[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:09] The meeting is being webcast on Comcast TV Channel 15 and live streamed on the cities, YouTube channel and on the city's website.
[0:20] You would all rise for the pledge of allegiance if you were able.
[0:41] Miss Allen, will you take roll?
[0:46] Commissioner Hammond
[0:48] President.
[0:50] Commissioner Hardy.
[0:52] President.
[0:52] Commissioner Low.
[0:54] Commissioner Myers.
[0:56] Present.
[0:56] Commissioner Stevens.
[0:58] Commissioner Yorgav Absent.
[1:00] Chair.
[1:01] Good body.
[1:02] Present.
[1:06] At this time, I would like to open public comment.
[1:10] The public comment section provides an opportunity to address the planning commission on items that are not listed on today's agenda.
[1:17] The Commission welcomes comments and requests that speakers present their remarks in a respectful manner with established time limits and focus on issues which directly affect the city or within this jurisdiction of the city.
[1:33] As the Commission is prohibited from state law by state law from discussing items that are not listed on the agenda, your item will be taken and taken under further consideration and maybe refer to staff for further action.
[1:47] Speaker shall not use threatening, profane, or abusive language, which disrupts, disturbs,
[1:55] or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of a commission meeting. The city is committed
[2:01] to maintaining a workplace free of unlawful harassment and is mindful that city staff regularly
[2:07] attend commission meetings. Discriminatory statements or conduct that is hostile, intimidating,
[2:16] oppressive or abusive, our per se disruptive to a meeting and will not be tolerated.
[2:25] Ms. Allen, do we have any public comments?
[2:28] There are not at this time.
[2:31] Do we have any online?
[2:33] No, not online either.
[2:35] Okay, I'm going to close public comments and go to the first action item,
[2:43] which is
[2:49] pH 26-037 and for this item, the agenda, the decision of the Plan Commission
[2:59] is final unless it is appealed. The appeal period is 10 days from tonight's decision,
[3:07] and if it's appealed, a public hearing will be scheduled before the City Council for final
[3:12] decision at a date to be determined in the future.
[3:16] I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Rashard for presentations.
[3:21] Good evening, Hayward Community and Planning Commission.
[3:24] I am Taylor Rashard and Associate Planner with the City of Hayward Planning Division.
[3:29] In tonight, I'm happy to present on the Proposed Mental Health Rehabilitation Center
[3:33] at 3, 7, 8, 8, 8, deeper road requiring approval
[3:37] of a variance and site plan review application.
[3:41] Before we dive into the project, I want to familiarize and orientate us to the project site and provide some background.
[3:47] Mr. Charter, I'm just going to stop you right now. We don't have the presentation on our monitors and the front.
[4:10] Let's say for tonight's meeting, if the commissioner's could just follow along on on their laptops or my pads.
[4:21] Or upon the screen. Thank you. Go ahead.
[4:23] Okay. Before we dive into the project, I want to familiarize and orientate us to the project site and provide some background.
[4:31] The site is located within West Hayward, Nestled in an urbanized area where it is surrounded by industrial business parks, automobile uses,
[4:39] contractor services, and the Hayward Water Resource Control Recovery Facility.
[4:43] The project site is in very close proximity to AC Transit bus route 86, which provides service to Hayward Bart,
[4:49] South-Award Bart, Cabot Boulevard, Industrial Boulevard, and Tennyson Road.
[4:54] The project site is also located close to several arterials, State Route 92, and Class 3.
[5:04] The project site has a unique background which is helpful in providing context regarding the proposed development we are reviewing today.
[5:12] The project site was originally developed for commercial purposes, starting in the late 1960s, early 1970s. It was used as such until 2014 when the city used eminent domain to extend white cell street.
[5:26] Whitesill Street by sected the existing property forming two small irregularly shaped parcels that make up today's project site as shown on the screen and red.
[5:36] All the other impacted properties from the Whitesill Street extension are much larger and more irregularly shaped comparatively, making the project site and anomaly within its zoning district.
[5:48] Following the completion of white cell street extension, the city utilized the Eastern
[5:53] parcel for the Hayward Navigation Center, which was operated by a Bay Area Community
[5:57] Services, also known as BACS. In 2025, BACS applied for and received behavioral health
[6:03] continuum infrastructure program funding to construct a mental health rehabilitation facility.
[6:10] Following that, the city council authorized negotiation and execution of an agreement to
[6:15] the project site to back. In May of this year, the Hayward Navigation Center moved off-site leaving the site vacant,
[6:22] and in July, the City Council finalized the disposition and development agreement to sell the project site to back,
[6:28] which leads us to today.
[6:32] Now that we've familiarized ourselves with the project site and the background,
[6:36] let's get into the project itself. The project is located on two parcels, totaling 0.97 acres,
[6:41] with frontages along Whitesil Street and Depot Road.
[6:45] The project site is encumbered with easements,
[6:47] including a sanitary sewer easement and PG&E easement,
[6:50] which prohibit development on approximately 0.17 acres of the site.
[6:55] The site is located within our general industrial,
[6:57] also known as IG, zoning district,
[7:00] with a corresponding land use designation of industrial corridor
[7:03] within the Hayward 2040 general plan.
[7:06] The project includes the construction of a 65,000 square foot,
[7:10] mental health rehabilitation facility on the eastern parcel.
[7:14] The building has three stories of treatment facilities, including offices, programming rooms,
[7:19] staff rooms, and 83 patient beds.
[7:22] The project includes a variety of shared open space, connected by internal pathways, including
[7:26] indoor seating areas, a large-ground-level courtyard gathering space, another large rooftop courtyard
[7:32] and an indoor activity room.
[7:35] The project design artfully takes into account the existing conditions, onsite, by locating
[7:39] the building to allow for the preservation of a large redwood tree and avoiding the easement
[7:44] areas.
[7:48] The project also includes the development of the western parcel as a parking lot, which includes
[7:53] 20 parking spaces, and then there are an additional three parking spaces on the eastern parcel
[7:59] for a total of 23 parking spaces.
[8:02] The elevation showcases the building design, which incorporates a contemporary architectural
[8:07] style that includes the series of recesses and projections, ample glazing, a mix of materials
[8:12] in colored accent panels. The building also has an inviting entry with landscaping, glazing,
[8:18] a mural, seating, and shade structure, and there is additionally a 14-foot tall decorative
[8:23] fence surrounding the entire eastern property. Due to the project's site constraints, previously described,
[8:30] the project is requesting three variants of food from zoning regulations. It is requesting
[8:35] deviations from the maximum floor area ratio, the minimum street side yard set back, and
[8:42] the street side yard's fence height as shown in yellow on the screen.
[8:46] Besides the requested, besides the requested variances, the pressure is fully consistent
[8:51] with the zoning ordinance, industrial design guidelines, off street parking regulations,
[8:55] and tree preservation ordinance.
[8:59] The findings shown on the screen are required to approve the proposed variance request.
[9:03] All of these findings can be made for the project due to the unique site conditions, including
[9:09] but not limited to the size of the parcel, the shape of the parcel, and the existing easements.
[9:14] This is described further within the staff report and project findings.
[9:20] The project is fully consistent with the general planned land use designation and the identified
[9:25] land use and health policies on the screen.
[9:27] These policies promote diverse and fill redevelopment of health care facilities.
[9:33] The project qualifies for a class 32 in fill exemption from the California Environmental
[9:38] Quality Act, also known as Sequel.
[9:40] The project has demonstrated compliance with all the eligibility requirements as shown on
[9:45] the screen and as described in the project findings.
[9:49] Lastly, I want to highlight some applicable provisions of state law in accordance with
[9:54] California wealth, welfare and institution code,
[9:57] the use of the building as a mental health.
[9:59] Reables.
[10:00] Education facility is allowed by right, and the city is prohibited from denying the use, as such the use is not under review tonight.
[10:07] With that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approved the proposed project based on the draft findings in attachment 2.
[10:15] In the conditions of approval in attachment 3. At this time, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[10:20] I'm joined on the city side by Saeed from Public Works Engineering, Kathleen from Development Services Engineering and Steven Wolf from Public Works Utilities and I will invite the applicant to provide a brief introduction of 13 for questions.
[10:40] Thank you. This time I'd like to open please
[10:45] come forward. Thank you.
[10:46] I'll
[10:58] turn it on.
[11:01] Yeah.
[11:01] How about now?
[11:03] Hello, and thank you so much to the Honourable Planning Commission of the City of Hayward.
[11:08] My name is Jamie Almanza, I'm the CEO of Bay Area Community Services and its development corporation.
[11:14] We are incorporated as 501C3 not for profit organizations.
[11:19] We have the pleasure of serving our great city of Hayward since 1981.
[11:25] We have a total of 15 programs and projects throughout the city of Hayward, as well as an
[11:32] unincorporated Hayward. As an organization, we were incorporated in 1953. So we're about to
[11:40] celebrate our 75th anniversary. I've not been here the whole time, but I have been with the
[11:44] organization for 16 and a half years. And the time is now, and I just really appreciate the city
[11:52] of Hayward. I work with a lot of municipalities and counties and the state of California our
[11:58] great state and our federal government. And as challenging as the times are right now,
[12:05] this is such a need of project for our most vulnerable constituents. It residing in the city
[12:13] of Hayward and in the county of Elameda. So we have a wonderful development team who is here
[12:18] tonight and happy to take any questions and just want to really appreciate city staff who have
[12:24] been phenomenal throughout this journey.
[12:27] So thank you.
[12:31] Does the commission have any questions of the applicant?
[12:34] Okay.
[12:35] If you wanted to just stay nearby?
[12:40] Okay.
[12:41] Or, yeah.
[12:42] Go ahead.
[12:43] Richard Myers.
[12:45] Thank you, Chair.
[12:47] I think I'd like to start with a question.
[12:51] I don't know, maybe, for the attorney.
[12:53] And it's just a kind of, just before I go any further, I had a question here.
[12:59] So I understand, I'm just trying to get a quick understanding of something of our role.
[13:05] Because it says, based on the, because I grew old, the California Welfare Institute code.
[13:14] And what it says is it says that,
[13:22] because we are using the WIC, right, WIC, the Welfare
[13:26] code, which is cool. It does so, though, I'm confused, because this is it's
[13:31] Shownopy subject to a conditional use permit, discretionary permit, or to any
[13:37] other discretionary reviews or approval to be able to use that.
[13:41] So, I'm kind of just getting clarification. Is that how we are on this?
[13:46] Or, because it seems like we're saying we qualify for the WIC, but yet, we're using
[13:52] exemptions that we're not supposed to.
[13:55] So I'm just wondering where we stand on how we can make some decisions here.
[13:59] Sure.
[14:00] Good evening.
[14:01] Vadim Siddanovich of Assistant City Attorney.
[14:04] So what the welfare and institutions code section that is mentioned here of 5960.3 that you're
[14:12] looking at discusses the way the project is that it's
[14:21] by right. And then the specific qualification that you are not to consider, the use of the
[14:28] project itself, what you're looking at is the variance and whether it fits within the
[14:36] zoning and the general plan that's before you. Does that help?
[14:43] I'm not sure. So I understand that we have a few things that we have to approve such as the
[14:51] I mean, the fence high and the setback in search, and the far.
[15:00] We cannot deny this, which I'm not saying I want to, by any means, because totally we need these.
[15:04] But it says that it is a by right building based on the WIC.
[15:13] But the WIC on this section says that we only qualify for the WIC if we're not giving these
[15:20] variances or exceptions. So it just, it tears me. I'm not sure where we're standing on that.
[15:28] I'm not sure if follow the,
[15:33] what you're asking, but I think the, maybe I can clarify this,
[15:37] the, the buy right use is what's permitted. The variance relates to where it, it's not that
[15:45] you're giving the project exemptions, through its use under the welfare and institutions code.
[15:51] The code permits the use itself, what you're discussing today is the, the setback issues and
[15:58] and particular issues related to the unique way
[16:02] that this parcel is set up in some of the zoning rules
[16:06] that you have that govern of approvals in relation
[16:11] to the zoning rules that we have.
[16:14] OK, OK.
[16:16] So, and based on the definition, it says the structure,
[16:21] it says it's shown not be subject to, in order to qualify
[16:23] for the WIC, it's shown not be subject
[16:25] to a conditional use permit, discretionary permit, or to any other discretionary view or approval.
[16:31] So you're saying that by going forward with our approval of these changes that we still
[16:36] meet the WIC parameters?
[16:39] Correct.
[16:40] Okay.
[16:41] Perfect.
[16:41] That was my starting question.
[16:42] Sorry for making that so difficult.
[16:45] Okay.
[16:46] It's a complex question.
[16:49] No, hopefully that's the extent of it.
[16:52] But I do have a lot of questions.
[16:53] I hope you don't mind.
[16:54] I like to do my due diligence if possible.
[17:00] So, and it's not only for you, it's also for staff.
[17:03] So, the far I understand the floor area ratio is typically no max of 0.8.
[17:10] I understand it looks like the average in the area is about in that zoning is 0.4.
[17:16] And because of the shape we're having to increase it to three times the average, let's say.
[17:23] But almost four times the average, but what happens if we don't approve it?
[17:31] I mean, I know that's to have this building.
[17:33] But if we don't have it approved,
[17:37] let me read it.
[17:38] Because when I write my questions, I sound a lot less fumbling.
[17:42] It says the normal maximum here is 0.8.
[17:45] And we're being asked to approve 1.53, which is a pretty significant difference.
[17:49] I understand from the findings that this is an unusually shaped property with the easement on it.
[17:54] But what is it about the property itself that requires us to go all the way, could this property still be reasonably developed at a let's say point eight for just with a small building?
[18:07] So, I think there's two things I want to clarify. I first want to start out by saying, while the average in the district is point four, it is because it is predominantly made up of warehouses buildings.
[18:17] Our code does have an exception for office buildings that allows it to go bigger because office buildings typically have a FAR of like 1.4 to 1.8
[18:29] So a building a kind of of this form typically had this is in line with that it kind of FAR if we
[18:36] Didn't approve the variance they couldn't be able to be operational they need this amount of rooms to make their operations work and
[18:45] because of the easements and the necessity for parking.
[18:50] That's on the other side.
[18:50] They are not able to increase the floor area of the building.
[18:53] Any more given the site area that they have.
[18:59] OK, yeah, that's very helpful.
[19:00] Thank you for that.
[19:03] And then page 2 of 10.
[19:05] No, teasing.
[19:09] So it also says that the building, a taller building,
[19:14] is more feasibly alternative because it
[19:17] is a constraints of the property.
[19:19] But we still are allowed 53 feet.
[19:22] I mean, we're only going 53 instead of 75 feet.
[19:25] Can you tell me how we've made those decisions?
[19:29] So if they went taller, they would be adding additional floor
[19:32] area, because they would be adding more.
[19:35] So it would make the variance request larger if they went taller.
[19:38] just because they go taller, it would, if they comply with the minimum street side set back,
[19:46] they'd have to make the building taller, which would make a bigger variance for the FAR.
[19:51] There's only so many levers we can pull to make a peasing project.
[19:55] Our project feasible either, they have to, you know, remove open space or remove-
[20:00] We'd have to ask for a variance from something. They chose to do a variance from FAR, streetside setback, because they saw the value in providing open space and parking for the operations.
[20:11] Excellent, yes, and that makes total sense.
[20:16] So I also see on the floor plans, there's four different areas. One is for forensics, one forensics, two substance use disorder, and then the other one special behavior.
[20:27] But I don't see an explanation for any of those.
[20:30] Is it possible to get kind of an explanation on what the forensic levels pertain to?
[20:36] Yeah, I will.
[20:38] We're happy to provide that over email and stuff because it's related to the use of the building.
[20:44] We can't share like specific information because the use is not under review tonight because of that health and welfare code.
[20:50] Okay. Well,
[20:53] the reason I ask is because I'm trying to understand the requirements that are the need to approve the higher elevated security 14 foot fence.
[21:03] So I'm wondering if if the different areas have different securities or facility requirements, like for security, that's kind of what the reason I'm asking has a purpose.
[21:13] I will say in general, lots of industrial, lots of business within the general industrial district
[21:20] have fences that are this tall.
[21:22] The difference is that in other places within the general industrial district they can
[21:27] remove it out of the setback and so they can have that 14 foot tall fence.
[21:33] So even while the building has operational needs that may necessitate the 14 foot tall fence,
[21:37] many industrial businesses have fences that are this tall because of
[21:42] the general security concerns in the area.
[21:47] Okay. And I guess keeping on the 14 foot fence decision, it does say the
[21:54] plans describe this as a secure treatment facility. I just lived down the
[21:57] street from it. So I really want to do my due diligence because I'm the
[22:00] closest one to anybody here. Although I would ask as many questions if
[22:03] across town. People are like sure you would. Anyway, so I'm just interested in how the 14 foot
[22:12] perimeter fence relates to the fact that it's a secure treatment facility. Could you kind of explain
[22:18] what secure means?
[22:23] I can try my hardest. Secure for us means two things. It means secure for
[22:30] the community writ large and it means the security of our patient population and stakeholders
[22:38] IE staff.
[22:41] We operate a plethora of behavioral health facilities throughout the at this point Northern
[22:48] California and you wouldn't believe how important Thencing is and I think we've learned a lot
[22:56] lessons over time with various types of behavioral health, residential treatment facilities.
[23:04] There could be instances where a fence is a secure division to contain the patient population,
[23:14] which is absolutely therapeutic and recovery oriented for the people we serve,
[23:18] as well as kind of reduce or eliminate kind of temptations to the outside community.
[23:27] So the entire design of this project is really trying to bring in as much natural community
[23:35] feeling to an institutional facility, while being both a physical barrier, environmental barrier.
[23:44] And I think the height of the fence is really indicative of wanting to ensure both, again, the safety of the community.
[23:55] And just the reduction of temptation of behaviors, frankly.
[24:03] Okay, I think that was very insightful. Thank you.
[24:07] Okay, so then I'll move on to the next segment here, which is parking.
[24:13] It looks like we are asking, I see the calculations and I get why we're at 23 parking spaces.
[24:18] On the blue prints, when they were doing the calculations for the garbage disposal, they
[24:23] described the employee count quite different.
[24:25] They said that the first floor will have 20 employees.
[24:28] The second floor will have 10 employees, the third floor will have 12, which is 42 employees.
[24:35] Is that accurate?
[24:36] Or do we know what the staffing is going to be and how they base the parking?
[24:41] So the parking is based on the patient bed. 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.
[24:54] So they have met that requirement through the calculations described in the staff report.
[25:00] 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, thanks. So, very accessible by bus.
[25:13] Okay, and so, by code, we don't have to a lot for any staffing. Is that what you're saying?
[25:18] the ratio of 1 to 3 patient beds, when the
[25:24] organ, or when those ratios are calculated,
[25:28] they take into account the staffing and the population
[25:31] that would be using the facility.
[25:33] So that 1 to 3 bed ratio was based on staffing assumptions.
[25:38] Okay. Okay. Okay.
[25:39] And then the traffic it says is expected to generate fewer
[25:44] than 110 trips per day.
[25:46] Do we know the actual number of that?
[25:49] So, that's a big, that's a big variance, a big option there.
[25:54] Yeah, that is based on like models that we use for secret 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.
[26:10] So, the actual trips per day will depend on the operation of the building.
[26:14] And that model is conservative and uses best assumptions based on the use of the building.
[26:20] Okay, and that would include such things like medical transportation or activities,
[26:26] or deliveries, patients drop off and pick up.
[26:27] Yeah, not just people who are parking their vehicle here.
[26:30] Anyone who is visiting the site in the evening.
[26:34] Okay, I just wanted it because that was the impact report and I wanted to make sure I understood what that was.
[26:38] And then it says the property was previously used as an automobile wrecking and towing facility.
[26:46] Can you kind of explain what we currently know about the environmental conditions of the property?
[26:53] Is there anything else left still to investigate?
[26:57] I see that there was also like I made notes on your responses to my questions too, so I'll ask quickly those.
[27:03] But yeah, just that one for now.
[27:05] So typically our hazardous materials department requires a phase one, which is the document we attach to your comments.
[27:12] The phase one kind of identifies the hazards that may exist on the site.
[27:16] If there are hazards, our hazardous material department will ask for a phase two to get more information.
[27:23] Our hazardous materials division in this case didn't find anything in the phase one that concerns them.
[27:28] So they are comfortable moving forward with the condition of approval that they go through clearance with the county.
[27:34] office of environmental health and they will do further investigative studies to ensure that the
[27:40] building will be safe for the use. And this is very typical of all development projects and
[27:47] hate work not just this one or ones that we're used as previously as automobiles.
[27:52] Sure, sure. Okay, good, good. And then regarding fire access, I see some of the fire
[27:57] access details are still going to be worked out, right? Such as the the curb and everything
[28:02] Is the fire department at this point comfortable with moving forward with this?
[28:06] Yes, they are.
[28:07] We wouldn't be here today if they weren't, weren't okay with it, and crafted conditions
[28:12] of approval.
[28:13] That is because there is going to be changes to the median.
[28:17] The final design of the median will be at improvement plan stages because it's like a detailed
[28:21] engineering document to do that and they needed to, the fire department needed to check
[28:27] with their vehicle manufacturer
[28:29] to see how much a lifted curve could they land
[28:33] safely on and deploy their ladder system.
[28:36] But our architect is on the project
[28:38] understands this and is willing to design it
[28:41] to meet the fire department's needs,
[28:42] hence why there's conditions of approval related to that.
[28:45] Oh, okay, very good, thank you.
[28:48] And then,
[28:51] and I know it's a lot by this project.
[28:58] If, for some reason, us as an entity is not able to make the findings or a problem,
[29:11] what happens at that point.
[29:16] The applicant is, if the Planning Commission denies the variance in the site plan review,
[29:22] that you would need to provide evidence to support why you believe a variance isn't warranted on this site,
[29:29] 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.
[29:43] And may I? Is that okay?
[29:47] I think it's a very important question and we've grappled with this quite a bit.
[29:51] We have a very divine kind of attachment to Deepo Road because we ran our Hayward Navigation.
[30:00] Center there that your city has funded for the last number of years, at least the against alluses
[30:05] are program manager. She spent more time at this parcel than a lot of us probably have. And again,
[30:14] in our 70-plus years operating behavioral health, residential treatment facilities for people
[30:21] with severe needs, which we're seeing such an influx of demand as everyone is across the state,
[30:33] We are so committed to this parcel because we think it's such a unique geographic location
[30:39] and we didn't know that when we moved into depot road, we thought it was a little too far
[30:44] out our unhoused individuals actually going to want to stay and there's actually a
[30:50] health to the actual location of where it is in our city and you know the 86,
[30:58] just the transportation, our staff who have worked there for years, these variances,
[31:04] I think, where we had to go through a lot of architectural design processes because it's such a
[31:12] unique footprint, and at the same time, I think it's the
[31:17] variances that we are humbly requesting for a
[31:22] approval that will make this work.
[31:24] So without them, I don't want to say we'd be back to
[31:29] the drawing board, but we'd be a little bit closer
[31:32] back to the drawing board.
[31:33] So I appreciate the question because we've had
[31:35] substantial conversations about that.
[31:38] OK, and a lot of my questions, I live in the neighborhood.
[31:41] It's been a wide topic and I'm trying to represent as many questions from the public as I can right now.
[31:47] So thank you for that.
[31:50] Also,
[31:53] is there any other facilities that you know of in the, maybe in the county or in the general bay area that are close to waypoint that you can maybe give some examples of.
[32:05] Like emergency service calls unauthorized departures or, you know, departures.
[32:10] items like that? I would refer. I would like to read or act us away from like
[32:16] questions specifically related to the use of the thing. I am sympathetic to your
[32:23] concerns. I'm sure Myers and we can answer them. I'll answer them offline. If you
[32:26] would like to send me an email, I will coordinate with Bax and get you all the
[32:30] answers about the use, but I would like to caution us from talking to you. And I
[32:34] took a lot of these questions and I've added them against that and this one
[32:37] So I apologize.
[32:39] Yeah, no worries.
[32:39] You're right.
[32:41] OK, it's so an onsite generator.
[32:42] How's that?
[32:43] That's good.
[32:45] Oh, but that's not really a variance.
[32:47] I mean, that's not an issue with a variance.
[32:49] See, there is it.
[32:51] No, but if you have questions about the variance located
[32:54] on the roof, I'm happy to try my best to answer for our agencies
[32:58] that will review it.
[33:00] But our fire department and our hazardous materials department
[33:03] and the building division have looked at it preliminarily
[33:05] and are comfortable with the location of the very,
[33:08] are you up to the end of the screen?
[33:09] I'll start to wrap this up with the last few questions.
[33:12] So based on the assessment, so thank you for sending
[33:14] that assessment today.
[33:15] I didn't have found a rate at all.
[33:16] It's a thousand pages, but I got through a lot of it.
[33:20] It shows the assessments based on 3, 7, 8.
[33:25] Am I too assumed that it covers both properties?
[33:28] Yes, that is correct.
[33:29] The other property does not have an address.
[33:33] A sign to it.
[33:34] And then it also states in there that interviewing current and previous owners of the property
[33:41] is a vital and important part of that assessment.
[33:46] But it seems like they didn't interview really anybody, and it even says that the city
[33:50] of Hayward was unavailable, even though we owned it for the last six years.
[33:54] Could you speak about why even Hayward did not give an input on that property?
[33:58] I can't speak to that specific consultants reasoning for whether or not in how they reached out to the city of Hayward, but we have, and I have reviewed a lot of phase one, so you don't typically get information from previous property owners.
[34:14] 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.
[34:26] So there is not uncommon to not have a testimony
[34:30] from previous owners.
[34:35] I don't love that answer, but I think
[34:38] I can't get anything else besides that, right?
[34:41] Which I'm okay with.
[34:42] OK, so last couple of things is, thanks for clarifying
[34:47] the 83 beds question, because it's not 83 rooms, right?
[34:51] It's 83 beds with a lot of double rooms.
[34:55] And then a couple more quick notes here.
[35:00] Oh, maybe that's it. I wrote them on my other page. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, data.
[35:10] Any other commissioners? Commissioner Hammond?
[35:14] Yes. Thank you. Just for the record, I like this project, but in regards to the items received after the public agenda, given the current environment that the planning commission seems to be navigating through at this time,
[35:30] I'm a little comfortable perhaps approving a project that I've had a very little time to read over a thousand pages.
[35:39] So I'd like to know, do these a thousand plus pages have any bearing on the discussion that we're having tonight?
[35:46] No, as noted in the response to Commissioner comments, it's not typical that we provide the phase one.
[35:51] We provided it because Commissioner Myers requested it.
[35:55] 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 for questions I play review that you are reviewing today.
[36:10] Or the site plan review.
[36:13] So with that, questions.
[36:16] So the structure will overwhelm the rest of the structures and the vicinity.
[36:19] Are there plans to develop this area with similar massing, or is this a special circumstance
[36:25] because of the unique property line?
[36:29] Yeah, there are approved projects that are in that area that have very large buildings.
[36:38] They're a little shorter because they're warehouse buildings.
[36:40] And as I previously explained, the code allows for greater FAR for office and administrative uses.
[36:46] 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.
[36:59] Okay. Are you hoping to get other such facilities also in this area?
[37:06] The city of Hayward is always open to development, and we would love to see a lot of these
[37:11] like vacant or automobile use sites be developed.
[37:17] Leah, our planning manager, worked on updates to the Industrial Regulations back in 2019 to
[37:22] kind of encourage that development.
[37:24] And then since then, we have seen a lot of redevelopment of sites.
[37:27] There's one just south of this that is a beautiful warehouse building that has a classic
[37:33] car restoration, you said it. So, yeah, this is something we are seeing three development
[37:37] in this area.
[37:39] Okay, thank you. So, this location for this type of facility is in a good location,
[37:48] but
[37:48] being that it's a good location if the facility is secure. Can you speak a little bit more
[37:58] about what security measures will be in place?
[38:03] Absolutely, and I think I will, if it's okay, bring up my partners here and introduce our team,
[38:09] because I don't know, I don't think you want to get very technical, so I can talk programmatically,
[38:14] but we have Lily and Mitchell from Mitchell Holiday Architects who have been very involved
[38:20] on the security planning of an Andy Turner who's our Chief Consultant for the project.
[38:26] So I don't know if you guys want to come up and talk more about technical security or if you want
[38:30] more of a programmatic security?
[38:33] I'm just concerned that this, or I'd like to be assured that this facility will be secure.
[38:39] Yes.
[38:39] Okay. Well, I can start with a facility design as it relates to the target population and the interventions.
[38:48] Then certainly rely on my partners if you have any more physical space security questions.
[38:55] So all residents that come through way point will be evaluated prior to admission based on a very clear
[39:07] set of inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria that are dictated by the state of California
[39:14] government. All residents will have controlled access from entry point through exit point.
[39:23] So, residents, patients are not permitted to leave the site at any time.
[39:31] So, it is indeed what we would say in the industry like a locked facility.
[39:39] And all of the design elements of the mental health rehabilitation center are two standards
[39:47] that we have to follow.
[39:49] there's very specific kind of hospital-based standards for this level of treatment and care.
[39:56] And that's where we can get into a lot of technicality if you would like, but there...
[40:00] One of the important factors in why we're presenting and asking you for the variance approval is, frankly, because we want to 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.
[40:20] So it is state of the art, it's built to the 20, 20, 20, 26 standards.
[40:28] We've actually over-designed it because of prior experience to ensure that we are putting
[40:36] in every feature possible, and it's very expensive, as we know, to do so, but to ensure
[40:44] that the patient experience, the resident experience as well as the community experience
[40:51] is up most of up most security. So that is where the fence really does come in as one example.
[40:58] Sure. Okay. That's good. Thank you.
[41:03] So, let me see, are the other businesses near the site aware of what this facility be?
[41:12] Yeah, the notice included that this is a mental health rehabilitation facility.
[41:17] So everyone in the vicinity was noticed, and it is included in the facility.
[41:20] And was there any, what was the feedback?
[41:23] We had only one comment related to it, and he did not believe the use is suitable for the industrial
[41:34] district, but we explained to him the welfare and institution cause any ultimately understood
[41:40] that what the state was trying to do with those regulations,
[41:44] but didn't appreciate it being in the industrial area
[41:46] and thought it was more suitable for a residential area.
[41:49] So are there any other facilities like this in that area?
[41:55] So there are not currently facilities located within that area.
[41:59] Although our Hayward Municipal Code would allow this facility
[42:02] with the approval of an administrative use permit.
[42:04] So it's not that we don't allow it.
[42:06] We do allow it just within administrative use permit.
[42:09] and the city of Hayward has another one of these proposed currently located in the residential area
[42:14] in Hayward so, and this is not the only facility we have.
[42:19] Okay, thank you.
[42:20] The next questions are more of a structure about the structure.
[42:26] I did not see that you have solar panels installed on this on this site will there be solar panels
[42:35] on this site?
[42:36] Yes.
[42:36] Yes.
[42:36] 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 permits stages.
[42:46] Okay, and then I saw in the comments after publication that there will be three EV chargers. Is that located on the on the site side or on the parking side?
[43:02] Would you like to come up parallel in? Oh, do you want to come up? I think you should come up. Is okay?
[43:07] Yeah, I don't want to be up here on this damn by myself.
[43:11] Good afternoon.
[43:17] Lily and Machili architect, assisting backs.
[43:20] We have three EV parking charge, charged parking on the white sold parking side.
[43:27] And then three EV ready will be there as well.
[43:31] This is across the street in the parking.
[43:34] So, um, is it?
[43:37] Yes, I'm sorry.
[43:37] The reasons that we don't have it on the larger property is that there is sewer easements,
[43:46] and they do not want us to put anything permanent across that easement, and that's what
[43:51] would need to happen to have a charger at one of those parking space.
[43:58] In the likelihood that you had midnight, might need to do some work on the easement, would
[44:03] be still possible to install them and easily have them removed?
[44:08] Now that I will defer to Stephen Wolf Public Works utilities to talk about what is allowed
[44:15] and inside the outside of the basement, they did kind of propose other things and the public
[44:20] works utilities division does not want anything permanent within the easements.
[44:25] Stephen, do you mind answering that question?
[44:28] Yeah, we want to make sure that our crews have access to provide any repairs as needed
[44:38] on the sewer line itself.
[44:40] So if we need to excavate to make repairs in the sewer line.
[44:45] So anything permanent, we wanted anything that could be removed easily.
[44:53] Okay, is it possible on the parking side of what white cell?
[45:00] To put in more EV charges or even to put solar panel shade over the parking to add extra solar.
[45:09] We haven't looked into that. It's supposed it's possible, but we have some pretty serious budget constraints.
[45:18] So Jamie, I don't think that anything we're doing would preclude that happening in the future as well.
[45:33] So we can look into putting in whatever infrastructure would support that in the future.
[45:37] Sure, there would be, there'd be helpful.
[45:40] Be wonderful.
[45:42] I see that the Mountable Curb is mentioned, it's already existing.
[45:54] I don't think this curve currently meets the definition of mountable that the fire department
[46:01] is looking for, and as Taylor mentioned, that exact criteria is going to be
[46:07] to be coming forward through public works and fire department.
[46:12] Correct, right now it's just a curve.
[46:15] It's not a mountable curve, so there's no kind of angle up
[46:20] for a vehicle to drive onto the curve.
[46:22] It's just straight down.
[46:23] So the fire truck couldn't mount it currently,
[46:26] but it will be redesigned to that kind of curve.
[46:30] And then I notice that it's kind of a long walk
[46:32] from the bottom of the parking lot up to the closest crosswalk.
[46:36] is it possible to put a crosswalk maybe through the, through the median?
[46:42] What?
[46:44] Yeah, because of the current like median and the traffic circulation,
[46:53] the transportation department would not support any additional pedestrian walkways in that area.
[47:00] Also, as noted throughout the presentation, white cell was just recently designed and
[47:04] and that met their bike and ped-mester plane goals and things like that, so an additional
[47:10] pedestrian crossing would not be supported by the transportation division.
[47:14] Okay, so let's just have to get their steps in.
[47:19] And then where's the nearest overflow parking going to be located?
[47:24] If you didn't seem like there might be, you know, parking spaces for everybody that's working there,
[47:28] and I would hope that they would use the bus stop, but it is your plan for off street parking.
[47:34] There is on street parking surrounding the site and it's because of the area, it's development, it's really unused.
[47:45] There's not a high level of vacancies.
[47:47] Okay.
[47:49] And then I see on the plans that you're going to be taking out a tree and replacing with another tree.
[47:59] Yes. Yes. We are taking out one tree. Frankly, I don't believe it's that healthy, but
[48:06] we are preserving the nice red wood that's at the front. We consider it sort of iconic.
[48:14] I would say, and they'll be measures taken to protect the tree during construction, and of course,
[48:22] you know, take care of it for its lifespan.
[48:25] But you would have to remove one and you're replacing it with another.
[48:28] I just want to maybe if you might consider adding it maybe a couple more trees to the
[48:35] here we have a, we are replacing the tree.
[48:38] I think one of the issues is broadly speaking concern for the resident safety and
[48:49] So the plan selection is quite specific, although we've got some lovely landscape plans.
[48:59] Yeah, I saw that I like landscaping plans. I just hate losing the trees.
[49:03] Yeah, you might be able to add some more summerals.
[49:06] I can speak a little bit to the trees. The tree is located. The existing tree is located on the parking lot sites.
[49:11] they unlike the redwood tree, there was no way to move around it without reducing the number
[49:16] of parking and it was important for them to meet the parking requirement. Additionally,
[49:20] the tree they are replacing it with is a larger tree. So I think it is, I'd have to go check this out
[49:27] for, I think it's a 36 inch box tree and the tree currently that's there is much smaller.
[49:33] Okay, well that's all the questions I have. Thank you.
[49:39] Thank you. Commissioner, hello.
[49:41] Thank you.
[49:43] And thank you for a presentation, Mr. Shard.
[49:47] You mentioned a little bit about the, uh, you over-designed the fence.
[49:52] Can you just give us some of the features of the fence, please?
[49:58] Absolutely.
[50:04] Can you repeat your question? Maybe a little more specific, well, she had mentioned that the fence was over-designed.
[50:14] 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 happen to me.
[50:25] The features.
[50:26] Yeah, I think we're unlike a lot of fences you see in generally.
[50:33] This fence we are incorporating the design on the street side in with the whole building.
[50:41] And so it'll be a colorful fence utilizing the same materials as we're using on the face
[50:47] of the buildings in color palette.
[50:50] And then further, we will be on the inside for the residents, there will be finishes on
[50:58] that side that are also conducive to this sort of therapeutic environment and their safety.
[51:04] So, it's like a lot of fences, there'll be one side, this one will have design emphasis on both sides.
[51:15] And one of the things that you'd mention was the, or at least it sounded like the in the over designing of the fence, the over designing was for a safety.
[51:28] What features are specifically geared towards safety?
[51:34] let's see. Well there's the height of the fence. Yeah, it's the height and that it'll
[51:43] also be what they call an anti-cline fence. So that no one can climb up, fall off, get
[51:50] hurt, try to climb over. So it's a very specific kind of fence and driven by that
[51:59] safety concern. Thank you very much. I appreciate your answer. So for staff, I wanted to go back a little bit to the
[52:11] variances. So as far as the variances are concerned, one of the things it says,
[52:19] says, we may approve or
[52:21] conditionally approve a variance request with the following findings, and you know what those are, but what I was
[52:27] Specifically, getting at is it talks about the variance
[52:31] doesn't constitute a grant to special privilege
[52:34] in consistent with limitations of other properties
[52:37] in the vicinity and doesn't deprive this property
[52:42] of privileges that other property has.
[52:46] So can you speak a little bit to whether or not
[52:50] the variance is for this property would result in special privileges
[52:56] for this property.
[52:58] Yeah, I will start by saying that this property does not resemble any other properties in the district.
[53:04] There is nothing in the ID district that is this small also of this much of front edge and is that weirdly shaped.
[53:12] And it's partially because this one was formed through the eminent domain process.
[53:17] Because of its shape and size, it doesn't have the same privileges as other properties.
[53:22] as I noted previously, everyone is allowed
[53:25] to 14 foot tall fence in the industrial district.
[53:27] However, the other properties have the ability
[53:29] to set it back because there is just more area.
[53:34] Most of the projects also have larger site areas
[53:37] and not a large PG&E easement that run through it,
[53:40] which means that they can comply
[53:42] with the minimum street side set back
[53:45] because they have enough area to relocate the building.
[53:49] And then, lastly, for the FAR, they have additional area to balance the floor area ratio.
[53:57] This property, because of its size, just doesn't have the ability to achieve any of those.
[54:02] Well, all the other properties in the district are able to meet those standards.
[54:08] And regularly, my time here, we haven't brought any variants for requests,
[54:12] because there are just frankly not parcels that qualify for these kind of exceptions,
[54:17] because they meet the lot size and lot frontage and lot requirements.
[54:24] Unfortunately, because of the way this parcel was formed, it is just unique and that
[54:27] is why variants finding exist in zoning ordinances for these special scenarios where
[54:32] the parcel just doesn't work.
[54:35] Thank you very much for that explanation and that's all the questions I have.
[54:43] Commissioner Hardy.
[54:44] Thank you, Chair Goodbody.
[54:46] Thank you staff for the presentation.
[54:48] My first question, I'm not sure if it's for staff or for the applicant.
[54:53] What is the ideal height for a security fence for a project like this?
[54:57] Is did we go with 14 feet because that is...
[55:00] This is what some of the other businesses have, or is that actually like a standard that you have in other places?
[55:09] I would say from my typical review of applications, I have seen fences this tall. Specifically, we do see them for cannabis and other like sensitive users where they really want to make sure that individuals are not entering the site.
[55:24] So, there is no standard of what how tall a security fence is, it kind of depends on the design and
[55:32] the property itself, but this is not atonical.
[55:38] I think it's a wonderful question.
[55:41] I don't think I've ever been asked that question before, but in our and treatment focused
[55:46] residential care for people with very acute behavioral health needs,
[55:54] The height of the fence is hyper-critical to, again, I hate to repeat myself, but keeping
[56:05] the resident milieu, if you will, safe, really, stay-been-off temptation.
[56:14] So I think the question around the design of the fence, too, is we want to make sure people
[56:19] passing stuff through the fence, and like Lillian said, having
[56:24] temptation or being actually physically able to jump over the fence, we have the
[56:31] staffing and the interventions and the tools in our toolkit to do so, but you know,
[56:35] the 14 feet I think is exactly to my colleague's point on staff, and I think for us,
[56:42] we've just had a lot of learning lessons over the last 50 years, I'd say, including
[56:48] in the unincorporated area of hayward where it's really just it's so integral to the
[56:54] the the containment I guess would be the right word for it. So I appreciate your question.
[56:58] It doesn't answer it directly because if I if you if you want to approve to couple more feet
[57:02] I'm kidding. Well the not that I'm saying that's what that's it but I was just wondering if that's just
[57:10] the standard that you always ask for in places or yes.
[57:17] My other question really has to do with
[57:19] community engagement. Since there was just the one community member who spoke up about this,
[57:28] just wondering if this were to be passed, if any plan there is for outreach, I know that it was
[57:35] addressed around the proposed use and that's not something we're going to get into following this
[57:40] either or most likely, but even just the compatibility of the building with this surrounding area
[57:48] and just the neighborhood, like would there be any follow-up
[57:51] with the neighbors, with that, even some of the things
[57:53] we learned tonight about the reasons for the fence,
[57:56] or, you know, just security and the way it will look,
[57:59] and just things that they may actually appreciate
[58:01] morning just put on all watch planning commission meetings.
[58:06] So is there any plan or possibility for anything like that?
[58:10] I will let back to this over.
[58:11] I will start by saying, well, the city doesn't do notification
[58:15] and after approvals, when projects start to get online,
[58:20] the planning division gets calls and we're happy to answer any
[58:22] of the questions about it, I will say I handled the other
[58:27] project that is similar to this facility and the community members
[58:32] will find it in common comments. So the fact that we did not receive
[58:35] comments is indicative that the community is comfortable with the
[58:38] location of where this facility is. And I will let
[58:42] tax talk about whether or not what their kind of notification
[58:46] processes moving forward as they begin construction if approved.
[58:51] Thank you and if I may and also invite up Andy Turner, Chief
[58:55] Project Manager for the site, I will say an advance of Andy
[58:59] sharing.
[59:01] Bax has a good neighbor policy and we really embody that.
[59:06] That's why Alicia Gonzalez here.
[59:08] She knows the businesses pretty intimately from when
[59:12] We operated the Hayward Navigation Center there.
[59:15] It's a very different facility.
[59:19] And in fact, just thinking about general neighborhood concerns,
[59:24] this facility, like I said before,
[59:26] has controlled access for residents,
[59:30] whereas the Hayward Navigation Center is voluntary.
[59:34] People can and should come as they go or come and go as they please.
[59:38] And so just to say before I pass it over to Andy,
[59:41] We absolutely do community engagement.
[59:47] Neighborhood events, we invite communities,
[59:51] neighborhoods, both businesses and residential
[59:54] to comment people are curious.
[59:57] So we tend to, before like, a grand opening.
[1:00:00] Good evening, one, I just like do people want a tour to see what's going on in their backyard, those kinds of things.
[1:00:05] And then also being ultra responsive to community challenges.
[1:00:11] Neighbors have my phone number, my cell phone, and our leadership teams, and it's on our website.
[1:00:18] And so we can't be successful if it's not for us being good neighbors.
[1:00:23] And I'll pass it over to Andy, if that's okay.
[1:00:26] Thanks, Jamie, thank you to the commission for the question, appreciate it.
[1:00:31] I would just like to point out that unlike a lot of projects, you know, this is a pretty
[1:00:37] specific facility, so a lot of our public outreach is not going to look quite the same as
[1:00:43] it would for a typical commercial or residential use.
[1:00:46] We're not necessarily inviting people in to think about the colors.
[1:00:49] because we're really spending that type of effort and time
[1:00:53] consulting with our colleagues at Alameda County
[1:00:55] in the health department at the state
[1:00:57] and other subject area experts
[1:01:00] really across the industry to make sure
[1:01:02] that this facility works correctly
[1:01:04] for who it's designed to serve and what it needs to do.
[1:01:08] So I think that the level of intensity
[1:01:10] is probably even higher,
[1:01:12] but it's a little less outward looking
[1:01:14] and a little more focused on how this facility's gonna work
[1:01:18] you know for the environment that it's creating and I think that sort of follows up what James
[1:01:22] been talking about security as well. That said, from a construction perspective, I can say,
[1:01:28] we have a great team when we get there, they will be out there talking about dust, noise,
[1:01:35] parking, deliveries and all the rest of it, but that's, you know, that's a moment in time that's
[1:01:40] not necessarily the purview of this conversation, just let you know. Thanks very much. Thank you.
[1:01:49] Commissioner Stevens, do you have any questions?
[1:01:52] All right.
[1:01:53] I'm going to go ahead and ask my questions.
[1:01:57] This is for staff.
[1:01:59] So going back to Commissioner Myers discussion about the state law.
[1:02:08] So the project summary states that the state law prohibits the city from issuing conditions of approval.
[1:02:16] but yet on the, one of the beginning paragraphs in the staff report says that we are,
[1:02:30] the recommendation is for the Planning Commission to prove the proposed variance and
[1:02:36] site-review plan subject to the touch findings, attachment to and the conditions of approval.
[1:02:42] Was that in the type?
[1:02:43] No, 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.
[1:02:51] Thank you.
[1:02:57] And then on page three of the staff report, can you clarify what?
[1:03:01] What is a class three bicycle facility?
[1:03:05] It is a typical bicycle facility that you see on the road.
[1:03:10] So it has no protections or separations from the vehicle roadways.
[1:03:15] Okay. And then in terms of the on page seven under the site plan review, can you clarify
[1:03:26] how this project has compatible on site uses?
[1:03:37] So this is specified in the project findings. As noted, the building is, without discussing
[1:03:47] in this specific use, operate similarly to a hospital or an office building, which is a
[1:03:53] used scene throughout the industrial area. So it is compatible with other uses and office
[1:03:57] buildings that are seen throughout the site, operationally.
[1:04:01] Okay. And this is just a question of a general question about sort of maybe the industry,
[1:04:11] and I, you know, I don't want to be careful not to talk to what the use is, but when I first
[1:04:19] heard of this application, I expected something totally different.
[1:04:23] I expected to see something maybe that was closer integrated or co-located with an existing
[1:04:31] clinic, Saint Rose Hospital, or Eden Hospital, whatever, and I'm wondering if that, if this
[1:04:41] have we moved away from that or we way past that is that something that your organization
[1:04:46] or others in the industry are doing or would consider it seems to me that it would be more
[1:04:52] of a holistic integrated care for the residents that need the services.
[1:04:58] Can you comment on that?
[1:05:01] 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.
[1:05:22] This type of facility and intervention is self-contained, if you will.
[1:05:31] So, the treatment by the practitioners, whether it's medical doctors, which are psychiatrists,
[1:05:40] nursing staff, behavioral health clinicians, et cetera, the services need to be deployed
[1:05:48] at the site because the the type of facility and it being a mental health rehabilitation center.
[1:05:56] It is controlled. So it's the only intervention that I would ever say that about,
[1:06:04] but we do bring in partners. So local FQHCs, et cetera, to provide on-site services.
[1:06:14] Thank you.
[1:06:16] Commissioner Mayors, you have an additional question.
[1:06:19] Go ahead.
[1:06:20] Thanks.
[1:06:21] A couple things I found.
[1:06:24] I'm looking at the environmental site assessment.
[1:06:28] And it shows it's three years old.
[1:06:29] Do we have anything that's more recent?
[1:06:33] No, but the assumptions made in the report are still standing because the site isn't.
[1:06:40] like it hasn't been introduced new environmental hazards.
[1:06:45] Okay, and I also see on here based on all the old owners and the previous former owners,
[1:06:54] which spans a lot of different companies.
[1:06:57] But the last line of the paragraph in the assessment here says,
[1:06:59] however it should be noted that if the land use changes in the future,
[1:07:04] additional investigations may be wanted.
[1:07:06] Now, doesn't this constitute a different land use change?
[1:07:10] Yeah, which is why there's a condition of approval requiring that the
[1:07:14] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health provides site clearance.
[1:07:18] So when they reference it, additional investigations may be warranted.
[1:07:23] It's not actually of the site.
[1:07:24] It's just that we have to give a different level of approval.
[1:07:26] Is that what I'm saying?
[1:07:27] So the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, which provides
[1:07:30] the clearances, does a typically ask for some soil samples or other like
[1:07:35] things to screen the site.
[1:07:36] So there will be additional information requested of the county
[1:07:39] department. But based on the information we have right now, we don't see any hazards that would
[1:07:45] prohibit this development from moving forward. Excellent. Okay. And then lastly, let's see,
[1:07:52] how do I word this? So first off, I'm, this is a comment, but there's a question after.
[1:07:59] I'm, I, I, I, I, I door backs. I think what backs does is amazing. I have a son who is unhoused
[1:08:05] and probably undiagnosed mental.
[1:08:08] I've been to one or two of the St. Regist meetings
[1:08:11] regarding before when this was amalgamated.
[1:08:15] And right now, you kind of have the floor,
[1:08:17] because you heard the people at St. Regist,
[1:08:20] and a lot of their questions,
[1:08:22] we're in another neighborhood right now.
[1:08:24] You don't have to, because this is not what it is.
[1:08:26] It's not our purview.
[1:08:28] But is there anything you're willing to say
[1:08:31] about the project that could help alleviate the hundreds
[1:08:35] of residents who have concerns about why it's not at Regis or what kind of safety measures
[1:08:40] we have.
[1:08:41] Again, you don't have to.
[1:08:42] I'm just asking you if you have the floor, would you like to?
[1:08:48] Yes, and I'm trying to stay within your rules.
[1:08:52] To make it, I'm usually, would be very quick to want to have the floor in comment on this.
[1:08:57] I think this project is so uniquely different than the interventions in most other projects,
[1:09:06] including Regis Village, the main one being what I just commented to around this is a certified
[1:09:17] locked mental health treatment facility for those individuals who have such acute needs
[1:09:25] that they need not only institutional care but they need involuntary care that is in a
[1:09:31] setting that is completely protected which is the opposite of Regis Village and I think
[1:09:36] There's an opportunity to continue to engage the community around like the education of various interventions because it's not obvious.
[1:09:45] So I've got in questions about other sites, including Regis Village, around like, can people come and go absolutely?
[1:09:53] They can. It's voluntary versus this is very, it's just on the opposite side of the spectrum.
[1:10:00] Which I think makes this specific location, the specific design, and the, you know, again, the humble request for these variances. So integral, because, as, 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.
[1:10:26] 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.
[1:10:39] Thank you.
[1:10:40] Thank you.
[1:10:42] That's all, Chair.
[1:10:45] Are there any more questions from the commissioners?
[1:10:48] Okay, this time I'd like to open it to public hearing.
[1:10:53] Members who wish to address the commission, if you would, please provide your card to
[1:11:00] Miss Allen.
[1:11:03] Miss Allen, do we have any speakers?
[1:11:07] We do not.
[1:11:10] I will close public comment then and at this time we can move to discussion among the commission.
[1:11:17] And so at this time we can ask questions of the applicant or just deliberate.
[1:11:24] Commissioner Stephens.
[1:11:26] Thank you.
[1:11:28] So first off, I'm sort of depressed because this land use would have fit a nice data center.
[1:11:34] Nice 25 or 30 megawatt data center that would have been great.
[1:11:38] But in all seriousness, I'm really excited.
[1:11:40] I think it's a really creative use of the sites.
[1:11:43] I compliment the architect that the articulated facade on the 600 foot radius is just absolutely
[1:11:50] amazing.
[1:11:51] So, excellent work, really supportive of this, and I'd be happy to make a motion to approve
[1:11:58] that the planning commission approve the proposed variance and site plan review subject
[1:12:02] to the findings and conditions of approval that were attached here tonight.
[1:12:09] Second, I'll second, moved by Commissioner Stevens and seconded by Commissioner Hardy.
[1:12:18] Is there any discussion?
[1:12:22] Commissioner Hammond?
[1:12:24] Yeah, it's also one to say for the record.
[1:12:27] I like this is a really good use of the impulse space.
[1:12:31] And I think I want to say that I appreciate all the work that the architects had to do
[1:12:36] to make this facility fit on the site.
[1:12:39] So with that I also like to say that I appreciate the proximity to the bus service and I hope that
[1:12:46] frequent service will help encourage people to use transit instead of driving and I'm also
[1:12:53] aligned with staff's recommendation for approval this is project and we're for the vote.
[1:13:03] Great, if Ellen, if you want to call the roll, roll call vote,
[1:13:10] are we going to do it verbally?
[1:13:15] I had it on my iPad, do other commissioners able to vote?
[1:13:48] We'll have to move to a roll call vote.
[1:13:53] Commissioner Hammond?
[1:13:55] Yes.
[1:13:57] Commissioner Hardy?
[1:13:59] Commissioner Low?
[1:14:02] Commissioner Myers?
[1:14:04] Just want to say the back, thank you for what you do.
[1:14:07] Please keep doing that.
[1:14:09] Commissioner Stevens? Yes. Chair Hardy.
[1:14:13] Chair, good body sorry. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for investing in Hayward and
[1:14:21] the motion passes.
[1:14:29] Next, we move on to item 2, pH 2, 6, 3, 6,
[1:14:40] staff.
[1:14:40] Could we pause for a moment? Of course. Yes. To get, just take a five minute break. Thank you.
[1:14:48] We'll take a five-minute recess.
[1:14:56] We are now considering item two, pH two, six.
[1:15:00] 26, 036, consideration of proposed amendments to the Hayward 2040 General Plan. Turn it over to staff now.
[1:15:10] Hello, again. Hayward committed the Ampleting Commission for those who might have missed.
[1:15:15] I'm Taylor Rashard, and I'm joined by fellow associate planner, Dulcea Choa, to share some proposed general plan text and map amendments to implement the Hayward downtown specific plan.
[1:15:26] Back in 2019, the Hayward City Council adopted the Hayward Downtown
[1:15:31] Specific Plan to achieve the community's vision of a resilient, safe,
[1:15:35] attractive and vibrant downtown.
[1:15:38] The Downtown Specific Plan included programs to achieve this vision,
[1:15:42] which include the two programs identified on the screen,
[1:15:46] and in the staff report.
[1:15:48] This project aims to implement these two programs to ensure consistency
[1:15:52] between the Hayward 2040 General Plan and the Hayward Downtown
[1:15:56] Specific Plan.
[1:15:58] These programs were crafted through an extensive community
[1:16:01] outreach process, which included the formation
[1:16:03] of a Downtown Specific Plan task force, a community workshop,
[1:16:06] a five-day design-share and a community open-house.
[1:16:09] To implement these programs, we conducted additional community
[1:16:12] outreach, which included tribal consultation,
[1:16:15] notification to the community and a community meeting.
[1:16:19] Two-day public comments have expressed a desire
[1:16:21] a desire to create consistency on their sites between the general plan and the downtown specific plan.
[1:16:27] With that, I'm going to pass it off to Dolce to describe the proposed amendments.
[1:16:33] Thank you, Taylor.
[1:16:35] The proposed tax amendments to the general plan land use designations.
[1:16:38] City Center retail and office commercial, CCROC and city center high density residential.
[1:16:44] CCHCR can be found in attachment 3.
[1:16:48] Currently, the CCROC and CCHCR designations have no minimum density and allow a maximum density of 110-12 units per acre.
[1:16:57] The proposed amendments would establish a minimum density of 40-12 units per acre and increase the maximum density to 210-12 units per acre.
[1:17:07] The amendments would not change the allowable uses or building forms within the subject land use designations.
[1:17:14] The general plan landest designation map amendments can be found in the attachment for.
[1:17:19] The map amendments would redesign the 130 parcels identified in the downtown specific
[1:17:24] plan from their existing land use designations to the CCROC designation.
[1:17:29] Those 130 properties currently have the following land use designations.
[1:17:34] Commercial high-density residential, medium-density residential, parks and recreation,
[1:17:39] sustainable mix-use and lastly public and costly public.
[1:17:45] Only seven parcels with Parks and Recreation
[1:17:47] Lannies designations between Mission Boulevard
[1:17:49] and A Street are proposed for remapping to address zoning
[1:17:52] and consistencies.
[1:17:54] One part-owned parcel would be remapped from PQP to CCROC
[1:17:58] to match the surrounding part-owned property for future redevelopment purposes.
[1:18:04] On the left is the existing General Plan Lannies designation map
[1:18:08] and on the right is the map showing the proposed amendments.
[1:18:13] As discussed in the staff report and shown on this slide,
[1:18:16] the proposed general plan text and map amendments
[1:18:18] are fully consistent with the city plans and policies
[1:18:21] and will strengthen the city's competitiveness
[1:18:23] for grant funding opportunities
[1:18:25] and support BART's redevelopment efforts
[1:18:27] at the downtown Hayward BART station.
[1:18:30] With that, I'll pass it back to Taylor to discuss equal.
[1:18:33] Lastly, the implementation of these programs
[1:18:35] was fully analyzed under the Environmental Impact Report
[1:18:39] prepared for the Hayward Downtown Specific Plan adoption, as such there's no additional
[1:18:43] analysis needed under the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CQA.
[1:18:49] And with that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
[1:18:53] that they approve the proposed amendments to the Hayward 2040 General Plan to implement the adopted
[1:18:58] programs within the Hayward Downtown Specific Plan and review findings that the project is fully
[1:19:04] consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California
[1:19:08] environmental quality act. This concludes staff's presentation and we are happy to answer any
[1:19:13] questions you may have. We are also joined by Byron Teng Deputy Director of Public Works
[1:19:18] Transportation. Thank you, Ms. Rashad and Ms. Ochoa. I'm going to move now to the planning
[1:19:25] I'm going to come in to your questions.
[1:19:29] Let me just,
[1:19:38] okay, don't see any requests to hold on.
[1:19:44] Commissioner Lowe.
[1:19:47] Thank you.
[1:19:48] Thank you for your presentation.
[1:19:50] The,
[1:19:54] what I was wondering is currently,
[1:19:56] you just said that the CCROC and CCHD,
[1:20:00] Our designations have no minimum density and allow a maximum density of 110 dwellings per unit, units per acre.
[1:20:09] What was that based on?
[1:20:15] 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 industrial residential areas.
[1:20:27] So like one ten is aligned with that, I believe that the, when we adopted the
[1:20:34] down to specific plan, they intended to adopt a 40 minimum, but unfortunately
[1:20:41] the way the was adopted, it didn't clearly state that.
[1:20:45] So I think at the time we were supposed to adopt a 40 minimum, it was fully analyzed
[1:20:49] and in the environmental impact report as always having a 40 minimum.
[1:20:54] So, I think the zero minimum was a mistake.
[1:20:59] Thank you.
[1:21:00] That's all I had.
[1:21:03] Commissioner Hammond.
[1:21:06] Yes, thank you, staff, for your report.
[1:21:10] So, some questions.
[1:21:12] What is the long-term goal for the remapping of the 130 parcels to the CCROC land use designation?
[1:21:28] So currently there's a lot of inconsistencies between the general plan and the zoning, so through this effort, we would fix that.
[1:21:35] So bring those properties to be consistent with their zoning and their general plan and your specific nation.
[1:21:39] Sure.
[1:21:40] But do you have something planned for that?
[1:21:45] Not necessarily, I mean, he would always open to development rights.
[1:21:48] It's whatever comes and will analyze it whenever he comes through.
[1:21:51] And I will add the downtown specific plan created that vision.
[1:21:55] So when the downtown service plan was adopted,
[1:21:58] it identified types of buildings, types of uses,
[1:22:02] and all of that that we're going to be allowed in the downtown specific area.
[1:22:06] We are cleaning up the general plan,
[1:22:08] so that way those documents are consistent,
[1:22:09] so that vision can be achieved.
[1:22:12] So then you might be up to building taller buildings?
[1:22:18] We are not proposing any changes to the heights that are allowed in the downtown specific plan.
[1:22:25] But this will, if we approve it, then this potentially could allow for higher buildings in that zone.
[1:22:34] We are not changing any of the height regulations within the zoning districts.
[1:22:39] So whatever is currently allowed would be able.
[1:22:43] So, okay, then, approximately how high could we build with a density range of 110 max?
[1:22:52] Currently, across the downtown specific plans zoning districts, we allow a height range of,
[1:22:58] or a maximum height range in certain districts between 35 feet in the areas that are far
[1:23:04] there away from the Bart station, and then closer to the Bart station, we allow a maximum height of 124 feet.
[1:23:09] Okay, very good.
[1:23:13] And then what is our goal for the existing residential development near the water tower along the new open space on the hill?
[1:23:25] So I don't have them. If you have the map, just north of the old city center.
[1:23:31] We
[1:23:34] up on the top right corner, there's an empty space, water tower in that area, are you planning on developing that area?
[1:23:45] We spoke, that's a HOA owned property, I believe, that there's a community of townhouses I think you're referring to that is there, and that is a portion of their property.
[1:23:56] through our outreach project, we talked to a couple of the people who are on
[1:24:00] own condominiums projects right, and the H.O.A. doesn't have plans to develop it
[1:24:04] at this time, but creating these consistencies would allow development
[1:24:08] there more easily.
[1:24:10] Is there any plans for them to take out what's there, and then?
[1:24:14] No, there are no plans right now.
[1:24:17] And then there's a question about, can you answer what parks in recreation changes?
[1:24:24] we made at the mission in a street location, that one kind of had me a little confused, was
[1:24:31] that parcel ever used?
[1:24:33] Yeah.
[1:24:34] So there are seven parcels that currently have a Parks and Recreation, General Palman,
[1:24:38] any specific nation that are going to be changed to CCROC.
[1:24:42] Those seven properties that currently have commercial and residential on them, so they don't
[1:24:46] have any parks and recce uses on them right now.
[1:24:49] Was it with before?
[1:24:50] I don't think so.
[1:24:51] No.
[1:24:52] Yeah.
[1:24:55] then on to, in addition to the one bay area grain.
[1:25:00] What are the grants are we eligible for if we make amendments to the general plan?
[1:25:11] I think the consistency of these consistency updates would also be something that was called for in our
[1:25:19] housing designation so those are state, that makes developers like backs or affordable housing
[1:25:25] developers more competitive when they apply for affordable housing funds and so and then
[1:25:32] in addition I think besides one barrier grant there are other TOC like MTC, TOC projects and
[1:25:41] so these amendments would bring us TOC as transit oriented communities would bring us into
[1:25:48] or make us more competitive for grant funding.
[1:25:51] So when you look at certain points,
[1:25:53] we would be weighted lower if we're less consistent
[1:25:56] and weighted higher in those grants,
[1:25:59] if we're more consistent.
[1:26:01] And those are, at this point,
[1:26:03] there are just probably still going to be rolling out grants
[1:26:05] in using the TOC guidance as a measure
[1:26:10] of competitiveness.
[1:26:11] Because we're all going after the same grants.
[1:26:14] So you want to increase your points as much as possible.
[1:26:17] Do the city receives money from these grants?
[1:26:25] The city, so you're talking about old bad grants.
[1:26:28] The city received old bad two grants.
[1:26:30] Can you clarify just for the public, the acronyms?
[1:26:34] Oh, yeah, one bay area grant, old bad.
[1:26:38] The old bad three cycle, we did not get any grants.
[1:26:42] Getting in compliance with old bad for the TOC,
[1:26:46] which is the next cycle coming up old bad for that's what we're trying to
[1:26:50] be eligible for, and we have about a year to reach that point.
[1:26:57] And so how would the money be spent?
[1:27:00] So, MTC will release call for projects.
[1:27:03] And we would apply for that, and if we meet the requirements for the TOC, the TOC requirements
[1:27:09] that would allow us to go after that.
[1:27:11] In addition, if we meet the TOC requirements, we will be kind of,
[1:27:20] five million expected. That will also be something we will be competitive for if we meet these
[1:27:26] requirements. Okay, so that's also for the future MTC grant funding opportunities. Yes, and
[1:27:33] right now it's vague like there's not a lot of they haven't really sent any call for projects
[1:27:37] yet or anything but it is expected in the future. And the money would be spent the same way. Yeah.
[1:27:44] Yeah. Okay. And then we see, this is just kind of general questions. Is there a way to expand
[1:27:53] the present required radius? I'm not sure if it's 500 for public outreach notification.
[1:28:04] There's a certain radius around the site. So we notified every single property owner that was
[1:28:13] being remapped so it wasn't it's not a radius thing for that if you're talking about
[1:28:19] general like planning things you know we can defer that's not kind of within the
[1:28:25] scope of this project but we're happy to look at that. Sure I understand that but
[1:28:29] kind of again it seems like there's a lot of concern about the public not being
[1:28:36] informed of these things and I was just wondering if it's possible for a larger
[1:28:41] area of the paper population to be notified about this and we'll maybe like the last project
[1:28:49] and any other projects that we have going on.
[1:28:54] Yes, so we notify in accordance with the Municipal Code and State Law, which is if there's
[1:28:58] a specific project site, it's with within 300 feet of the project site.
[1:29:02] That's Municipal Code and State Law.
[1:29:05] We also stay law only requires us to notice a decision or a public hearing, but we also send out a notice of receipt of application.
[1:29:14] So we get an application.
[1:29:15] We sent that out.
[1:29:16] That is just, that's a courtesy notice over an above see law.
[1:29:20] In a situation like this where it's city initiated and it impacts more than 1,000 properties.
[1:29:25] We do not mail notices directly to people unless as Taylor pointed out, people's own properties owning was going to be impacted.
[1:29:32] those people were directly informed. But in a situation like this, we publish in the newspaper
[1:29:38] and according to state law if there's over a thousand notices due to the cost of sending this
[1:29:45] out, notification in the newspaper is adequate. And in general, what is the, it doesn't seem
[1:29:53] like we get a lot of feedback from all of the outreach that you do, whether it's a newspaper or
[1:30:00] In the general vicinity, it seems like somehow the word is just not getting out there. I guess I'm just trying to figure out a better way maybe of inform in the citizens of Hayward that projects are going on to give them a better chance maybe to weigh in.
[1:30:23] I guess that's more of a comment.
[1:30:27] 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 state do they have in zoning decisions or potential upcoming developments?
[1:30:47] So state law requires us to notify all tribes that have requested to be notified for a project.
[1:30:54] So we notified all of them and two tribes requested consultation.
[1:31:00] City staff has to work with the tribe until kind of like consensus is met.
[1:31:05] So we met with the confederate nation of our confederate tribes of Lijon Nation.
[1:31:13] And we had a meeting with them where we discussed the project, they were generally supported,
[1:31:19] they were really excited to see that the Santa Lorenzo Creek area was not being the general
[1:31:25] plan wasn't changing there, it was remaining apart in a while in areas, and they were
[1:31:28] excited to learn about the existing policies that the city has about future development and how
[1:31:33] they could be included in projects I would occur within the downtown area.
[1:31:37] So following that meeting, they said that all of their questions had been met and they
[1:31:41] the consultation period. As for the other tribe, we reached out to them via email after they
[1:31:47] requested consultation. Five or six times and they never responded to us so we were forced
[1:31:53] to close public comment without having the chance to discuss with them. So if there is negative
[1:31:58] feedback from a from a local tribe, can they stop a project? We have to make a best faith effort to work
[1:32:07] with them to make sure their needs have met.
[1:32:10] What mostly, the tribes are concerned about,
[1:32:12] is actual development projects, less about policy work,
[1:32:16] and they want to make sure that when there are development
[1:32:18] projects that could potentially impact their tribal resources,
[1:32:24] that a tribal leader is on site to be able to watch excavation
[1:32:27] and things like that.
[1:32:28] That is mostly what they express to us is their desire.
[1:32:31] So they are involved in kind of that process,
[1:32:34] based on my conversations with them, that is their key point in just having site investigation
[1:32:41] and being able to watch construction occur.
[1:32:44] Okay, thank you, that's my question, thank you.
[1:32:48] Commissioner Myers.
[1:32:50] Thank you, Chair.
[1:32:52] Some of my questions have already been answered, so you guys can relax.
[1:32:59] Regarding the height, again, SB 79, does it not allow for nine foot, I mean nine story
[1:33:07] buildings where our downtown code allows for seven story. And if that's the case, does
[1:33:13] that mean we're going to sometimes have nine story buildings around?
[1:33:22] Yeah, so SB 79 allows up to 95 feet at the maximum rate. So yeah, it might be nine stories.
[1:33:28] But that's through SB 79, if the developer chooses to go through the SB 79 route.
[1:33:34] Okay, and that would only be for those projects that use SB 79, right?
[1:33:36] Yeah, exactly.
[1:33:37] Okay, cool.
[1:33:38] Okay, and then also, we're going to be rezoning some of the many properties.
[1:33:43] And we're almost doubling the one-tended to two-ten really.
[1:33:48] Do you have any properties that might not be able to adequately appease that requirement?
[1:33:56] So that is the maximum density.
[1:33:57] So they need to hit between 40 and 210.
[1:34:00] Me and also did a lot of research about what currently density ranges we are seeing with the
[1:34:06] projects that this planning commission has previously approved.
[1:34:10] All of all the projects we have recently approved in the downtown specific plan area.
[1:34:15] The densities typically range at the lowest as to 40 dwelling units per acre.
[1:34:20] And then we had some in the 180, 190, and those are projects that included density bonuses.
[1:34:26] So they had to use identity bonus to go above the one-ten.
[1:34:30] So while this is a change, it's not different than the development we have been seeing proposed
[1:34:36] in downtown.
[1:34:37] Okay, yeah that totally makes sense.
[1:34:39] And then I know I think it was 2019 we had the ER done for the downtown improvement thing.
[1:34:46] We're totally okay.
[1:34:47] We think that all of these adjustments are going to align fine with this impact report.
[1:34:51] Yes.
[1:34:51] So they analyzed this development build out at that density range and they assumed that these
[1:34:59] parcels would.
[1:35:00] Change General Plan. So that EIR fully analyzed it and was certified and so we're just using that same document.
[1:35:09] Because we're just implementing the plan.
[1:35:11] Okay, cool. My other question had been about, you know, my concerns on who all was notified, but I think you guys answered that.
[1:35:18] And then regarding the parks, I believe you answered that online. And okay,
[1:35:31] I think that's it. Thank you very much.
[1:35:34] Commissioner Hardy.
[1:35:34] Thank you. I think maybe all of my questions have been answered to suffer one.
[1:35:42] So, can staff explain how the seven PR parcels became inconsistent with its zoning?
[1:35:54] I did my best to research that it's not very clear, so that change may have occurred
[1:36:01] in the most recent update of the general plan or the previous, it's unclear, but through
[1:36:07] the outreach process with the downtown specific plan which was a very extensive outreach
[1:36:12] process, that community wanted to see this vision of downtown and there is ample park space
[1:36:20] that is actually used as park right now and maintained and has been enhanced since the adoption
[1:36:24] of the plan. While I can't speak to specifically my gleaming from the outreach was that this
[1:36:30] wasn't needed.
[1:36:33] And the current current conditions on site mean that the existing development
[1:36:40] that there, that is currently there, is all non-conforming to our regulations. So by doing
[1:36:46] this, we'll bring them all into conformance with our regulations.
[1:36:52] So there was never any actual plan for any recreation, or-
[1:37:00] old they're like constructed in the like I would say like 1920s to 1940s so they're quite old
[1:37:09] so there hasn't been plants and they're all privately owned it's not owned like by hard or a
[1:37:13] park district so yeah I don't believe there was any plants to ever put a park there.
[1:37:18] Thank you. That's all.
[1:37:23] Any other commissioner questions?
[1:37:29] Okay, seeing that then I will move to the public hearing. Masaland do we have any speakers online or in
[1:37:37] chambers. They're on on in the chamber, nor online. Thank you. I'm going to close public
[1:37:43] caring and move to discussion. Commissioners.
[1:37:51] Commissioner Hammond.
[1:37:54] Sure. So I just have some comments. So if we're going to develop a transit oriented community,
[1:38:01] then we must also develop an efficient, reliable transportation system.
[1:38:08] I'm in favor of
[1:38:09] developing the properties surrounding the Hayward Barts station to high-rise development with ground floor commercial and upper floor mixed office and residential uses.
[1:38:20] For a business friendly Hayward, I very much like to see parts of downtown Hayward become vehicle free and more pedestrian oriented.
[1:38:27] And I approve the proposed land use text amendments found in the Attachments 3 for a, for b, 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 sequence.
[1:38:48] Thank you.
[1:38:50] Thank you commissioner low.
[1:38:54] Senator like you said, thank you commissioner low.
[1:38:57] So I was like, wait, did I speak already?
[1:39:01] I am definitely for consistency, and especially when that consistency has a potential to bring
[1:39:09] more money into the city.
[1:39:12] So for that reason, I am prepared to move this item, and I will be very formal with it once
[1:39:19] I find my notes.
[1:39:21] We have two other commissioners that wish to speak, and I ask you to...
[1:39:25] Oh, okay.
[1:39:29] Commissioner Hardy.
[1:39:31] Thank you.
[1:39:32] I just wanted to give an appreciation.
[1:39:34] Staff, I often ask about community engagement.
[1:39:37] And I felt like there was just a lot of community engagement that happened with this.
[1:39:41] And so just wanted to note that.
[1:39:43] And I am also very appreciative of of of consistency and in support of this.
[1:39:50] Commissioner Miners.
[1:39:53] I'm a one same page.
[1:39:56] I need chance we can too.
[1:40:00] Clean up our general plan, controversial, you know, the discrepancies. I think I'm all for that, and especially as chair, you know, Commissioner Loses, if it helps bring us grant money and everything, that's so much better. So thank you for that, I'm for that.
[1:40:18] Commissioner Lowe, do you want to go back to your motion? Oh, Commissioner Stevens.
[1:40:23] Thank you. Thank you.
[1:40:25] 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.
[1:40:32] Look at all the people that are lined up out the door, right?
[1:40:35] This is like a major land use thing, right?
[1:40:38] And so this seems really minor now, but I don't know, 5, 10, 20, 30 years from now.
[1:40:44] There's going to be people that are frustrated.
[1:40:47] And so I get it, this is the world we live in.
[1:40:50] But I just would like to draw attention to one point,
[1:40:54] which I personally find very frustrating.
[1:40:57] So the One Bay Area Grant, Obag,
[1:40:59] is something that funds a lot of major transportation infrastructure projects throughout the
[1:41:04] Bay Area, and I'm very well aware of this because I implement a lot of these projects.
[1:41:10] And I find it frustrating that the MTC is using the grant funding as a tool to regulate
[1:41:21] land use on a local level. And if you want to know who the MTC is, you can go to their website
[1:41:28] and there are a group of commissioners that are represented from Bay Area-elected folks,
[1:41:35] and our person is the mayor of Alameda. Boy, we don't even have a person from Hayward on the MTC.
[1:41:43] So my point being is that, you know, these decisions are made by people
[1:41:49] that live in ivory towers and that real people are not really a prize of these things, and the repercussions aren't tonight, they are what happens in the future.
[1:42:01] So thank you.
[1:42:06] Thank you commissioner Stevens.
[1:42:08] Now finally, back to commissioner low.
[1:42:10] Are you prepared to make a motion?
[1:42:12] Never mind, I give up.
[1:42:16] I moved that the planning commission approved the proposed amendment to the Hayward 2040 general plan to implement.
[1:42:25] the adopted programs within the Hayward Downtown
[1:42:28] Specific Plan, namely establishing
[1:42:30] a density range of 40 to 210 dwelling unit
[1:42:34] per net acres for the city center retail office
[1:42:38] commercial and city center high-density residential zones
[1:42:43] and remapping a total of 130 parcels to the CCRLC
[1:42:48] land use designation to be consistent with the existing zoning.
[1:42:54] and we have a second from Commissioner Hammond.
[1:43:00] We can all vote now
[1:43:16] and a motion passes.
[1:43:23] Now it's our third and final item and that would be the approval
[1:43:29] of the minutes.
[1:43:36] I move to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting.
[1:43:45] Sorry, pulling it up.
[1:43:51] June 11.
[1:43:52] Thank you.
[1:43:52] June 11.
[1:43:53] 2026.
[1:43:55] Second.
[1:43:56] We have a motion by Commissioner Hardy and a second by Commissioner Low
[1:44:11] if we can go ahead and vote.
[1:44:20] We temporarily lost a connection.
[1:44:23] Oh, here it is.
[1:44:30] At the motion passes.
[1:44:34] All right.
[1:44:34] Now we can move on to Commissioner Commission reports.
[1:44:40] Welcome back.
[1:44:41] I hope you guys all had a really great summer.
[1:44:43] It's so nice to see you again and get started on business.
[1:44:46] And with that, I want to congratulate commissioners low in your golf for being re-appointed
[1:44:52] to the Planning Commission.
[1:44:54] We will miss commissioner Myers, but he's been replaced by a new commissioner.
[1:45:00] I think is coming from the Community Service Commission. So, familiar with, hey, word, and being in this room and, you know, sort of reviewing staff reports, so I'm really excited to have her join the team.
[1:45:12] I think that at the September 15th to the Council meeting, there will be the swearing-in, and then we'll do some trainings.
[1:45:19] 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.
[1:45:26] So we would have Daisy, Commissioner, and Maxi, and joining at that time, but we'll let you know as soon as we know if there's anything scheduled.
[1:45:36] And I think that that's it for reports.
[1:45:43] Thank you. It's good to be back.
[1:45:45] Do we have Commissioner announcements and referrals?
[1:45:52] I am adjourning this meeting at 856 p.m.