Re-Approval and General Plans
I look at measurements of cars, Staff re-explains State housing policy, and Commissioners want tangible projects
Ch-Ch-Changes To An Approved Project
The main item on the agenda this time was a development off of Tennyson Blvd on Manon Avenue. This development was already approved a while ago, but the developer changed the plans a bit that required the Planning Commission to look at it.
The primary thing is that it’s changing from a 22-unit rental development to a 22-unit ownership development with an HOA. The reason it changed is, apparently, because of market conditions and that loans are more favorable for ownership units over rental units. I don’t know enough about banking to dispute that, but the change also nets a little bit of in-lieu fees to the City as well as 2 deed-restricted units affordable to Very-Low Income households.
The other big chance is the addition of a gate across the street that runs through the complex.
So, the rules say that gates like that should be set back 25 feet from the curb, but that would leave some of the units outside of the gates and be weird. The developer proposed 10 feet, which is enough for 1 car. The City countered by making the street 1-way and proposing a red-zone on either end of each gate to provide visibility and also a little pull-over room for any queuing.
Now, I’m not a big fan of gates like this. Gated communities do nothing but make the neighborhood look unfriendly and prison-like and just increase the isolation that we’re already forced to deal with in this capitalist hellscape. Unfortunately, not only is this waiver allowed by state law, because of the two affordable units, but also gates themselves are “amenities” according to the state, and the City can’t require removing an amenity.
Feels bad, fam. And the Planning Commission felt that, too.
Traffic and Obstruction Aren’t Health and Safety
Since the only real approval was for the gates, that’s what most of the questions focused on. Commissioner Meyers asked about the design of the gates, and the developer said that they’ll slide to the side and that people will be “transparent”—presumably iron bars.
Commissioners had lots of issues with the idea of a big queue blocking the street and sidewalk. Commissioner Goodbody asked about a loading zone, but the red zone will be filling mostly the same purpose. Commissioner Patterson asked about visibility for those pulling out, but the red zone is there to help increase visibility.
Commissioner Stevens alleged that the “standard car” is 19 feet long—though multiple sources I found seem to point to that as a maximum with an average closer to 15 to 16 feet—which would then hang into the street by a further almost 10 feet and block the sidewalk. The developer responded by saying that the entry process should only take a few seconds and the low traffic volume on the street shouldn’t obstruct traffic. Aerial photography shows that on-street parking is prevalent, which buys a further 8-10 feet out from the curb.
Commissioner Stevens asked if a bulb out for the sidewalk had been considered to avoid inconveniencing pedestrians, but neither the developer nor the City seemed to think it was worth it. And to be honest, in a suburban area like that, it’s likely that sidewalk gets little traffic beyond people walking to the cars parked on the street.
The issue, once again, is that the inclusion of affordable units allows for an unlimited number of waivers. That’s state law and the Planning Commission can’t deny it unless there’s an issue with Health and Safety—Council bumped up against the same issues when they sought to restrict street vendors. If there wasn’t enough room for a fire truck or the buildings weren’t up to code, that could be grounds for denial. But simply not liking it isn’t enough anymore.
Commission Vs. State: Round ??
Although the State mandates the waivers, that doesn’t mean the Commission has to like it. And, as usual, Commissioner Stevens made it clear he doesn’t like it. He felt that if the developer is asking for waivers, “the City should get a benefit. And I’m not so sure that housing is an adequate benefit in this case.” He described it as a “substandard condition” for entry and generally expressed a distaste for gated communities—proving everyone has common ground somewhere.
Eventually, he changed his line of inquiry and went after liability. But City Staff assured him that the City is granted immunity if something did happen because of the approved design. This felt like a Hail Mary of sorts, especially in this case. But Commissioner Goodbody jumped on it and asked about how it conflicts with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). City Staff tried, again, to explain the State’s reasoning for these laws:
We need more units of housing
City-level standards have gotten in the way of housing being built
The State gives waivers to ignore those rules to get housing built
Allowing for some of the units to be affordable means the state grants a lot of “powerful development tools” to get housing built. This is what it’s like to be past the “Fuck Around” times and live in the “Find Out” times. Cities got all NIMBY until we had a homelessness crisis, but also refused to do anything about it. I don’t like the state intervention because it’s ham-fisted, but I definitely understand the logic.
Commissioner Patterson wanted evidence of a study to prove that it’s not going to be some kind of safety issue, but it didn’t make it into the conditions of approval. It wasn’t until the end that Commissioner Meyers asked why there was a gate anyway. The developer said, “It’s about crime.” He then gave an anecdote from another of their developments in the area where someone allegedly “came around and was shooting everyone…” but “luckily no one was around.”
This is the crime data from the last 2 months. It looks like mostly graffiti and vehicle crime—not to say that isn’t also an issue, but it’s not gunshots. Unfortunately, the gate is an “amenity” so it can’t be denied.
Commissioner Stevens—though he voted a “reluctant yes”—implored anyone listening to take to the polls to vote out politicians with these “wingnut ideas that are destroying our neighborhoods.”
Commission Gets A General Plan Update
The Commission then got a presentation about how the 2040 General Plan is going. This is a plan that was set up in 2014 to plan all the way to 2040. There’s over 140 programs in the document that have timelines ranging from 2019 to all the way to 2040. Some of them are one-time like the Downtown Specific Plan and others are ongoing like this report.
This is a summary of the status of the different projects. Between the two timeframes, 48% are In-Progress, 26% are Complete, and 26% are Not Started. Though, as Staff pointed out, this data is from 2023 so there are a few projects that are marked as Not Started that are now In Progress.
There’s a slide that listed out the upcoming priorities and… it was painfully long. Here’s some of the highlights:
Complete Neighborhood Strategy
Improved Traffic Flow Program
Historic Preservation Resource Center
Local Hire Incentives
Cultural Commission
Comprehensive Safe School Plans
Energy Assurance Plan
Renewable Energy Generation Potential
Library Strategic Plan and Annual Report
But feel free to look through the dozens of others for any that pique your fancy.
Something You Can See…And Touch
Commissioner Goodbody brought up a desire to see programs combined and ways to find efficiencies across departments who were working on similar projects. Unfortunately, City Staff pointed out that they basically do that already, but they often lack resources—either staff or actual money—to get projects done, more often than not. Because they’re always short, they’re always looking for ways to do things more efficiently.
Commissioner Meyers riffed on this by asking if there was overlap between the Strategic Roadmap and the General Plan and if that pushes up the priority of those projects. The short answer was yes. Which makes sense, as Council’s priorities change with elections and world events. Staff has to be flexible with timelines to a certain degree since they’re planning so far in advance.
The rest of the Commission seemed to have a big desire for tangible things to get done right now. Commissioner Stevens was excited for the Urban Forest Management Plan, contrasting it to the Climate Action Plan which he derided as “arbitrary, aspirational, and not super tangible.” This is despite the fact that the Urban Forest Management Plan is a part of the Climate Action Plan—in sections CS 1.2, CS 1.9, CS 1.10, and CS 1.11 specifically.
Stevens then took pains to frame the larger administrative plans as some kind of high-minded frippery and said that he encourages “council to really think about things that will be useful to the common person in Hayward.” I’ve no doubt that the folks in the Old Highland Neighborhood are real salt of the earth types. But the idea caught on, with Chair Lowe saying that, “some of the things that are maybe a little more esoteric can be pushed a little bit down the line.” She expressed a desire for things that are “more tangible and more beneficial.”
Unfortunately for both of them, there’s a good chance that the “more esoteric” projects are necessary to get to the “more tangible” projects. You can’t prioritize and tackle climate issues without a Climate Action Plan. You can’t get funding without these plans and some of them are just required by State law to prove you’re not bumbling about.
I agree it can feel silly to approve Plans upon Plans. Goodness knows I’m no fan of throwing the millions of dollars in Staff and Consultant time that’s apparently needed to develop them. But until we contract the City enough to be able to fund itself—a decades-long endeavor with a tailwind of support—we need them to get the money to pay for the tangible thing. I hope City Staff can find a way to lay that out sometime for the Commission.