1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Lowe. The Planning Commission held a meeting virtually via Zoom.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair Lowe
ROLL CALL
Present: COMMISSIONERS: Bonilla Jr., Goldstein, Roche, Stevens CHAIRPERSON: Lowe
Absent: COMMISSIONER: Ali-Sullivan
CHAIRPERSON: Oquenda
Staff Members Present: Lochirco, Kowalski, Madhukansh, Morales, Ochinero, Parras, Blanton, Vigilia
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Proposed Development with 22 Rental To wnhome Units and Related Site Improvements at 27865 Manon Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 453 -0090-014-00, Requiring Approval of Zone Change, Density Bonus, and Site Plan Review Application 202101491. Ragini Vecham for Sunflower Manon LLC (Applicant and Property Owner).
Senior Planner Blanton provided a synopsis of the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Bob I wersen, Hunt Hale Jones Architects , gave a short presentation on the social, aesthetic, and practical aspects of the project. The project provided pedestrian access to the site as well as parking and service access. The proposed townhomes provided family-style living with materi als and soft c olors that minimized impact to the su rrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Roche inquired if solar panels were considered over the parking spaces in the rear. Mr. Iwersen answered no , due to the assumption that trees w ould be planted along the rear property line.
Commissioner Roche expressed concern about there being minimal parking at the site. She asked what discretion the City had with respect to parking. Ms. Blanton clarified that the State Density Bonus Law allowed a reduction i n parking since the project included Attachment VII
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
affordable units. Commissioner Roche emphasized that the City does not have adequate public transportation infrastructure to continue to under-park projects. Commissioner Roche asked if there was conversation on ride sharing and plac ement of bike storage.
Senior Plann er Blanton responded that the project would ha ve to comp ly with CALGreen requirements noting that bicycle parking will be provided and that there would be storage spaces within the garages. Ms. Blanton noted for Commissioner Roche that a TDM plan had not been develo ped as it was not required for this type of project . Commissioner Roche asked if there was any guest parking on the property . Ms. Blanton noted that the code does not specify which spaces need t o be for re sidents and which are for guest parking . She stated that there was one enclosed space in each garage for residents and added that there was no strict delineation for the parking spaces in the rea r having to be for vis itors and were set up as a first come first serve situation.
In response to Commissioner Roche’s question about the average rent for the units, project applicant Ms. Ragini Vecham indicated that they were still analyzing this, however based on experience, the ren t w ould be es timated to be $3,500 -$4,000 per month. Co mmissioner Roche commented that residents may have to share the units in order to be able to a fford this rent, a nd thereby may have two to potentially five cars based on the size of the home.
Commissioner Roche stated that while she supported creating more housing in the city, she was concerned with not having sufficient parking in project s, and while she wants to see infrastructure that would allow people to not ne ed vehicles, the City was not there yet and that the project would create a problem in the neighborhood, saturating it with m ore vehicles.
Commissioner Stevens understood the parcel will not be subdivided and Ms. Blanton confirmed that is correct and elaborate d that it could not be per th e Affordable Housing Agreement and that this will remain a rental project.
Commissioner Goldstein shared his concerns about the flat spaces and the windows that faced the sun light, inquired about the insulation tha t was being used in the project . Mr.
Iwersen responded that R19 fibergla ss insulation would be used for the walls and confirmed the project will meet all Building Code requirements. He added that the project featured all electric buildings, with the potential for solar on top and hoped for a min imal cost to the resident. Senior Planner Blanton stated that this level of detail was not required in planning applications as it would come later with the construction level set and that building plan check staff would ensure conformance with building code requirements .
Commissioner Goldstein questioned wheth er it made sense to install a shade canopy o ver the sun-facing windows and also favored that the large mass areas have some typ e of decoration to break up the look visually . Mr. Goldstein commen ted that due to the upgraded code, it seemed that the proj ect would not have the same issues with heat transmission through walls and windows as was experienced by some other properties.
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Goldstein inquired if there was an opportunity to unbu ndle parking. Ms.
Blanton agreed that unbundled parking could be considered as part of the p roject, noting that this had not yet been discussed with the applicant. She elaborated that with unbundled parking, instead of assi gning specific spaces to speci fic units, renters could p ay an additional fee if they needed additional parking. She pointed o ut that with the 19 sp aces in the rear, ra ther than assign ing these to units, it could be more demand based.
Commissioner Goldstein ad ded that the theory behin d unbundled parking was to reward people f or not having more car s, and instead using their bicycles or walking. Project applicant Ms. Vecham stated that th is was great advi ce which they could tak e into consideration.
Chair Lowe asked about the feasibility of renting one-car garage units, requiring the project have unbundled parking , the proposed electrified gate surrounding the property, whether the four proposed solar panels was sufficient , and the potential to have an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on the ground floor. Senior Planner Blanton remarked it was typical in multi-family projects in t he city to have one covered space and one uncovered parking space and this was consistent with Code requirements. Ms. Vecham shared that the y have rented si milar unit s with just one -car garage s and have not had challenges. Senior City Attorney Vigilia commented he would explore unbundled parking before the item goes before the City Council and stated that the applicant could voluntarily include this if they desired it in their project . With respect to the electrified gate, Ms. Blanton stated that per the conditions of approval, the building permit plans have to be consistent with what was submitted in the application , any deviations would have to be appr oved by Planning staff and the gate will have to conform to Code requirements . Mr. Iwersen clarified for C hair Lowe that the solar panels cover four areas of the site and this was more than one panel .
Ms. Blanton remarked there was no proposal to have an A DU on the ground flo or and per ADU laws, habitable space could not be converte d into ADUs in the future; for multi-family structures such as the proposed project, only detached ADUs or conversion of non - habitable space, such as up to a quar ter of the ga rage spaces , would be per mitted. Ms.
Blanton shared that g round floor bedroom and bathroom may be desire d for multigenerational living.
Mr. Iwers en confirmed for Chair Lowe that the project meets the Building Code requirements which were to make 10 perce nt of the units accessible. Ms. Blanton st ated that the City’s Housing Division reviewed the Affordable Housing Plan. Mr. Iwers en confirmed that unit 20 was a designated affordable unit which was also accessible.
Commissioner Roche commented that the project will become noncomplia nt with parking requirements if a quarter of the garage is converted to an ADU. Senior Planner Blanton responded that state law does not require ADUs that meet requirements to replace parking on site.
4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Roche asked about electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and Mr. Iwersen confirmed every garage will have a charging unit. Commissioner Roche asked if the 19 uncovered parking spaces woul d also have charging stations. Mr. Iwersen stated th is was not planned at the moment and that it was not a part of the requirements of the Planning or Building Code. Ms. Blanton shared t hat current updates were being made to the City ’s Reach Code and that additional stations may be required.
There being no public comments, Chair Lowe opened and closed the public hearing at 7:47 pm.
Commissioner Bonilla Jr. made a motion to approve the project per staff recommendation, and Commissioner Stevens seconded the motion. Commissioner Bonilla Jr shared his appreciation for the very low-income housing units but agreed with the concerns about parking. He encouraged the applicant to pursue unbundled parking.
Commissioner Stevens loved the design and found the project unique. He noted that the project was another example of how t he state has taken away local control of planning and land development and that was very frustrating.
Commissioner Roche stated the project will be a good addition to the neighborhood and supported the project as it would create more housing in the city . She a greed with Commissioner Stevens’ comment about the loss of local control.
Commissioner Goldstein concurred with his colleagues , appreciated the applicant f or building more housing in the city, the other comments were related to design preferences, and stated that he was also frustrated with the process of the state usurping local control.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bonilla Jr., seconded by Commissioner Stevens, to approve the project per staff recommendation.
The motion passed with the following roll call votes:
AYES: Commissioners Bonilla Jr., Goldstein, Roche, Stevens Chair Lowe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Oquenda, Commissioner Ali-Sullivan
ABSTAIN: None
5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
2. Vesting Tentative Trac t Map (Tract 8461) Applica tion No. 202004359 for a 40 -unit Townhouse-Style Residential Condominium on a Vacant 1.66 -acre Site located at 21339-21447 Oak Street for which a Corresponding Site Plan Review Applicatio n (201800932) was Previously Approved in 20 19 (APN 415 -0170-019-00, 4 15-0170- 020-00, 415 -0170-021-00, 4 15-0170-022-00, 415 -0170-023-00, 415 -0170-024-00, 415-0170-025-00 and 415 -0170-029-02). Applicant: Steven Kodama, Kodama Diseño Architects; Owner: Robert Chen, Golden Oak Real Estate Development LLC.
Associate Planner Kow alski provided a synopsis of the s taff report and PowerPoint presentation, along with the background of the project.
Commissioner Stevens asked if each parcel will have four condominium units instead of the townhome style. Mr. Kowalski cla rified the propo sal would merge the eight exi sting lots into a single parcel and then subdivide the parcel into 40 townhouses-style condominiums.
Commissioner Goldstein inquired if Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HAR D) staff ha d reviewed the proposed open space , if there were plans for a public park in the area, and if the project would include public access connecting the development down to the adjacent commercial properties on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Kowalski noted that HARD was not consulted for private open space within a subdivision . At present, there were no plans to build a public park in the neighborhood. With respect to public access, Planning Manager Lochirco agreed with Mr. Kowalski that the City cannot place a conditi on on the development such as rquiring an ac cess easement into an adjacent private property that required consent from an adjacent property owner who was not a part of the application.
Mr. Lochirco added that there was a substantial gr ade difference between the subject property and the commercial properties along Foothill, and that any p athway created for public access, would have to be ADA accessible.
Commissioner Roche asked for conf irmation that the property’s Commercial Office zoning designation allowed residential units on the parcels and did not require the residential buildings to have a commercial component. Mr. Kowalski confirmed that this was correct.
Commissioner Roc he understood the frustration expressed by some members of the surrounding neighborhood and the frustration that the site plan was already approv ed. Ms.
Roche wanted further details about the affordable housing in-lieu Fee. Housing Manager Morales explained developers cou ld ch oose t o either provide onsite or offsite affordable housing, present a proposal that exceeded minimal requiremen ts, or pay the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee. Ms. Roche stated not having four affordable housin g units on the site felt like a missed opportunity.
Chair Lowe stated that per the 2019 City Council meeting minutes, there was discussion and support to have a commercial component be included in the proposal. Mr. Lochirco remarked the City does not ro utinely start to rezone properties for the sake of rezoning ,
6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
and that type of larger policy discussion needed to b e thought through thoroughly. After the C OVID-19 pandemic, the original property was zoned and designat ed Commercial Office and mixed-use d evelopments featuring ground -floor commercial uses and residential units on upper floors were viable and attracti ve uses at that time; he in dicated that developer s now were having a difficult time attracting ground-floor commercial tenants. He did not recommend changing the zoning on a case-by-case basis and suggested evaluating policy implications of making such changes on a development.
Chair Lowe opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Mr. Tyler Drago ni, a resid ent of unincorporated Ashland, brought att ention to the infrastructure deficit that the area suffered from , indicating that it was a part of the annexation related to Mesa Verde and left the other parts of this neighborhood languis hing without any infrastructure. He stressed the importance of developers needing to contribute to overall infrastructure upgrades and stated that th e project did not address community needs and did not remediate the historical wrongs that the neighborhood had gone through when adding a freeway in this area was being contemplated.
Ms. Ann Maris, resident of the Grove Way neighborhood, stated that in the pre vious iteration of the project, affordable housing units were includ ed and that the current proposal was instead opting to pay the affordable housing in-lieu fees. She shared that the projects being built in the area were fenced off from the neighborhood and she was hopeful that the neighborhood could receive something to improve the daily living conditions of residents. Ms. Maris commented that the area is used to be a family neighb orhood which included a community center, a flea market, and an elementary school; and now the nearest elementary school was three miles away. She stated that new project would have residen ts who were car dependent, and that the roadway was already congested and the intersection of Foothill and Apple Avenue was dangerous. She stated that the neighborhood was dealing with gentrification; that a lot of neighbors h ad moved away; that after buildings have been torn down and rebuilt, they are no longer accessibl e and affordable to the people who originally lived in that area.
Ms. Anita Wah, a resident of Grove Way, emphasized that as projects have come into the neighborhood, r esidents h ave stron gly ex pressed that there was not enough open space and park space , that a community center was lacking; a nd t hat by the time residents offered input on a new development, the project had been approved and it was too late. She stated that the neighborhood has evol ved into an area that only provi des housing and offered no amenities. Ms. Wah urged the City to take responsibility and provide open space and park space in the neighborhood.
7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Marlina Selva requested that the City listen to the neighbor hood’s plea to preserve a community feeling, and provide necessary amenities such as more a ccess to walking and open space.
Mr. Rick Hatcher, Vice President of HARD, appreciated the Commissioner s’ comments regarding parks and open space. He concurred that the neighborhood had a park deficit. He stated that while providing more housing was critical, density without amenities was problematic. Mr. Hatcher strongly urged the City and staff to include HARD in discussions as developments come forward.
Mr. Perkins stated that historically, community input at government meetings ha d not produced much change on pre-concluded decisions. He commented that while approving high-density developments may be profitable for now, they cause a burden on neighborhoods in the future. He pointed out existing challenges with traffic, lack of infrastructure and safety ; and that fences were erected blocking pedestrian access to rights-of-way. He stated that the high-density development projects will not alleviate homelessness nor will they enrich the neighborhoods in the years to come , and urged the Planning Commission to vo te against the proposed development and side with ethics and community interests.
Chair Lowe closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m.
Commissioner Roche requeste d that staff add ress the co ncerns r aised by the community and underscored that the goal in Hayw ard was to crea te livable communities . In response to Commissioner Roche’s question, Planning Manager Lochirco stated the off -ramp was a part of Alameda County’s jurisdiction and there was ongoing collaboration with the Parcel Groups 8 and 9 projects which were near this area. He added that infrastructure improvements will be ne eded as projects come forward ; every project that is n ear the Route 238 or 580 corridor is required to reach out to Caltrans as there will be an impact for increased traffic.
Commissioner Roche commented that this neighborhood was impacted as were some other parcel groups from the 238 properties, asked if there would be meetings with these neighborhoods to address as the city moves forward with developments and tha t per environmental justice p lans, these t ypes of concerns should be addressed. Mr. Lochirco encouraged every neighborhood that h ad concerns about environmental justice issue s or safety issues to share these concerns, noting that the City was in the process of adopting an Environmental Justice Element and that there were a lot of policies in the General Plan tha t support and are intended to improve quality of life, including housing.
8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Roche was conce rned that the surrounding nei ghborhood was being impacted by two new developments and asked if there was a proactive plan to address residents’ concerns. Planning Manager Lochirco responded that there were a lot of community outreach meetings related to Route 238 properties, and that th is e ffort was being led by Assistant City Manager Ott. Mr. L ochirco stated that the only item before the Commission this evening was the approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and that the housing development portion of the project ha d already been approved b y the City Council in 2019.
Commissioner Bonilla Jr. inquired if Ms. Ann ’s comments about the affor dable housing commitment changing from on -site a ffordable to in -lieu fees were accurate . Associate Planner Kowalski responded that in 2019 , the developer originally indicated they were going to provide affordable housing units on-site but t hey have since cha nged their mind , noting tha t there were no laws prohibiting t his change in how they address affordable housing. Commissioner Bonilla Jr. was d ismayed with the change, expressing that he favored the aff ordable on-site build and asked whether t he original commitment could be reconsidered. Mr. Ste ven Kodama, with Kodama Diseño Architects , state d that his firm primarily does affordable housing projects and they were pushing for inclusionary units in the project initially; however, with townhomes that are approximately 1,400 square feet, the costs of construction were approximately $700,000 due to risi ng costs in the last few years caused by the pandemic. Mr. Kodama indicated that the applicant’s team believes that the payment of the in -lieu fee s would go further rather than havin g a few affordable housing units on -site. Commissioner Bonilla Jr. shared that his frustration with the Affordable Housing Ordinance overall was that it disincentivized on-site affordable housing units because it was cheaper for developers to pay the in-lieu fee.
Commissioner Stevens made a motion to approve the project per staff recommendation.
Commissioner Goldstein asked if the Commission was obligated to approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Senior Assistant City Attorney Vigilia noted that the site plan had been approved by the City Council through an appeal in previous years and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map was a necessary step for the developer to be ab le to finance construction. Mr.
Vigilia believed there was n o basis to not approve the Vesting T entative Tract Map and it would be an abuse of the Planning Commission’s discretion if the map were not approved.
Commissioner Goldstein acknowledged that many of the Commissioners are frustrated that the neighborhood is underserved by various amen ities and services . Commissioner Goldstein seconded the motion.
Chair Lowe concurred with the frustration s of the community members and the other Commissioners, noting that it hits hard that the community has emphasized tha t their comments have not been heard. She recommended that staff sha re with City Council that
9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Commercial Office zones should be modified or revised so that a commercial or office component is required in all projects. She suggested that the City do an in-depth analysis of the menu of options that developers can choose from for afforda ble housing, noting that it was con tinually r aised by members of the pu blic that there was support to have the affordable units built as opposed to getting in-lieu fees from developers. She inquired if the applicant would consider building moderate -income housing instead of mar ket-rate housing. Mr. K odama stated that the goal was to have the homes priced in the moderate - income range. He restated Kodama Diseño Architects pushes for applications to provide affordable housing units but that increased construction costs resulting from the pandemic have made it infeasible for many developers to build them.
A mot ion was made by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Goldstein, to approve the project per staff recommendation.
The motion passed with the following roll call votes:
AYES: Commissioners Bonilla Jr., Goldstein, Roche, Stevens Chair Lowe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Oquenda, Commissioner Ali-Sullivan
ABSTAIN: None
3. Proposed Proposal to Add Full-Service Automobile Detailing to the Existing Heart of the Bay Self-Service Car Wash Located at the Mobil Gas Station at 391 Wes t A Street (Assessor Parcel Nos. 429 -0077-025-01 and 429 -0077-026-00) Requiring Approval o f Conditional Use Permit Modification No. 202203390. Daljit Singh, New Raja Enterprises LLC (Applicant/Owner). Planning Manager Lochirco provide d a synopsis of the st aff report and PowerPoi nt presentation. Pointed out the proposed COA Revisions per applicant.
Associate Planner Kowalski provided a synopsis of the staff report, project background and history of the site.
Chair Lowe asked if there are regulations on whether cars can be left on the site overnight.
Mr. Daljit Singh, project applicant, answered the proposal was for express, same day, and detail services only and that vehicles would not be left overnight.
Commissioner Goldstein asked if there were other car wash facilities in the vicinity of the proposed area. Mr. Kowalski responded that staff was not aware of any other carwash applications in the area. Mr. Singh stated there were several carwash facilities in Hayward,
10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
including the chain Quick Quack Car Wash, which were expre ss service. The car wash facility on Mission Boulevard offered full service, which he was trying to incorporate into his business. Mr. Singh noted that there were two other car washes in Hayward that were two to three miles away. He confirmed for Commis sioner Goldstein that the first car wash that was a half mile away from his location had a self-service spray gun mechanism; the second one was Chevron ’s car wash which had a drive-through tunnel. His service was different as the car wash would be staffed, and vehicles would be prepped before entering the tunnel on a conveyor and, ultimately, being detailed by the employee.
Chair Lowe opened public hearing at 9:07 p.m.
Mr. Tyler Dragoni inquired if the proposed project was in conjunction with the project site across the street. Mr. Singh confirmed that this is co rrect. Mr. Dragoni restated the project was linked to another project that was similar but larger.
Chair Lowe closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Commissioner Roche moved to approve the project per staff recommendation , Commissioner Stevens seconded the motion.
Commissioner Goldstein remarked it was good to see small businesses in the City doing well.
A motion was made by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Stevens, to approve the project per staff recommendation.
The motion passed with the following roll call votes:
AYES: Commissioners Bonilla Jr., Goldstein, Roche, Stevens Chair Lowe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Oquenda, Commissioner Ali-Sullivan
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 9, 2022
A motion was made by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to approve the meeting minutes of June 9, 2022.
11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
The motion passed with the following roll call votes:
AYES: Commissioners Commissioner Bonilla Jr., Goldstein, Roche, Stevens Chair Lowe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Oquenda, Commissioner Ali-Sullivan
ABSTAIN: None
COMMISSION REPORTS
Oral Report on Planning and Zoning Matters
Planning Manager Lochirco shared that at the September 22, 2 022 meeting, the Planning Commission will discuss a project at 3636 Enterprise Avenue. He shared that over the next several months, the City will be rolling out the new EnerGov Electronic Permitting Software System. The software will make submittals of applications seamless.
Housing Manager Morales announced that two projects will rece ive approximat ely $78 million in funding under the Califo rnia Housing Accelerator Fund. The intent was to start construction on the projects within the next 180 days. One of the projects will provide 56 units of affordable ho using for families and the oth er project will provide 80 units of affordable housing for seniors. A third project that received funding from the same fund will begin construction in the next three months. The project will provide 76 units of affordable housing for seniors.
Commissioners’ Announcements, Referrals
Commissioner Roche inquired about the barbed wire fencing around the project on the corner of Mission Boulevard and Hancock Street. Mr. Lochirco confirmed staff would look into this.
Chair Lowe shared her appreciation f or staff and the Comm issioners during her first time chairing a meeting.
Mr. Lochirco commented the meeting on September 22, 2022 will be in a hybrid format.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Lowe adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, September 8, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
APPROVED:
______________________________________________________
Briggitte Lowe, Secretary
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________________________
Avinta Madhukansh-Singh
Planning Commission Secretary
Office of the City Clerk