Planning Commission Fights for Trees
The Commission bumps up against limits to their power, a bit about trees, and Habitat for Humanity's first project in Hayward.
The Limits of Commission Power
The Planning Commission Meeting this week is mostly about 2 different developments. There’s some unique terms used in these meetings, so terms in bold italics are explained on the What the Hell Does That Mean? page, which will be updated regularly.
A Development with Complicated Politics (Grove and Oak)
This is going to be developed into 5 townhomes on a property that now houses a single family home and a big yard. The property is right next to a bunch of properties that CalTrans owned in preparation for the Route 238 project (which thankfully never happened). Those properties are currently planned to be developed into many townhomes, as well, so this will, eventually, fit in size-wise with the development next door.
My main concern here is with doing development here as opposed to densifying where it makes more sense closer to downtown, but with how the 238 properties are required by law to be handled, it doesn’t surprise me that this is happening. That, I’m sure, informed the plan that has it zoned as “Commercial/High Density Residential”.
The townhomes will be market-rate, with the developer paying an in-lieu fees (for the 10% that should be affordable, or half a unit).
Trees and Power
Commissioners are still really concerned about a kind of bait-and-switch happening between concept and construction. City Staff laid out that any minor change in color or material will be approved by staff, but anything major will go back to the Commission. There wasn’t much clarity on what the line between “minor” and “major” was, but there’s only so much the City can do until we get some kind of objective criteria enacted (maybe a form-based code). The main issue is: City Staff gets to decide if it’s worth derailing a project over. It, apparently, doesn’t happen too often.
The Commissioners were really concerned about the trees on the property. Staff mentioned that tree removal is outlined in the municipal code and not something the Planning Commission has say over. Keeping the trees is a big deal to them and Commissioner Stevens said “even though this isn’t our purview, I can’t accept the application.” City staff pushed back that sometimes to densify the lot, you can’t keep the big trees that a single-family home can accommodate. And the City can’t really defend recommending denying the project on the basis of tree preservation, especially since replacing trees is an option. Chair Ali-Sullivan pushed hard to get things more-frequently sent to the Planning Commission when there are changes.
Some commissioners wanted to ensure there isn’t a “cluster” of mailboxes, as a safety issue. However, it’s outside of the purview of the Planning Commission as that’s a Federal code.
—
As City Staff pointed out, and as I think the Planning Commission is keenly aware, the State has taken away a lot of local control to stop development. So long as a project meets the underlying zoning, the general plan designation, and satisfies all the objective criteria, the city has to approve the project. And some new projects are coming in that just get approved with a permit and no comment from local residents and the Planning Commission. If the codes are working, this shouldn’t be an issue.
The Planning Commission really doesn’t seem to like that, however, as it means they have less power to dictate what gets built and what doesn’t. This also includes an issue with this project around the streets: the parcel is right on the border with Castro Valley and Alameda County owns Oak Street. That means the County gets to dictate how the street is built and maintained: they’re demanding a less angular corner (improved visibility for drivers and also worse for pedestrians, btw) that eats into the parcel some.
There’s nothing the Planning Commission can do about the County, and that seems to rankle several members quite a bit. Stevens even officially voted against approving the project simply because of the trees (again, the City is required to approve the project unless there’s some safety concern).
This kind of behavior is somewhat concerning considering the Planning Commission is largely the pathway by which Councilmembers rise to power. I’m all about municipalism, but I think it’s important to understand and respect the rules even if you don’t like them. It’d be a better look for Commissioners to work around the issue rather than acting out.
On Trees
I’m a woodworker in my spare time. I love trees. I have the Sibley Guide to Trees in my house. I’ve made an effort to learn all I can about trees native to the Hayward area. I also agree that street trees are an important part of having a livable street. They provide shade, a cozy atmosphere, and a dozen other knock-on benefits.
All trees are not created equal.
The Commissioners were worked up about Trees 7-10, which are all Coast Redwood (sequoia sempervirens). All are listed as being in “good” condition, and the arborist recommended that they are the best candidates for preservation. Only the biggest has a diameter of more than 10”, the rest are pretty small (between 4” and 8”).
The issue here is that Coast Redwoods are suited to this area in the same way the Joshua Tree is: it’s native to California somewhere. These trees require heavy air moisture to maintain their health. Especially given climate breakdown, these trees are not suited for dry air and 90+ degree days, which is what Hayward gets more often than not in the summer. I don’t think the trees were going to thrive long-term anyway, personally.
Also, regarding character, if you take a look at the street view of the site, I don’t think the trees add to the character of the street in the same way that say, these trees do. I don’t relish seeing a tree cut down that doesn’t need to, but the whole discussion seemed to have more to do with not getting what they wanted over a real concern for what the trees actually bring to the neighborhood.
An Affordable Project that Preserves Trees (123 A Street)
This development has been in the works for a long time (since 2015!). Habitat for Humanity is going to develop 10 permanently affordable to low-income townhomes. They’ll be 2 stories tall and will be on that unused bit of A street next to the Amtrak overpass (with the really tall redwoods next to it).
This is, apparently, Habitat’s first project in Hayward. I’m generally for this as that bit of property has sat unused for a long time (there was an environmental hazard concern that took a long time to deal with), affordable ownership properties are important, and it’s at a reasonable density. The only real downside is that A street is a mess to get across, though there are grocery stores and other shops on the other side of the street from the development.
Commissioner Comments
Chair Ali-Sullivan asked who would apply for residence. It’s too early to choose people, and typically they decide once construction starts. There is a “sweat equity” component of Habitat for Humanity projects where prospective residents work on the site. He also asked if there was a program that allows for additional bonus points for people that live or work in the City. Cristina Morales, the Housing Manager, jumped on to say that there is an ordinance requiring bonus points for those who live and/or work in Hayward for affordable housing projects.
One commissioner asked about ADA accessibility. Two of the homes have a ground floor bedroom, which can be useful for those who have mobility difficulties. However, there is no ability to modify the other homes to add a ground floor bedroom. Also, there is the option to do other things if the prospective resident is physically unable to complete “sweat equity” component.
A member of the public asked about an 8 foot fence for privacy of neighbors. Staff mentioned that 6 foot fence is standard, but any higher than 7 feet would require an engineers report and a special permit to make sure it isn’t more susceptible to high winds. Habitat is open to raising the fence to 7 feet, but definitely not 8 because of cost.
Also, the large redwood trees were able to be kept, which made Commissioners quite happy.
This one got approved with ease.