1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Oquenda.
Th
e Planning Commission held a virtual meeting with teleconference participation by members of the Planning Commission, staff and public.
R
OLL CALL
Pr
esent: COMMISSIONERS: Ali-Sullivan, Bonilla, Goldstein, Lowe, Roche, Stevens CHAIRPERSON: Oquenda
Absent: COMMISSIONER: None
S
taff Members Present: Brick, Chan, Chang, Lochirco, Ott, Parras, Schmidt, Wikstrom P
UBLIC COMMENT:
Th
ere were none.
PU
BLIC HEARING:
1. Proposed Development of a New Residential Subdivision with 74 New Single-Family Homes and Eighteen Accessory D welling Units and Related Site Improvements, Including Construction of a Segment of the Foothill Trail, and a New Roadway Connector fr om Bun ker Hill Bou levard to Carlos Bee Bou levard, Requiring a Zone Change and Tentative Tract Map Application No. 202003054 for Caltrans Parcel Group 5. Trumark Properties LLC (applicant), City of Hayward (Owner).
A
cting Principal Planner Schmidt provided a synopsis of the staff report.
Trans
portation Planner Chang spoke about transportation study and traffic calming measures and traffic management plan.
M
s. Pamela Nieting and Mr. Garrett Hinds, applicant Trumark Homes, spoke about the Bunker Hill project.
C
ommissioner Stevens disclosed that he works with the proposed project’s architects, environmental analyst, and landscape architect and this does not pose a conflict of interest and will participate in the item.
C
ommissioner Stevens asked if the development rendering from Mission Boulevard was provided to Planning Commissioners ; Acting Principal Planner Schmidt said this was not part of the appl icant’s submittal to staff and believes it was shared with the community at Attachment XVI
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
the last community meeting. In re sponse to Mr. S tevens’ questions about design and architecture, Mr. Hinds said that Trumark’s design to is to have the homes step down the hill and chose the contemporary style which will work well with roof solar panels; and the maximized terracing and minimized massing. Mr. Stevens said in viewing the elevations the appearance looks cold, Mr. Hinds said they are working with the stucco facades, stones, and warm earth tone materials to have a richer texture and smooth out t he sides and have smaller trees . Mr. Stevens a sked about the pony wall on the downhill lots, Mr. Hinds responded the pony walls will have vegetation and other elements to eliminate that impact.
Commissioner Goldstein asked ab out access to the accessory dwelling units ( ADU), Mr.
Hinds responded that the AD Us will have their own access doors, the developer cannot guarantee that all 18 units will mee t the universal design criteria as this is a sloped lot, and each home has open parking in front of the units . In response to Mr. Goldstein’ s question about the affordable ADUs; Acting Principal Planner Schmidt said if rented, the ADUs will be deed restricted ; the Housing Division will monitor the deed restricted ADUs for compliance. Assistant City Manager Ott added there will be a recorded agreement on the property regarding the deed res triction with annual rep orting and monitoring to ensure compliance. In response to Mr. Goldstein’s question if the just cause eviction restrictions also apply to ADUs attached to single family homes as with ADUs that are s eparate units; Ms. Ott said that Housing Manager Morales confirmed that “just cause eviction restrictions” also apply to attach ed ADUs. Mr. Goldstein stated that low and very low -income populations depend on public transportation and if the traffic study t ook this into consideration; Mr. Sahimi, the City’s traffic consultant with Kittelson responded about the availability o f bus st ops along Mission Boulevard between Carlos Bee and Harder .
Transportation Planner Chang responded that the traffic generation took into consideration both the single-family homes and ADUs and looks at a worst -case scenario.
Mr. Goldstein strongly encouraged the applicant to build the rooftop entert ainment areas and ensure that units are re-enforced appropriately. Ms. Pamela Nieting respo nded to Mr.
Goldstein that the London Tree had low suitability for preservation and the new trees being planted will be protected trees.
Commissioner Roche asked why an extension from Bunker Hill to Harder Road was not considered; Assistant City Manager Ott responded that both City staff, City consultants and Trumark engineers looked at this option, but the slopes were too steep. Ms. Roche said the sentiment f rom the community meetings for the Parc el Group 5 Master Plan and the neighborhood letter that was receiv ed, was to maintain a rural characteristic and she finds the design severe and more suited for a downtown housing corridor. Mr. Hinds responded that one neigh bor liked the design, and one did not; he sp oke about the research Trumark conducted and that th e contemporary design is well received at this time. Ms. Roche said the design is not a good fit as there are unnatural straight lines as one looks across the hill.
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Acting Principal Planner Schmidt responded to Ms. Roche that all the hillsides have been rezoned Planned Development (PD) and spoke about the intent to preserve the large lots.
Ms. Roche noted that parking could be a concern in this area and asked about a condition To restrict garages so that th is space cannot be used for ex tra living space o r storage; Ms.
Schmidt said there is not a condition for this. Assistant City Attorney Brick responded that according to state law an ADU can be added in the garage and the City would need to research further regarding placing this restr iction on the units. Ms. Ott said that staff’s recommendation is not to have traditional onsite inclusionary ho using; there is no guarantee that the ADUs will be rented; this site is near California State University East Bay (CSUEB) with a potential stude nt rental market and noted the ADU s t hat are not deed restricted are still considered moderate income units which can address the housing crisis.
Ms. Ott added that this is a new pilot program and City will evaluate the program to see how successful it is . Ms. Roche suggested the following options: compact townhouses/condominium complexes and SB 9; Ms. Ott responded that staff did look at the townhome option, but this would require a General Plan amendment; staff w anted to rely on the existing General Plan ; noting that the communit y was vested in the G eneral Plan designation. Ms. Ott responded that staff is researching the S B 9 option ; Assistant City Attorney Brick confirmed that staff is looking into the SB 9 optio n and that the SB 9 spli t might not be al lowed for Parcel 5 lots . Transportation Planner Chang responded to Ms.
Roche’s question about the impact to th e traffic analysis if all the ADUs were occupied ; Mr.
Chang said CEQA only looks at land uses for the residential impacts and noted that for the local tra nsportation analysis , staff used the industry standard which is the Institute of Transportation Manual which were inclusive of the ADUs.
Commissioner Ali-Sullivan commented that it will be inter esting to see the outcome of the new ADUs pilot p rogram. Mr. Hinds responded to Mr. Ali -Sullivan’s question regarding building options for the ADUs and t hat not every lot can have an ADU because of lot limitations and access; Ms. Neiting said because of accessibility, the placement of the deed restricted ADUs was intentional . Mr. Ali -Sullivan stated that compliance on the deed restricted ADUs is important. Mr. Hinds responded that they are prepared to break ground as soon as Trumark receives appro vals. Assistant City Manager Ott added that the City will have a contract with Trumark that will have a performance schedule and Parcel Group 5 will only be tra nsferred out of the City when certain benchmarks are completed . Ms. Ott shared that Trumark is very professional and has been great to w ork with. Mr. Ali-Sullivan appreciated the variety of scale and that the design reflects the arc hitectural sty le in the area. He also app reciated the developer ’s work on integrating the design with the topography of the area.
Commissioner Lowe disclosed visiting th e site. Assistant C ity Manager Ott provided a background for the size of th e lots to give the developer flexibility and assure the community that the new development would be compa tible with the existing
4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
neighborhood. Ms . Lowe was very concerned about the ADUs being rented as affordable units as opposed to having a certain number of moderately pr iced houses; Ms. Ott said that the City was balancing several objectives such as keep ing the development low density as that was preferred by the community; pay ing Caltrans; generating excess land value that can go back to the City for the cost of demolition of the existing buildings ; helping pay for CSUEB easement and funds to go towards other City projects ; and noting this site was very expensive because of all of the geotechnical work. Ms. Lowe asked if there were any plans for play structures along the trail; Mr. Hinds said the planning for the trail was for viewing and less kid friendly . Ms. Lowe asked if there were any traffic plans for Carlos Bee to prevent drivers from veering to the right and then making a left tur n; Transportation Planner Chang responded that staff looked at this thoroughly and the existing issue is that there are two left tur n l anes in the median and se veral dri veways close to where the connector will be located, he added that existing residents needed to ac cess their neighborhoods. Ms. Lowe asked if Hayward residents can have priority to the deed restricted ADUs; Ms. Ott said staff is finalizing the inclusionary agreement and that usually residents and employees will be given preference. Ms. Lowe asked how is it that the existing four homeowners are included in the zone change; Ms. Schmidt responded that one of the homeowners ap proached the City and wanted to build an addition/or another home and it became app arent that even though the existing neighborhood would be surrounded by a PD district they would not benefit from this change; staff then approached Trumark a nd asked if the existing fou r parcels could be included; Trumark was not opposed to this and staff prepared the addendum for the existing parcels.
Commissioner Bonilla was very concerned about the uncertainty that the deed restricted ADUs would be rented as affordable housing ; he asked about having the developer pay the entire in-lieu fee to provide more affordable housing opportunities for the community .
Assistant City Manager Ott responded that staff provided options to th e City Coun cil and Council felt that since this was public land that there should be an onsite affordable housing component.
Commissioner Roche asked about trail access that can include bikes and wheelchairs and noted the concerns about the parking location and requested that the applicant work with the neighbors ; Acting Principal Planner Schmidt responded there is a sloped area for alternate trail access that will work for bicycles and wheelchairs.
Chair Oquenda asked what the constraints for affordable housing developers are; Assistant City Manager Ott responded that Parcel Group 5 is a very expensive site to develop; parcels must be l ooked at indiv idually; o ther sites were better for affor dable housing and noted that Eden Housing shared this consensus ; the need to work with community partners and staff did not feel this site was viable for 100 percent affordable housing.
5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Chair Oquenda opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.
Ms. Mary Ann Higgs, Hayward resident, support ed the pro posed project; likes the single- family homes and inclusion of the ADUs and feels this is a creative so lution to the housing crisis; and shared that in the existing neighborhood m any existing ADUs are rented to students. Ms. Higgs said that Trumark has been incredibly collaborative with the community and open to new ideas.
Ms. Debbie Fredericks, Hayward reside nt, spoke abo ut a bu s stop that is not u sed that can be pursued; thanked Commissioners and applicant for reading her comments and her email that asked that the area be left open space; asked that existing gas lines be maintained; said the traffic report had left hand turns co ming into Bunker Hill Boulevard from the campus ; the housing architecture is not compatible with the neighborhood as they look like warehouses and would like the applicant to soften the design as Trumark indicated.
Mr. William Craven, Hayward resident, ex pressed disappointment with the traffic plan and asked why residents are not able to make left hand turn s and what is the timetable of the building of Parcel Group 5.
Mr. Thomas Birt, Hayward resident, had concerns about public parking; the parking density around the loop ; a sked how this will work for trash pickup trucks and fire trucks and requested more discussion about this.
Chair Oquenda closed the public hearing at 8:56 p.m.
Transportation Planner Chang responded to the left turn question; Mr. Chang said due to the proximity of Tanglewood which is less tha n 100 feet away f rom the proposed intersection, there would be a conflict for cars coming out or going into Tanglewood.
Acting Principal Planner Schmidt said the connector from Bunker Hill to Carlos Bee will be the first phase of development and the rest will come after.
Commissioner Goldstein commented that he is excited about this project; he favors the onsite inclusionary housing element as a pilot program; this is an excellent site to appeal to students; the ADUs will be built into very nice homes of high quality; hopes that this will work out and hopes for positive feedback. Mr. Goldstein likes the style and variation of the architectural design, the visual aspect; and the housing and ADU variations. He favored the collection of in- lieu fees that will benefit other affordable housing projects. Mr. Goldstein commended staff and applicant on this p roject. Mr. Golds tein asked staff to put Ms. Fredericks in touch with HARD about the land she wants to donate.
6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Roche appreciated the collaboration effort to get to this point; would have preferred a duet model for affordable housing; it is helpful to know that existing ADUs are rented to students; recommended to applicant to market the ADUs to the affordable housing population and students. Ms. Roche said this is a good project for th e City; encouraged the softening of the design; liked the community benefit of the trail and connecting with other properties; and encouraged the applicant to continue discussions with neighbors especially about the traffic impacts.
Commissioner Lowe commented that she like d the modern architecture; there are a lot of great qualities; liked the dog parks; it is positive that the trail is a loop; is very concerned that the 18 ADUs w ould not be rented out but is encouraged that the origi nal plan was for eight ADUs; the project does a good job of h aving a variety of low income housing types and creating student housing especially in this area that is so close to CSUEB; the $2 million dollars in-lieu fees is significant; and recommended that there needs to be oversight that the ADUs be rented to low and very-low income individuals.
Commissioner Stevens does not favor the architectural plans; the product is g eneric and a poor choice for this location; and noted this is a prominent site with amazing views. Mr .
Stevens said in reviewing the architecture in the Master Plan for this area, it was very different and questioned developing a Master Plan if it is no t followed; another misuse is cramming ADU units in these houses that will cost about $1 m illion dollar s and the practicality of staff having to monitor the renting of the affordable units. Mr . Steven s recommended asking t he applicant to develop an amazing product that will generate a tremendous amount of revenue for the City which can then be invested in other City projects.
Commissioner Ali-Sullivan commented that the Commission has seen two Route 238 projects; the projects are unique, intricate and complex; the ADU and affordable housing is a massive problem and this proposed project addresses this issue in two ways, the developer is paying in-lieu fees and also building potential affordable housing ADUs; which is a unique and novel approach; the Commission has raised concerns ab out enforcement; and is confident that through the City and developer agreements and the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, this will be monitored. The design has taken in the topography very well; and suggested that the rooftop desks be included this in the project. Mr. Ali -Sullivan supports the project and made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Lowe seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bonilla stated that he likes the project; the community benef it o f the trails; likes the design; it will be a beautiful community but has serious concerns regarding the City’s commitment to affordable housing. Mr. Bonilla said that the $2 million of in- lieu fees is significant but what about the other $2 million that can be used for other projects; he is
7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
hoping that this affordable housing pilot program will work but has concerns that this is too much of a risk and then there is the staff time for the enforcement to make sure the deed restricted ADUs are in compliance . Mr. Bon illa said this is not feasible given the purchase price for these homes and preferred that the developer pay 100% in-lieu fees because of the ambiguity of renting the deed restricted ADUs.
Chair Oquenda shared Commissioner Bonilla’s comments and asked how firm is requiring the deed restricted ADUs versus paying full in-lieu fees; Assistant City Manager Ott shared that this was a City Council directive that the onsite affordable housing be included in the request for proposals and to change this would have a significant economic impact on the bottom line; staff will pass along the Commission’s recommendation and concerns to Council, especially the uncertainty of whether the deed restricted units be rented and noted that the item is going to Council on April 19, 2022. Mr. Oquenda stated that the affordable housing element for this project is a mistake; it is impractical and has concerns and he stated that he has been tracking this site for a long time. Mr. Oquenda said the additional funding that can be obtained from the developer can be used fo r future affordable housing projects and does not agree with building single family homes on this site. Ms. Ott said with the purchase price of the land , there will be excess land value and there could be a suggestion to Council about how to obtain these funds and utilize the funds for affordable housing. Mr. Oquenda trusts that staff will convey the Commissions concerns to Council.
Commissioner Roche said that the majority of Commissioners have the same concerns about the affordable housing element and if the ADUs will be rented and asked what the rent would be; Assistant City Manager Ott responded that the rent would be from $1250 to $1500. Ms.
Roche agreed with Commissioner Bonilla about the price of these homes.
Commissioner Goldstein stated for his fellow Commissioners that for $2 million dollars a developer would not be able to build 18 ADUs; he finds this pilot program brilliant and whole heartedly supports the project.
Commissioner Ali-Sullivan echoed Commissioner Goldstein’s comments and that there is an opportunity here for the affordable housing option and this is a win-win for residents and the City.
Commissioner Lowe commented that this was not an easy decision; supports including in the staff report that the Commission wanted the in-lieu fees to go towards affordable housing and that the Commissioners would like to see all 18-deed restricted ADUs rented out and hopes that the new homeowners agree with the Commission. Ms. Lowe said this affordable housing pilot program is worth the gamble.
8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
A moti on was made by Commissio ner Ali-Sullivan, seconded b y Commissioner Lowe, to approve the staff recommendation. The motion passed with the following roll call votes:
AYES: Commissioners Ali-Sullivan, Goldstein, Lowe, Roche NOES: Commissioners Bonilla and Stevens and Chair Oquenda ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. Approval of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2022.
A motion was made by Commission er Roche, seconded by Com missioner Goldstein, to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2022.
The motion passed with the following roll call votes:
AYES: Commissioners Bonilla, Goldstein, Lowe, Oquenda, Stevens Chair Roche
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Ali-Sullivan
STAFF AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
Staff announcements on Planning and Zoning Matters:
Planning Manager Lochirco made three announcements; reminded Commissioners that on Friday, March 25 , 2022, there is the D ecision Makers Training; the joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 12, 2022, has been cancelled and that staff is working on several other efforts to get prepared for the jo int meeting. Mr. Lochirco announced that staff will be re leasing the Balancing Act that allows the public and Commissioners to go into the site and provide direct comments on topics. He announced that in May, staff will be releasing the Housing Draft Element and hold a community meeting. Mr.
Lochirco said the target date for the first hybrid Planning Commission meeting will be on May 12, 2022.
9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners’ Announcements, Referrals:
Commissioner Stevens announced that the CSUEB Theater Department is now offer ing plays and he attended a wonderful event and that CSUEB has a great venue.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Oquenda adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
APPROVED:
______________________________________________________
Briggitte Lowe, Secretary
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
______________________________________________________
Denise Chan, Senior Secretary
Office of the City Clerk