Unbundled Parking Slapped Down by Commission
Mark Salinas expands Education City, The Planning Commission wants certainty before acting, and Art keeps being subjective.
Salinas to Expand Ed City Initiative
This Thursday, Mayor Mark Salinas will be bringing his Education City initiative to a host of local Mayors. At an invitation-only event, co-hosted by The Northern California College Promise Coalition, The Education Trust-West, and California Volunteers, mayors and county officials will get together to talk education, including career pathways, program outreach, and building partnerships.
But who are these co-hosts? The Northern California College Promise Coalition and The Education Trust-West are both big nonprofit players in the education space. If you take a look at the funders, there’s some big money there. The California Volunteers is a state-level group that seems to coordinate volunteering throughout the state. This is likely to be Mayor Salinas’ legacy initiative and it’s bringing in some big players with deep pockets.
The one thing that I find interesting is the apparent lack of actual educators or even educational administrators involved (the press release mentions “education professionals” but that term could easily apply to the educational nonprofits). The press release states “Mayors spur change by supporting and convening regional K-16 collaboratives; supporting Pre-K and Kindergarten through College pathways;” and I agree that Mayors and local councils/boards definitely have a role to play in educational pathway development, but there already is a Bay Area K-16 Collaborative that explicitly involves multiple K-12 districts, multiple community college districts, 3 local CSUs, and our two local UCs.
There’s a chance that Mayor Salinas and his large-scale non-profit partners are already working with the Bay Area K-16 Collaborative, but the press release certainly doesn’t say so (and the Director of the Collaborative hasn’t even been hired yet). We can only speculate why Mayor Salinas is pushing a larger-scale adoption of his Education City initiative without including the recipients of a $16 million dollar grant from the state that focuses on Cradle to Career pathways. It’s especially interesting, considering the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District, right in Mayor Salinas’ back yard, is leading it.
As this is an initiation-only event, we will likely only find out details about what comes from this after the fact and filtered through press releases, but there is no doubt that its success is going to be a high priority for Mayor Salinas.
The Planning Commission Prods Points
Objective Design Standards Mk 3
In the continuing adventure of trying to change some of our zoning laws, the Planning Commission again weighed in on the proposed Residential Design Standards. We reported on this the first time it went to the Planning Commission, then again when it went to Council for their feedback. Now it’s back to the Planning Commission for the final recommendation before going on to Council for the last time before approval.
The main changes this time around were:
The points system for façade design
Altering points for the open space requirements to incentivize rooftop amenities
Develop mailbox security standards
Increase parking requirements for large detached units (3,000+ sq/ft go from 2 garage spots to 3)
Unbundled parking
Modifying Transit Demand Management standards
The main concerns are that there’s a big push for “variation of street-facing façade plane depth” which is muni-speak for pushing outside walls in and out. This also takes the form of “step backs” where the upper floors are smaller than (or stepped back from) the lower floors. It’s supposed to make buildings feel less blocky and ugly. However, we’re with architect and former AC Transit Supervisor candidate Alfred Twu in thinking that ornamentation can also have a similar effect with lower construction costs and forcing things less toward that particular look everyone seems to hate
For the Transit Demand Management standards, they generally seem okay, though there’s concern here about how frequently a Class 4 Bicycle facility (a separated bike lane) through a development will make sense, though the standards specify that a bicycle path can also be added if it’s not a public street. I’m also not sure how the bus shelter idea will work, since who is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the shelter is not specified.
There was also a change to the Mission Boulevard code that included a sculpture or 3D art piece or a large mural as a part of the design elements points. This likely comes from the continued feedback of Councilmembers Angela Andrews and Julie Roche who frequently bring up the desire for new public art.
If you want to take a look at the details, check out the staff presentation.
The Public Weighs In
There was one in-person public commenter who lives behind the new Mission Blvd developments. They expressed concern about traffic, parking, and construction issues. They expressed a desire for less construction and lower-density development*.
*While we’re generally opposed to NIMBY sentiments here, changing the residential zoning from single-family homes to medium-density townhome-style development could accommodate high density while keeping building heights low. One city planner boasts that you can get up to 275 dwelling units/acre at 3 stories or less.
Commissioners Cover Concerns
Mail Security and Art Objectivity
One of the things that the Commissioners commented on were mailboxes and art. The consistent drumbeat about mailbox security continued, with Commissioners Goodbody and Ali-Sullivan trying to make sure that mailboxes are as secure as possible.
The new regulations would require mailbox security, but not the particular level of construction. This is because different projects will have different requirements, and City Staff assured the Commission that they’d still have the ability to add in things on a case-by-case basis as a “Condition of Approval” (i.e. do it, or don’t get your project approved). Conditions of Approval are a tool the Planning Commission uses frequently with development projects.
For the addition of art as a design element for the Mission Blvd code, Commissioner Goodbody asked if there was going to be any kind of approval process for the art. City Staff reiterated that these were a part of Objective Design Standards that are supposed to have no interpretation. Commissioner Goodbody expressed concern that art is inherently subjective and, with the help of other Commissioners, got the art standards removed from the recommendation.
Unbundled Parking Binned
Unbundled parking was the primary focus of the Commission’s attention during the meeting. For context, the State has standards that are set to go into effect in January of 2025 around unbundled parking (i.e. parking and the unit are handled separately). It would apply to developments with 16 or more units and only new developments approved after January 1, 2025. City Staff, at the request of Council, elected to be a bit more proactive and recommended allowing unbundled parking for all developments with 4 or more units (no matter when they were built). Staff emphasized that currently, unbundling parking was illegal and that this would merely make it allowable. Nobody would have to do it.
The Commission was extremely skeptical of the idea. Commissioner Franco-Clausen was dismissive of modeling the ordinance after the City of Oakland: “Oakland to me is not a good example because they have so many code enforcement issues where some of the living conditions are substandard.” Despite conflating enforcement of parking standards with building standards, she requested an analysis of what the impacts would be. Staff explained that this was outside of the scope of the project and would be expensive, but multiple other Commissioners cited not having one as a reason to remove unbundled parking, including Commissioners Lowe and Goodbody.
Commissioner Patterson was initially skeptical of the idea, fearing that people from far away would buy excess parking spots, but was reassured that anyone renting a space had to live within 1,000 feet of it. She favored a hybrid approach put forward by TransForm which would allow 1 dedicated space per unit with the remainder being unbundled. Commissioner Franco-Clausen also framed the unbundling as an equity issue, expressing concern of a hypothetical rich person buying up multiple parking spaces while a hypothetical family of five is left with a single parking space.
There was no evidence presented to justify any of these concerns, as unbundled parking exists in multiple municipalities throughout the country, and any ordinance could be modified as issues arise. Ultimately, however, the unbundled parking recommendation was scrapped by the Commission.
Get Those Numbers Up
The Planning Commission also turned their attention to the number of points required to meet the minimum design standards. As presented, the points values were 50 points for single family homes, duplexes, or triplexes and 100 points for multi-unit developments. Staff stressed that they had based these recommendations on the Los Gatos standards at the behest of Commissioner Stevens (absent), despite having a median household income almost twice that of Hayward, home values about 3 times higher, and a population approximately 1/5th the size.
Chair Ali-Sullivan asked whether others felt the minimum points values were high enough. Staff explained that when the restrictions increase, the construction goes down, and that very high standards are usually found in wealthier towns with smaller populations who are all but actively discouraging development. Staff explained that they “tried to land at something that was realistic for our community.” Ali-Sullivan eventually suggested that the points be increased from 50 and 100 to 70 and 120, but ultimately left it at the discretion of the City Council to consider increasing the points minimums.
Call for Ceasefire
Commissioner Ali-Sullivan closed the meeting with a call for a ceasefire and an end to hostilities in Gaza.