component, there's the apartment component, and there's the townhome, the single family townhome. Wanting to understand, because this this development dates back to 02/2008. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wanna say that the park component was a component that the city was ultimately gonna be moving forward with and carrying the responsibility to develop versus the developer Cal Coast taking on the remainder of what's shown on screen. If that's an incorrect statement for the remainder, what portions of the remainder potentially would be offset by city involvement or fall directly to the developer?

So you're correct that there is kind of a delineation between the public and private elements. And if the question is specifically on the status of the park, I would ask Avalon to give us an update on that.

Yeah. I mean, I think the best way to explain it is the bulk of the project is private, closest to Monarch Bay Drive. However, there are promenades at the north and south end of the project connecting to Monarch Bay Drive that would provide access through to the public recreation areas that are planned. And so like the westernmost improvements of the park and the point and the dock, those are the public elements. And the city has a commitment to cleaning up the deferred maintenance in the area and plans to construct a park.

Okay.

Did that answer your question?

That does. I mean, I do have a follow-up question just regarding the park itself and how that intertwines with the overall development and when kind of shovel ready activities for the park are maybe scheduled to occur either in a parallel path path to the single family townhomes, the 148 units moving forward, just because as as commissioner Mendoza had mentioned and a lot of the community at large has mentioned, that area that's designated as park is completely in disrepair right now from a marina stance, and, you know, this has been a development on the books since 02/2008. So I'm wondering what type of timeline, the city's observing for the park and if there's any sort of influence the commissioners can have with maybe setting some form of phasing priority for specific activities of the development moving forward in advance of other locations.

Yeah. So the park is an active CIP project being managed by the Public Works Department. They have many consultants working very actively on the construction drawings for the park improvements. One of the challenges with both the public and the private sides of this project is there are many regulatory bodies above the city level that are involved in this project given its proximity to the San Francisco Bay. So the park team is working through BCDC requirements and other environmental requirements that will be taken into account before permitting is offered.

There have been several updates recently of cleanup efforts of the deferred maintenance going on. So there there's also work on that front separately, separate from the park project. The park is definitely part of our CIP. There's a lot of underfunded CIP. So one of the funding sources for the park was the land sale of the single family property.

There are other grants the city is also pursuing to get funding because this also represents an active transportation network. It's part of the Bay Trail. So there are other potential grant sources that the city is exploring. And all of those factors are going to influence when the park can actually begin construction. And I don't know. There's not a formal role for the Planning Commission in prioritizing CIP funding. But I think participation as a member of the community in the Facilities and Transportation Committee meetings and other decision making. Like, there's a public decision making process for prioritizing CIP spending.

Okay. Got it. Fair enough. Sounds like it's with Parks and Rec as a department as well as Public Works through the CIP process of project initiation and project starting or project startup. For, I guess, the sale portion of it, so the sale portion of the land that was then gonna be used for funding on the park. The VTTM I mean, please educate me again on this. But the VTTM, what we're approving today is essentially just approving the land itself for future use, but it's earmarking it for a TBD date because things are in flux right now with the developer.

So you for the question. A vesting tentative map is basically showing you their intent of how they're subdividing the land. So what they're doing right now is they have one large parcel. Obviously, the project is a for sale project. They wouldn't be selling one large lot to a variety of single family homeowners. So they're showing the intent of how they intend to draw those for sale lots along with streets and other horizontal elements. And then that would be formalized via a final map process later in the in the in the timeline.

So I guess for the apartment aspect of this development, do we have something similar from a a VTTM perspective? And is there an opportunity of kind of phasing the sequence of advancing the apartment construction effort versus prioritizing a single family home, 148 lot development where I think right now that land as it is serving for the golf course isn't necessarily detrimental or isn't an eyesore per se, but the apartment footprint definitely is. Like, that's more in kind of a blight bounded area of the marina. So does something exist for the apartment, and then is there a phasing opportunity for advancing that scope?

So I think the question is if there already if there already is a VTTM under consideration for the apartment portion of the site. So there's not currently a VTTM that's been submitted for that portion. The phasing in large part, is up to the developer to determine which piece of the project is going first. And then as I mentioned before, there are certain timeline obligations that they are required to meet for different elements that are set by the DDA performance schedule. But I think if the question to the city is, do we have an ability to prioritize one site over the other? Avalon, did you wanna

Yeah. So the the ability to develop different elements of the project and the performance, you know, schedule performance issues, those are all identified in the agreements between the council and the developer. The developer is leasing. They have the right to lease the properties on the West Side Of Monarch Bay. So the VTTM is a, you know, a subdivision mapping process where they would take one larger piece of property and break it into smaller pieces.

They would not be able to do that on the West Side Of Monarch Bay because they are just a lessee from the city. The city is still the underlying property owner on the West Side. And so we are definitely going by the agreements in terms of the milestones and the performance measures that need to be done pursuant to those agreements and are separately working on cleanup. As we've heard from the community and this body, it's a major priority.

Okay. I think I understand it now. Yeah. It it this one's just an interesting one because as as you mentioned, Rich, you know, the legality of where it falls and kind of things being in flux, it's somewhat of a necessary evil for us to even entertain this right now being where we are. And I think that kind of muddies the waters with, you know, just the review of what we have in place, knowing the at large community's concern that they have with the pressing issues that are happening at the marina and just the state of disrepair.

So knowing that we can't even really get into the phasing and the sequencing because that's all in flux, I am at least gonna leave it there with my piece of wanting to explore the opportunity when the time presents itself to advance discussions with the developer, whoever that developer may be, to prioritize the apartments, which I think the apartments would ultimately produce more affordable housing in a denser scale, which the city desperately needs in terms of affordable housing for the community at large versus moderate to higher income single family townhomes in the larger stretch of the orange. I know we can't get into that, but at least that's my piece that I'm saying. Apartments being prioritized, park being prioritized, and then ultimately, single family homes would be the next course. That's it for me.

I I do have a few questions. So this is just minor. I didn't see an exhibit of the actual VTTM in the document. Was was there is there one in here? Can you tell me what page it's on?

I'd have to return. You got it.

Okay.

Okay. And then so in regards to this, what what would be the next milestone? So so right now, we're considering this is just the intent. Yes? So then we consider this. We pass it on to the council. What is the next step that will be in this process?

So from a mapping perspective, the next step would be the final map. So the final map is step two. The final map has to be consistent with the vesting tentative track map, and then it also has to align with any conditions of approval that are set forth with the vesting tentative track map.

Okay. And And

then the final map is then recorded, and the lots are formally subdivided. And

so once that's done, there's no going back even if this and and maybe it's a question to you, Rich. Once that's recorded, if this developer if this completely goes away and another developer comes in, are there any reconsiderations of of the map?

There certainly could be.

There it's it's it's possible. Yeah. Of course, the the city would have to agree to any edits or changes that would flow through the development agreement and the other agreements. But a final map truly is a a final document, and it defines essentially what what individual lots and what can be financed with those individual lots. So Right. We're not even close

to that point yet.

Okay. And so there's I I guess what I'm trying to do is understand the timeline. If we we have no it feels like we have no timeline for this development.

No. Not not as far as when shovels will be in the ground on the single family element. Or I I do Avalon mentioned on the Westside project, the park, there's definitely a lot of work happening on the design and analysis for the park. So I'm not sure what the timing whether they will coincide, but there's not a timeline specifically for a spade in the ground for the the single family element.

May I add there are just performance measures where, you know, the agreement requires both parties to uphold certain requirements and standards. So there are also remedies in the agreement if deadlines are missed. So there it's a you know, it's not as crystal clear as x needs to happen by specifically this date that's easy for us to convey. But there are remedies in the agreements if it doesn't happen. It was a big priority for the council because of how long it took to get to the entitlements that there were performance dates and measures.

So that's all encompassed. But we didn't bring the whole giant file here tonight, given this was a procedural request under the Subdivision Map Act. So those dates are all embedded in the other, like, agreements that that were signed by the city council.

Thank you. Did we find the oh, it's a QR code. Right. Okay. I take it there's no further comments from the commissioners. Do we have public comment? Any public comment? Okay. Okay. Well, I will now close public hearing.

Do I hear a motion to adopt a resolution? Anyone? Sorry.

Maybe just since it is kind of an open forum, if it's still okay for a bit of a question, kind of exercising this right here and approving the the VTTM. I know we're going through the process that's required on both sides. Does it require essentially a positive vote or feedback in order for this to continue down the path and advance towards city council? Or if this was to be deferred from an approved VTTM, does that cause anything detrimental to what's happening behind the scenes with discussions involving the developer and their chapter 11 filing? The only reason I ask is because there is active discussions that are happening right now in MVMT, as you had mentioned, with everything on the West Side Of Monarch Bay, totally in favor of that continuing on and those activities running their course.

But I'm wanting to just get a firmer idea and maybe a little bit clearer of a picture of approving something now with not having any such certainty with who the developer is, if it's gonna be the same developer or a new developer and, you know, wanting to know if we defer this item, is there anything detrimental essentially that occurs as a result of that with these discussions that are ongoing?

Yeah. Thank you, vice chair. Absolutely. I think this is, as Avalon mentioned, procedural, and it's following the natural progression of the planning application and the planning cycle for this project. Certainly, a debtor in possession is still a developer, and they're actively working with staff on all the entitlements as they're required to do.

And if they were to slip, then we would have recourse. As far as we can tell, the developer is advancing this issue forward, and they do have to submit plan of financing in accordance with the bankruptcy code, and so we're anticipating that as well. But in the meantime, this has to be advanced forward. They've complied with they've complied with the zoning code. They've complied with state law. We are not in a position necessarily. You have a staff recommendation that's or approval of recommendation to the council. So positive recommendation would move this item forward, and that's what's recommended.

K. Understood.

I'd I'd like to recommend that we put a real plan since this is a public record in the document rather than a QR code. Is that possible? We can put a plan in the document.

Absolutely. The official exhibit will be attached to the formal action. So whatever your recommendation is, there'll be a resolution documenting your action. And exhibit a will be the full plan that was uploaded as well. Yeah.

Great. Thank you. Just to clarify, when you plan, do you mean the map?

The map. In queue. Yes.

The drawing. That's the tentative check. Yes. Yeah.

That since that is the item. Okay. Do I have a motion to adopt a resolution? Rich?

I'll second.

Thank you. It's been moved by commissioner Rich and seconded by commissioner Tavzulu to adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve vesting tentative track map 8643 to allow the subdivision of approximately 15.868 acres into 148 lots corresponding to the for sale single family homes and townhomes entitled by the San Leandro City Council in December 2022 as part of the shoreline development project based on the attached findings in support of these actions. Please cast your vote. Thank you. Motion passes with four yeas, one nay, one abstention, and one or two one abstentions and one absence.

One recusal. Yes. Thank you. We'll now move on to miscellaneous. Do we have any miscellaneous items?

Do not.

Do we have any comments from the commissioners? None. I see none. Do we have any staff updates?

Not this evening. Thank you.

Alright. Commissioner Tajada, go ahead.

No worries. Let's see. Fellow commissioner Boltz, he had to recuse himself from the last item, but he did relay during member comments to raise a question and follow-up to some of the general comments that were presented by the public at large the beginning of this meeting as it relates to Lake Chabot Road. I think his direct question was regarding the one way traffic pattern that was described and if that's something that's been evaluated by the city and if that is a viable option. And if so, you know, kind of reasoning or discussions as to why that has not advanced from a one way perspective to at least restore traffic to Lake Sheville Road.

It's a question to staff.

I believe so. Yeah. Just

And I what I could do is we'll send out a link to a recent council meeting that this topic was the subject of, and we will share that with the planning commission so you can educate yourselves about the discussion and see director Marquise's presentation that was made to the council.

Sounds good.

Thank you. The time is now 08:27. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.