Agenda Packet — Hayward City Council, October 11, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN for MANON TOWNHOMES
PLANNING APPLICLICATION NO. 202101491
Affordable Housing Compliance Calculation ‐ Rental Project Total # of units without Density Bonus
(max. density units allowed)
17 units
Total Affordable Units 2 Affordable Units per City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) and State Density
Bonus Law.

Per AHO, 6% of 17 units = 2 Affordable Units
(rounded up from 1.02)
No. of very low‐income units 2 Very‐low income unit
State Density Bonus Compliance Calculation – Rental Project Total # of units without Density Bonus
(max. density allowed)
17 units
Total # of units with Density Bonus 22 units
Total density percentage increase 30% (rounded up from 29.41%) Total Affordable Units restricted under AHO 2 units – including:
2 Very low‐income units
Total Affordable Units   2 units – including:
 2 Very low‐income units
Unit Mix Summary Table
Unity Type
(bedroom)
Size
(sq ft)
Extremely
Low‐ I n c o m e
Ui
Very Low‐
Income
Ui
Low Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Market
Rate Units
AHO Density
Bonus
AHO and
Density Bonus
AHO Density
Bonus
AHO Density
Bonus
Plan1 Interior
4‐ bedroom
1,712       2
Plan2 interior
3‐Bedroon
1,671 1
Unit 19
9 Plan 3 Interior
4‐bedroom
1,982    2
Plan 3 End A
5‐bedroom
2,307 1
Unit 1
3 Attachment V

Page 2 of 3 ends

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN for MANON TOWNHOMES
PLANNING APPLICLICATION NO. 202101491
Plan 3 End B
5‐Bedroom
2,237 2
Plan 3 End C
4‐Bedroom
2,119 2
Total 2 20
Site Plan
Affordable Units are integrated within the project and of the same construction. There are 4 separate buildings each with recurring unit plans. Two buildings contain 7 units and two contain 4 units. There are 3 types of interior units and 3 types of end units. They are all the same height and have similar floor plans except end units have end walls with windows rather than walls separating between units at the interior units.

Construction of a building cannot occur without including all units within the building. The buildings are relatively small and will be constructed at the same time. Therefore, the affordable units will be constructed simultaneously.

The units are representative across the site and amenities are equally accessed throughout the site.

Attachment A is a Site Plan of the project showing the locations of the Affordable Units.

Phasing Plan
The project will be built as a whole.

Marketing Plan
A preliminary marketing and management plan has been submitted to the Housing Division for review.

The Developer will submit final marketing and management plans the earlier of (a) 120 days prior to completion of construction or (b) 60 days prior to marketing the units in the development.

Waivers and Incentives
State Density Bonus
The Developer is seeking a 30% increase in density and (2) incentives/waivers through the DB – from 17 units allowed by zoning (“base density”) to 22 units proposed. Per the DB, for a 30% increase in density, 10 % of the base density is required to be deed‐restricted for very low‐ income households at very low‐income rents which may not exceed (50% of the area median income times 30%)/12 for a household size suitable for unit. Area median income is determined annually by regulation of HCD.

Front & Back Setbacks
Two Waivers are sought – Two setback waivers (rear and front) are requested. Buildings A and D encroach at both the front and rear. Buildings B and C encroach at the front setback only.

Attachment V

Page 3 of 3 ends

27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
prepared by
City of Hayward
Development Services Department, Planning Division
777 B Street
Hayward, California 94541
Contact: Elizabeth Blanton, AICP, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
June 2022
Attachment VI
Attachment VI
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
prepared by
City of Hayward
Development Services Department
Planning Division
777 B Street
Hayward, California 94541
Contact: Elizabeth Blanton, AICP, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 2022
Attachment VI
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Attachment VI
Table of Contents
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 i Table of Contents
Project Description .................................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title.........................................................................................................................1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address.........................................................................................1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1

4. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

5. Project Applicant.................................................................................................................1

6. General Plan Designation....................................................................................................4

7. Zoning..................................................................................................................................4

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting....................................................................................4

9. Description of the Project...................................................................................................4

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., Permits, Financing Approval, or Participation Agreement)....................................................................................................9

11. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.....................................................................11

12. Determination...................................................................................................................11 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................................13 Relationship of the Proposed Project to Previous EIR Analysis....................................................13 CEQA Guidelines Updates.............................................................................................................14 1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................15 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................19 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................23 4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................31 5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................37 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................39 7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................43 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................49 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................53 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................57 11 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................63 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................65 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................67 14 Population and Housing....................................................................................................73 15 Public Services...................................................................................................................75 16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................79 17 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................81 18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................85 19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................89 20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................93 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................................95 References............................................................................................................................................99 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................99 List of Preparers..........................................................................................................................101 Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
ii
Tables
Table 1 Project Summary.................................................................................................................6 Table 2 Estimated Construction Air Pollution Emissions...............................................................25 Table 3 Estimated Operational Air Pollution Emissions ................................................................26 Table 4 Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................51 Table 5 Estimated Construction Noise ..........................................................................................69 Table 6 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels..........................................................................71 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Site Location ...........................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Photographs of Project Site ................................................................................................5 Figure 4 Proposed Site Plan ..............................................................................................................7 Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality Emissions Modeling Results
Appendix B Cultural Resources Report
Appendix C Geotechnical Report
Appendix D Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Results
Appendix E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F AB 52 Correspondence
Attachment VI
Project Description
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 1 Project Description

1. Project Title
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Hayward
Development Services Department, Planning Division
777 B Street
Hayward, California 94541

3. Lead Agency Contact
Elizabeth Blanton, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Hayward, Planning Division
Via email: [email protected]

4. Project Location
The project site is approximately 0.98 acres in size and consists of one assessor’s parcel (453-0090- 014-00) on a rectangular-shaped site at 27865 Manon Avenue in the City of Hayward. The site is on the west side of Manon Avenue just north of its intersection West Tennyson Road. The site is bordered by single-family residences to the north and west, Manon Avenue to the east, and a small commercial center to the south. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the proposed project and Figure 2 shows the location of the project site in its immediate context.

5. Project Applicant
Sunflower Manon LLC
467 Saratoga Ave. Suite #1450
San Jose, CA 95129
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
2 Figure 1 Regional Location
Attachment VI
Project Description
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 3 Figure 2 Project Site Location
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
4 6. General Plan Designation
The project site is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the Hayward 2040 General Plan (City of Hayward 2014a). The City of Hayward’s 2040 General Plan Land Use and Community Character Element defines the MDR category as “Suburban and urban areas that contain a mix of housing types… Allowed uses include detached single-family homes, attached single-family homes, and multi-family homes. Development density within MDR is 8.7 to 17.4 dwelling unit per net acre.”

7. Zoning
The project site is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RS). The RS zoning district regulations are intended to “promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life… The RS district is to be used only for single-family homes and the community services appurtenant thereto” (Hayward Municipal Code [HMC] Section 10-1.205).

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project vicinity is characterized primarily by residential and commercial uses. As shown in Figure 2, the project site is bordered by single-family residences to the north and west, Manon Avenue and multi-family residential housing to the east, and a small commercial center to the south with retail market uses and a bar. Across Manon Avenue to the east are multi-family residential buildings.

Roadways in the project vicinity include Manon Avenue immediately to the east of the site, Tennyson Road approximately 200 feet to the south, Huntwood Avenue approximately 400 feet to the east, and Harris Road approximately 755 feet to the north.

The project site is rectangular in shape, undeveloped, and generally flat with ruderal grasses and no trees. Photographs of the project site are shown on Figure 3.

9. Description of the Project
The proposed project would involve rezoning the project site from RS to Medium Density Residential (RM) to allow for the construction of 22 townhomes. The purpose of the RM zone is to “promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life in areas where a compatible mingling of single-family and multiple-family dwellings is possible” (HMC Section 10-1.405).

The proposed project would also involve a Site Plan Review (SPR) and Density Bonus entitlement, consistent with State law allowing density bonuses for the provision of affordable housing. The proposed project would include two affordable housing units at the very-low income level. The project applicant has requested to use two density bonus waivers consistent with State law, one for a deviation from the building disposition (setback) requirements for all four buildings from a minimum front yard distance of 20 feet to 11 feet and 4 inches, and another for a deviation from a minimum rear yard distance for Buildings A and D from 20 feet to 15 feet and 10 inches.

Attachment VI
Project Description
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 5 Figure 3 Photographs of Project Site
Photograph 1: View of project site from the southern boundary of the site facing north towards Manon Avenue.

Photograph 2: View of the project site looking west from Manon Avenue.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
6 Of the proposed four buildings, two would contain seven units, and two would contain four units.

The units would range in size from 1,671 square feet to 2,307 square feet. Total building square footage on the site for the four proposed buildings would be 48,492 square feet. All units would be three stories with a single car garage and private open space in the form of a private patio and deck.

The two center buildings (Building B and Building C) would be separated by a 1,952 square foot paseo available to all residents. A 148 square-foot property manager’s office would be located in front of Building B, fronting Manon Avenue. This office would be used by one part-time employee that would manage this property and other properties in the project vicinity.

Table 1 summarizes the project characteristics and Figure 4 shows the proposed site plan.

Table 1 Project Summary
Proposed Project Characteristics RM Requirements1 Proposed by Project Density 17 units 22 units2
Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit 2,500 sf 1,937 sf2
Open Space 350 sf/unit (minimum)
(350 sf * 22 units = 7,700 sf)
8,662 sf
Building Height 40 ft (maximum) 39 ft and 3 in
Lot Dimensions RM Requirements Proposed by Project
Average Lot Width 60 ft (minimum) 319 ft 10.5 in
Average Lot Depth 80 ft (minimum) 142 ft 6.5 in
Lot Coverage (percent) 40 percent (maximum) 40 percent
Yard Dimensions RM Requirements Proposed by Project
Front Setback 20 ft (minimum) 11 ft and 4 in to buildings3 Side Setback 10 ft (minimum) 12 ft and 9 in to deck at second level
Rear Setback 20 ft (minimum) 15 ft and 10 in3
Parking RM Requirements Proposed by Project
Covered 22 22
Uncovered 25 19
3 Dimensions 11 ft 11 ft
1 Per HMC Section 10-1.400, development standards for the RM district. 2 30% State Density Bonus required
3 Density bonus waiver requested, as permitted per State law Notes: sf = square feet; ft = feet; in = inches
Attachment VI
Project Description
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 7 Figure 4 Proposed Site Plan
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
8 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking
The project site would be accessed by pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles from two driveways fronting Manon Avenue, one in between proposed buildings A and B, and one in between proposed buildings C and D. Both driveway entries would be gated and would lead to a two-way private driveway that loops around the site. Residents would also be able to access the units via walkways that run vertically down the site in front of their yards.

As shown in Table 1, the project would provide a total of 22 spaces in enclosed garages (one space per unit) as well as 19 uncovered parking spaces for residents and visitors.

Construction
Project construction would occur over approximately 13 months from 2022 to 2023 and would involve approximately 20 days of site preparation, 40 days of grading, 200 days of building construction, 100 days of architectural coating, and 20 days of paving. Construction would be based on a five-day work schedule. Approximately 1,250 cubic yards of material would be imported, with 250 cubic yards of cut and 1,500 cubic yards of fill. Excavation would involve a maximum depth of up to approximately 7 feet.

Stormwater Management
The project would include 1,118 square feet of bio-retention areas along the northeastern, southeastern, and northwestern boundaries of the site as well as 4,700 square feet of permeable pavers to meet stormwater requirements to reduce pollutants and surface runoff.

Landscaping and Trees
The site is currently undeveloped and does not contain trees, therefore, no Tree Removal Permit is required. The project would include the planting of approximately 11 trees outlining the project site, as well as approximately seven trees within or near the common paseo area in between proposed buildings B and C. Trees would include Trident maple, Japanese Maple, Strawberry Tree, Crape Myrtle, and Chinese Pistache. The trees were selected to have non-invasive root systems and would be placed with adequate setbacks to ensure no conflict with utilities, hardscape, or site line distances. The project would also include plants to enhance the architecture of the proposed buildings and would utilize drip irrigation, low-flow spray, and bubblers to conserve water. All landscaping and irrigation would comply with the City’s Bay-Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance pursuant to HMC Article 12.

Open Space and Amenities
The proposed project would provide private open space areas in the form of a private patio and deck in each unit. Common open space would include the 1,952 square foot paseo located in between proposed buildings B and C which would contain grasses and perennials.

Attachment VI
Project Description
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 9

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
(e.g., Permits, Financing Approval, or Participation
Agreement)
The City of Hayward is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the project. Discretionary approval from other public agencies is not necessary. The project would require the following discretionary approvals from the City of Hayward:
▪ Site Plan Review
▪ Density Bonus Application
▪ Medium Density Residential rezoning
In addition to the discretionary approvals and permits listed above, the project would require several ministerial permits from the City of Hayward. For example, a ministerial building permit would be needed from the City’s Building Division, following review and approval of detailed building construction plans. A ministerial sewer connection permit would be required for the project to connect with the City’s existing sanitary sewer system. Ministerial encroachment permits for work in the City’s right-of-way would be needed from the City. Examples of project-related work proposed in the City’s right-of-way include sidewalk and curb improvements along the proposed project frontage.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
10 This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment VI
Project Description
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 11

11. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and
Planning
□ Mineral Resources
■ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation and
Traffic
■ Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of
Significance

12. Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as a Residential Project pursuant to a Specific Plan I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as a Residential Project pursuant to a Specific Plan and is EXEMPT from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15182.
■ I find that pursuant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Proposed Project is a Project consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, that there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project that would result in new specific effects. However, these effects would be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies. NO FURTHER REVIEW required.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
12 □ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project but would result in new specific effects that would not be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies. A STREAMLINED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is recommended.
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project but would result in new specific effects that would not be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

June 8, 2022
Signature Date
Elizabeth Blanton Senior Planner
Printed Name Title
This report follows a checklist format that outlines eligibility criteria for streamlined review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15183. A consistency checklist may be prepared by a lead agency to streamline the environmental review process for eligible projects by limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of development have been addressed in a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, if the project would result in new specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects are subject to CEQA. With respect to the effects that are subject to CEQA, the lead agency is to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR if the written checklist shows the effects of the infill project would be potentially significant.

The checklist concludes that the project would not have significant effects on the environment that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR or are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21094.5, such effects are exempt from further CEQA review.

California PRC Section 21083.3 also limits the application of CEQA to effects on the environment peculiar to the parcel or to the project and that were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or about which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior EIR, when projects are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[a], also PRC Section 21083.3[b]).

This CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Checklist has been prepared in accordance with PRC Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 13 Environmental Checklist
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified may not require additional review unless there may be project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or site that were not adequately addressed in the EIR for the general plan. In approving a project meeting the requirements of Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency must limit its examination of environmental effects to those the agency determines in an Initial Study or other analysis:

1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located

2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent

3. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action

4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR
The purpose of this checklist is to assess consistency between the proposed project and the City of Hayward General Plan, and to compare the environmental effects of the proposed project with the those identified in the City’s General Plan EIR to determine if additional environmental review is required under CEQA, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Relationship of the Proposed Project to Previous EIR
Analysis
The City of Hayward adopted the 2040 General Plan on July 1, 2014. It includes goals and polices that convey the City’s long-term vision and guide local decision making to reach that vision. The General Plan EIR assessed impacts from the implementation of the General Plan and was certified in 2014 when then City Council approved the General Plan.

Consistency of the Project with Adopted City Plans and Ordinances City of Hayward 2040 General Plan
The project would be located entirely in the City of Hayward. The General Plan is the fundamental document that governs land use development. It includes goals and policies relating to economic vitality, land use, growth management, transportation, parks, open space, conservation, safety, noise, public facilities, and utilities. The project would be required to abide by all applicable goals and policies in the adopted General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is MDR, which allows detached single-family residences, attached single-family residences, and multi-family buildings with residential densities of between 8.7 to 17.4 dwelling units per acre.

Although the density of the proposed project (20.4 dwelling units per acre) would exceed 17.4 dwelling units per acre, it would be allowed with the request of a 30 percent State Density Bonus since the project would include two affordable housing units. The MDR designation is intended for Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
14 suburban and urban areas that contain a mix of housing types including single-family residences, second units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, multi-story apartments and condominium buildings, and ancillary structures. Consistent with General Plan Policies LU-1.3 and LU-1.4, the project would add residential density at a vacant site.

City of Hayward Development Code
The project includes requests for the approval of permits, described under Project Approvals.

The project site is zoned RS (Single-Family Residential with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size) pursuant to the Hayward Zoning Map. The RS District is intended to accommodate single-family residences and the community services appurtenant thereto (HMC Section 10-1.205). The proposed project would involve a zone change for the project site from RS to RM. The purpose of the RM District is to “promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life in areas where a compatible mingling of single-family and multiple-family dwellings is possible” (HMC Section 10-

1.405).

As shown in Table 1, the project would generally be consistent with the development standards in the RM zone, with the exception of the number of units allowed, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and yard dimensions for front and rear setbacks. However, assuming approval of the request of zoning and Density Bonus concessions, the proposed project and use would be consistent with the zoning provisions of the HMC and density bonus regulations.

Pending approval of the requested zone change, the project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.

CEQA Guidelines Updates
Since the time the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan EIR was certified, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated by the State of California; the revised Guidelines are in effect as of December 2018.

Therefore, this report is based on the current 2022 Appendix G checklist questions in the updated CEQA Guidelines. The current Appendix G checklist questions form the basis for this analysis.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 15 1 Aesthetics
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway? □ ■ □ □ □
c. In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are
experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality? □ ■ □ □ □
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
Impacts related to aesthetics were analyzed on pages 5-1 through 5-34 of the General Plan EIR.

Impacts to aesthetics from implementation of the General Plan were determined to be less than significant.

The following summarizes the applicable analysis from the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine if project-specific impacts would occur that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
16 impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The aesthetic quality in the City of Hayward is characterized by a relatively urban, dense development pattern that can restrict scenic views. However, locations in the hills and some points on the shoreline provide scenic vistas of San Francisco Bay and the East Bay Hills. The General Plan EIR finds that impacts to these scenic vistas from expected future development would be minimal with the implementation of General Plan policies that include preserving open space at or near the vistas and design guidelines that call for the protection of views.

The project site is located in a relatively flat area and is not immediately adjacent to the shoreline or the hills. The site is bordered by single-family residences to the north and west, Manon Avenue to the east, and a small retail commercial center to the south. Views of the shoreline or hills are currently not available through the site. Accordingly, existing lines of site from or to the shoreline and hills would not be affected adversely. Thus, the project would comply with General Plan policies that protect scenic vistas, and impacts of the project to scenic vistas would be less than significant and consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Interstate (I-) 580 (north of Hayward), I-880 (Nimitz Freeway), and State Route (SR) 92 (Jackson Freeway) are designated by Alameda County as scenic routes. I-580 is an eligible but not officially designated State Scenic Highway. The General Plan EIR finds the impacts to these scenic highways from development would be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan policies that call for consistency with city design guidelines, clustering of residential units to ensure the protection of visual resources, and protection of the visual characteristics of transportation corridors officially designated as having outstanding scenic qualities.

The project site is located approximately 1 mile east of I-880 and approximately 1.6 miles southeast of SR-92. Due to distance and the presence of intervening structures, the project site is not visible from I-880 or SR-92. Moreover, the project would not affect trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, as none of these features are present on the site. Therefore, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR there would be no damage to scenic resources in a State Scenic Highway. This impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 17 The project site is in an urbanized area. The project would alter the existing visual character and quality of the currently vacant site by introducing 22 new residential units in four buildings. The General Plan EIR analyzed construction of infill developments such as the proposed project and found no significant impacts to the existing visual character would occur. The existing visual quality at the project site is low to moderate as the site is vacant and provides visual relief in its urban context but does not support trees or other significant vegetation or topographic features of visual interest. Since the project would be required to comply with applicable development standards and includes new landscaping, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character at the site.

As noted under Consistency of the Project with Adopted City Plans and Ordinances, although the project would conflict with applicable standards for the number of units allowed, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and yard dimensions for front and rear setbacks, , it would be consistent with all other RM District requirements and would implement General Plan Policies LU-1.3, and LU-1.4 which call for additional residential density on underutilized sites. Additionally, at three stories, the scale of the project would be generally consistent with that of surrounding development, which ranges from one to three stories in height. The proposed project would feature contemporary design with rectangular windows, wood paneling, and painted stucco, similar to surrounding buildings in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would be architecturally compatible with existing surrounding residential uses, and would be compatible with neighboring building forms. The project would also be subject to Site Plan Review by the City via the RM rezoning to ensure its compliance with applicable development standards. Overall, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

This impact would be less than significant.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project site is located in an urbanized area with existing lighting. Lighting sources around the project site include streetlights, lights from residential and commercial uses, and lights from vehicles on Manon Avenue. The primary source of glare in the vicinity is sunlight reflected off light-colored and reflective building materials and finishes, and metallic and glass surfaces of vehicles parked in parking lots or along Manon Avenue.

The project would be required to comply with light and glare standards outlined in HMC Section 10-

1.445(j) related to building exteriors and parking lots, as well as General Plan Policy LU-3.6 which would require new development to include pedestrian-scaled lighting on new streets. Project landscaping and trees on site would minimize glare that could adversely affect daytime views in the area. Since the project site would not be located near light-sensitive receptors and would be consistent with surrounding land uses, impacts would be less than significant, and implementation of the project would result in no new or more severe impacts concerning lighting beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
18 have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 19 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■ □
c. Conflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
12220(g)); timberland (as
defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code Section
51104(g))? □ □ □ ■ □
d. Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? □ □ □ ■ □
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or
nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? □ □ □ ■ □
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
20 Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses agricultural impacts in the agricultural and forestry resources section, on pages 6-1 through 6-6, and identifies a less than significant impact to agricultural resources.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine if project-specific impacts would occur that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The project site is in the urbanized, relatively densely developed City of Hayward. The project site is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RS). According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC), the project site is categorized as urban and built up land and is not zoned or used for agricultural or forest uses. Furthermore, there are no active Williamson Act contracts for the project site or adjacent properties (DOC 2017). According to the General Plan EIR, no lands in the Hayward Planning Area are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (City of Hayward 2014a). The project consists of infill development in an urban area and would not convert existing farmland or change agriculture resources to a nonagricultural use. As the proposed project is an infill development, it would not encroach on existing or potential grazing land or forest land. There would be no impact to agricultural or forest resources beyond those identified in the previous environmental documents.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 21 result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
22 This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 23 3 Air Quality
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard? □ ■ □ □ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations? □ ■ □ □ □
d. Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses air quality impacts on pages 7-1 through 7-40 and finds that odorrelated impacts would be less than significant. Impacts associated with short-term construction, long-term operational emissions, and health risk exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) would be significant and unavoidable, even after application of all feasible mitigation. The General Plan EIR includes the incorporation of specific source-reduction and receptor-oriented risk reduction measures and best management practices (BMP) in the General Plan, although the overall effectiveness of these measures in reducing communitywide health risk could not be quantified. These impacts would, therefore, remain significant and unavoidable.

Because the General Plan would not be fully consistent with the primary goals of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan with the elevated emissions projected, the General Plan EIR found that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The following describes the applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine if project-specific impacts would occur that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
24 have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The primary goals of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) 2010 Clean Air Plan are as follows:
▪ Attain air quality standards
▪ Reduce population exposure and protect health in the Bay Area ▪ Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and protect the climate As addressed in the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would be substantially consistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, but the General Plan would still have significant and unavoidable impacts associated with short-term construction and long-term operational emissions, as well as health risk exposure associated with TACs and PM2.5. Because the General Plan exceeds BAAQMD thresholds of significance even after implementation of all feasible mitigation, it would not be fully consistent with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan goals.

The General Plan does not include control measures that apply directly to individual development projects. Instead, the control strategy includes compliance with the 2010 Clean Air Plan’s air quality control measures. These measures fall into five categories: stationary source measures, transportation control measures, mobile-source measures, land use and local impact measures, and energy and climate measures. The General Plan policies and implementation programs are consistent with these control measures. A project that would not support these measures would not be considered consistent with the Clean Air Plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the 2010 Clean Air Plan goals. The project would not generate emissions exceeding those anticipated by the General Plan EIR, as discussed in items b and c, and therefore, the project would not conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan’s goals. For this reason, this impact would be less than significant.

The most current clean air plan, Spare the Air Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area (2017 Clean Air Plan) was adopted by BAAQMD in April 2017 (BAAQMD 2017b). The legal impetus for the 2017 Clean Air Plan was to update the 2010 Clean Air Plan to comply with state air quality planning requirements codified in the California Health and Safety Code. Although the General Plan EIR was prepared before BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan and does not evaluate potential conflicts with the 2017 Clean Air Plan, the 2017 Clean Air Plan utilizes the growth and population forecasts that were part of the City’s General Plan. The proposed project would involve population growth within what was anticipated under the City’s General Plan.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with growth and population forecasts used in the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan. This impact would be less than significant. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 25 The General Plan EIR assesses air quality impacts on a programmatic level and recognizes that sitespecific impacts are assessed during project review.

The proposed project would result in temporary construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. Construction activities such as the operation of construction vehicles and equipment over unpaved areas, grading, trenching, and disturbance of stockpiled soils have the potential to generate fugitive dust (PM10) through the exposure of soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment. In addition, exhaust emissions associated with heavy construction equipment would potentially degrade regional air quality. Long-term emissions associated with operational impacts would include emissions from vehicle trips (mobile sources), electricity use (energy sources), and landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating associated with on-site development (area sources).

Construction Emissions
Project construction for the proposed project would occur over approximately 13 months. Table 2 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants during construction on the project site. As shown in the table, the BAAQMD thresholds would not be exceeded. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 2 Estimated Construction Air Pollution Emissions
Year
Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG NOX CO
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust) SOX
Maximum Daily Emissions 6 12 10 1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds
(average daily emissions)
54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets; emission data presented is the highest of winter or summer outputs.

N/A = not applicable; lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; SOx = oxides of sulfur.

No BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX
Operational Emissions
As shown in Table 3, operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant.1Operational impacts would be less than significant. 1 The proposed solar panels on building roofs were not included in the air quality modelling. Therefore, this analysis presents a conservative estimate of daily emissions due to energy use.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
26 Table 3 Estimated Operational Air Pollution Emissions Sources
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX
Average Daily Emissions
Area 1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile <1 <1 3 1 <1 <1
Total Emissions 1 <1 5 1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets; emission data presented is the highest of winter or summer outputs.

No BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX,
Note: numbers may not add up due to rounding
Construction and operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant and would comply with BAAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds. The proposed project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts to air quality. This impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The General Plan EIR indicates that implementation of development projects consistent with the General Plan could involve placing sensitive receptors near major roadways, railroads, or other sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions (City of Hayward 2014b). The General Plan contains a Community Risk Reduction Strategy (CRRS) that includes specific policies, as well as more detailed emission source reduction and receptor-oriented risk reduction measures and best management practices (BMPs). However, the General Plan EIR found that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Certain population groups such as children, the elderly, and people with health issues are particularly sensitive to air pollution. The majority of sensitive receptor locations are schools, residences and hospitals. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are multi-family residences located adjacent to the west. The project also includes the siting of new sensitive receptors in the form of 22 new units. Localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from CO hotspots and TACs, which are discussed in the following subsections.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.

Localized CO hotspots can occur at areas with high vehicle density, such as intersections with heavy Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 27 peak hour traffic. A project’s localized air quality impact is considered significant if CO concentrations exceed the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 ppm and state one-hour standard of 20 ppm, or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2021).

BAAQMD recommends comparing a project’s attributes with the following screening criteria as a first step to evaluating whether the project would result in the generation of CO concentrations that would substantially contribute to an exceedance of the Thresholds of Significance (BAAQMD 2017a).

The project would result in a less than significant impact to localized CO concentrations if:

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.

2. The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44, 000 vehicles per hour.

3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at the affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage).

The project would include 22 residential units. Due to the project’s size, it would not generate a substantial number of trips such that it would affect localized CO concentrations. As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the project is presumed to have no VMT or congestion impacts because it is under 25 units. The project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Program. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to localized CO emissions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The following subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during construction and operation.

Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998 (CARB 2021).

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 13 months. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
28 should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (i.e., 13 months) is approximately four percent of the total exposure period used for 30-year health risk calculations. Current models and methodologies for conducting health-risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk (BAAQMD 2017a).

The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during site preparation and grading activities.

These activities would last for approximately 60 days. PM emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and architectural coating would require less intensive construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with site preparation and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst-case condition for the total construction period. This would represent less than one percent of the total 30-year exposure period for health risk calculation. Given the aforementioned discussion, DPM generated by project construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than one in one million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual or to generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations, and this impact would be less than significant.

Operation
Sources of operational TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways and highvolume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities. The project does not include construction of new gas stations, dry cleaners, highways, roadways, or other sources that could be considered new permitted or non-permitted source of TAC or PM2.5 in proximity to receivers. In addition, the project would not introduce a new stationary source of emissions and the mobile emissions generated from the project would be minimal and spread over a broad geographical area.

Therefore, project operation would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. This impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
As addressed in the General Plan EIR, implementation of residential development projects, such as the proposed project, would not create objectionable odors affecting a significant number of people (City of Hayward 2014b). According to the BAAQMD, odor-generating projects include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants, none of which are proposed (BAAQMD 2017a). The project involves residential uses which would not create objectionable odors. Therefore, the project would not emit odors beyond those previously assessed; no impacts beyond those previously analyzed would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the air quality policies in the General Plan EIR along with the project-specific comparison to BAAQMD emissions thresholds included above, no significant impacts or peculiar circumstances Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 29 associated with the proposed project would occur that require additional review. The project would be required to comply with applicable City and BAAQMD regulations, and, thus, would not result in new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to air quality. In addition, there would not be any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Furthermore, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
30 This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 31 4 Biological Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? □ □ □ □ ■
b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? □ □ ■ □ □
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? □ □ ■ □ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? □ □ ■ □ □
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
32 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses biological resources impacts on pages 8-1 through 8-32 and finds impacts to be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Rincon Consultants conducted a desktop review of agency databases and relevant literature related to biological resources in February 2022. The literature review included database research on special-status biological resource occurrences within the Hayward, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle and surrounding eight quadrangles. Sources included the CDFW California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB)(CDFW 2022a), Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS – http://www.bios.dfg.ca.gov) (CDFW 2022b), USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov) (USFWS 2022a), USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USWFS 2022b), and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2022c).

Other resources included the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022), CDFW’s Special Animals List (February 2022), and CDFW’s Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (February 2022). Aerial photographs and topographic maps were also examined. A review of the information contained within these databases supported by the expert opinion of Rincon’s biological staff resulted in a list of specialstatus species and other resources to be evaluated for their presence or potential to occur at the project site.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 33 The project site is currently undeveloped; however, it is surrounded by development. Vegetation on the project site consists of escaped ornamental species, invasive species and ruderal habitat surrounded by development that does not provide potentially suitable habitat for special-status species.

Forty-four special-status plant species and 60 special-status animal species have been documented previously in the regional vicinity of the project site. These species were evaluated for the potential to occur on the project site based on the project site’s general condition and location.

Special-status Plants
Forty-four special-status plant species were found to have potential to occur in the region. All 44 were excluded from potentially occurring on the project site based on a lack of suitable habitats such as chaparral, coastal salt marsh, or alkaline meadows on the site, or on the site being outside of the species’ known ranges.

Special-status Wildlife
Sixty special-status animal species were identified as potentially occurring in the region. All 60 species were excluded from potentially occurring on the project site based on a lack of suitable habitat conditions and the isolation of the site from natural habitat in the region.

Although vegetation communities on the project site are primarily non-native and/or ruderal, the site could be used by migratory birds that utilize sparse ground cover or ornamental shrubs and landscaping as nesting habitat. CFGC Section 3503 protects native bird nests. Migratory nesting birds that could nest in this type of habitat and that were observed on the site include house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) and western bluebird (Sialia mexicana). Other species are expected to occur in the area and may nest in the project site or the immediate vicinity including bush tit (Psaltriparus minimus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).

The nesting season generally extends from February through August in California but can vary based upon annual climatic conditions. Thus, construction activities could result in impacts to birds or their nests as the result of vegetation removal or disturbance-related nest abandonment. However, incorporation of the following City of Hayward standard condition of approval would ensure no violations of CFGC occur as a result of project development. With implementation of the standard condition of approval outlined below, impacts to nesting birds would be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies.

STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
As applicable, if project construction activities occur between February 15 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to construction. The survey shall include the entire project site and a 300-foot buffer to account for nesting raptors. If nests are found, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate species-specific avoidance buffer of sufficient size to prevent disturbance to the nest by project activity (up to 300 feet for raptors, up to 150 feet for all other birds). The qualified biologist shall perform at least two hours of pre-construction monitoring of the nest to characterize "typical" bird behavior. During construction, if active nests are present, the qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds to determine if construction activities are causing disturbance to the bird and shall increase the buffer if it is determined the birds are showing signs of unusual or distressed behavior associated with project activities. Atypical nesting behaviors that may cause reproductive harm include, but are not limited to, defensive Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
34 flights, vocalizations directed towards project personnel/activities, standing up from a brooding position, and flying away from the nest. The qualified biologist shall have authority, through the resident engineer, to order the cessation of all project activities if the nesting birds exhibit atypical behavior that may cause reproductive failure (nest abandonment and loss of eggs and/or young) until a refined appropriate buffer is established. To prevent encroachment, the established buffer(s) should be marked clearly by high visibility material. The established buffer(s) should remain in effect until the young have fledged or the nest has been abandoned, as confirmed by the qualified biologist. Any sign of nest abandonment should be reported to the City and CDFW within 48 hours. The monitoring biologist, in consultation with the resident engineer and project manager shall determine the appropriate protection for active nests on a case-by-case basis using the criteria described above.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?  NO IMPACT
Based on a review and analysis of aerial imagery and site photographs conducted by Rincon Consultants, no riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities are present on or adjacent to the project site; therefore, no impacts to sensitive natural communities would occur. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
 NO IMPACT
No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur at or adjacent to the project site; therefore, no impacts to federally protected wetlands would occur. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?  NO IMPACT
The project site consists of disturbed areas with primarily escaped ornamental and weedy species dispersed throughout. Land uses surrounding the project site include residential, commercial and transportation in an urban setting, with no near-by natural lands or open space, and no known or potential wildlife movement corridors. No impacts to wildlife movement corridors would occur. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
 NO IMPACT
Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 15, Tree Preservation, requires a permit for the removal, destruction, or cutting of branches over one inch in diameter, or disfigurement of protected trees, among other requirements. There are no trees located within the proposed project footprint.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 35 f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
 NO IMPACT
No habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other similar plans are in place that govern activities on the project site. Therefore, the project would not be in conflict with a habitat conservation plan and no impact would occur.

Conclusion
With incorporation of the standard condition of approval described in this section, the project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to biological resources, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
36 This page left intentionally blank.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 37 5 Cultural Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior
EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance
of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance
of an archaeological
resource as defined in
Section 15064.5? □ □ □ □ ■
c. Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ □ □ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes cultural resources on pages 12-1 through 12-13 and finds that impacts to sites of local importance, overall historic setting, and previously undiscovered archaeological resources would be less than significant and impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
 NO IMPACT
There are no built structures on the project site. Rincon Consultants conducted a cultural resources desktop analysis for the project in March 2022; it is included as Appendix B to this checklist. As part of the report, a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) was conducted to identify previous cultural resources studies and previously recorded cultural resources within 0.5 mile of the project site. The NWIC Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
38 record included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California Historical Resources Inventory list. No previously recorded historic structures were identified on the project site. The field survey and background research did not identify any built-environment historical resources in or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The cultural resources records search, Sacred Lands File search, field survey, and informal Native American scoping process identified no archaeological resources within the project site. The project site is not known to contain human remains. Nonetheless, the discovery of remains or resources is always a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. With incorporation of the following City of Hayward standard condition of approval to account for unanticipated discovery, impacts would be mitigated substantially by uniformly applicable development policies.

STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
If human remains, archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts are discovered during construction or excavation, the following procedures shall be followed: Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease immediately and the Planning Division shall be notified.

A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to determine whether any such materials are significant prior to resuming groundbreaking construction activities. Standardized procedure for evaluation accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.f and 151236.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Conclusion
Cultural resource assessments of the project area were conducted, and their findings incorporated into the analysis above. Adherence to General Plan policies and the standard condition of approval listed above would be implemented to reduce impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to cultural resources, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Energy
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 39 6 Energy
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ ■ □ □ □
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy Conservation) and the updated Appendix G guidelines published in December of 2018 require that environmental analysis include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Energy consumption accounts for energy consumed during construction and operation of the proposed project, such as fuel consumed by vehicles, natural gas consumed for heating and/or power, and electricity consumed for power.

Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts on energy on pages 21-9 through 21-24. This discussion addresses the issues of inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The General Plan EIR identifies impacts related to energy consumption as less than significant.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
40 a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is the only purveyor of electricity and natural gas in Hayward and would supply energy to the project site. Construction of the proposed project would result in shortterm consumption of energy from the use of construction equipment and processes. The California Green Building Standards Code includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that would apply to construction of the proposed project to minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption.

The proposed project would involve the use of energy during construction and operation. Energy use during construction would be primarily from fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary grid power may be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Energy use during construction would be temporary. Construction equipment used would be typical of construction projects in the region.

Operation of the proposed project would generate energy demand in the form of transportation fuel from vehicle trips with the additional population anticipated at the project site. In addition to this transportation energy use, operation of the project would require permanent grid connections for electricity. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with the HMC, which incorporates the latest iterations of the California Green Building Standards Code. This code requires the provision of electric vehicle charging stations, water efficient plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycling services, and other energy-efficient measures. The project would also be required to comply with the City’s Reach Code which states that all new low-rise residential buildings (three stories and less) be all electric and requires electric vehicle charging infrastructure beyond that required in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (City of Hayward 2021a). Consistent with the City’s Reach Code, it is assumed that the project would not use natural gas.

Overall, operation of the proposed project would result in consumption of fuels from vehicle trips and electricity from proposed residential buildings. Project energy consumed would represent an incremental increase in energy usage compared to existing conditions, and the proposed project would implement energy-efficient components to reduce energy demand. The General Plan EIR notes that population growth in the city is a key driver for increasing energy demands. The proposed project would increase population density incrementally in the City of Hayward. However, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, population growth facilitated by the proposed residential units would be within with General Plan population growth forecasts. According to the General Plan EIR, the City’s energy supply is sufficient to meet the needs of projected growth until 2040 (City of Hayward 2014b). Overall, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption and this impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City of Hayward adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2009 to bring the City into compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 375 and statewide GHG reduction goals. The CAP was adopted in response to State mandates and regional guidance on reducing GHG emissions (City of Hayward 2014b). While Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Energy
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 41 targeted toward reducing citywide GHG emissions, the CAP includes energy efficiency measures to reach emissions reduction targets. Energy-related measures described in the CAP include building energy efficiency strategies, conducting outreach programs to encourage renewable energy installation, and encouraging the use of alternatively fueled construction and landscape equipment.

As a part of the General Plan update process for the 2040 General Plan, the City re-evaluated the greenhouse gas reduction estimates assigned to individual actions contained in the 2009 CAP. This analysis resulted in the development of new and modified actions that were incorporated into the 2040 General Plan and its overall policy framework. Therefore, the energy efficiency measures contained in the CAP are required and would be adhered to with implementation of the proposed project.

The General Plan EIR analyzed the policies contained within the planning document to identify goals, policies, implementation programs, and potential outcomes that address the significance criteria for impacts related to energy consumption. Several policies in the General Plan aim to avoid or reduce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. These policies include actions designed to reduce electricity and natural gas use or to reduce fuel consumption (e.g., less driving), and implementation of these policies and actions would therefore reduce energy consumption. Several 2040 General Plan policies, including LU-1.1, LU-1.3, LU-1.5, LU-1.6, LU-1.8, and LU-1.9, promote local growth patterns and sustainable development practices to reduce resource and energy consumption overall. This is consistent with the type of infill development planned for the proposed project. Other policies focus specifically on energy-efficient design and renewable energy use to reduce wasteful energy consumption. These include policies NR-4.1 through NR-4.15, which define implementation programs to encourage development of green buildings and infrastructure, and to promote collaboration with energy-efficient contractors.

Because the proposed project would comply with the HMC which incorporates the latest iterations of the California Green Building Standards Code as well as the City’s Reach Code, it would be consistent with these energy-efficiency policies. The proposed project would not interfere with the 2040 General Plan or the CAP’s energy-efficiency policies and would not conflict with or obstruct the state plan for renewable energy; therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts with regard to energy consumption, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
42 This page left intentionally blank.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 43 7 Geology and Soils
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of
a known fault? □ □ ■ □ □

2. Strong seismic ground
shaking? □ ■ □ □ □

3. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction? □ ■ □ □ □

4. Landslides? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil? □ ■ □ □ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is made unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse? □ ■ □ □ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property? □ □ □ □ ■
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
44 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater? □ □ ■ □ □
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses geology and soils impacts on pages 9-1 through 9-18 and concludes that impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine project-specific would occur impacts that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a.1. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?  NO IMPACT
The project is not within an earthquake fault zone (DOC 2018; ABAG 2021). The Hayward Fault is the closest fault line to the project site, located approximately 0.8 miles to the east. The project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects due to fault rupture. No impact would occur. a.2. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 45 The project site is in an area subject to seismic ground shaking. The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential for fault rupture and strong seismic ground shaking from seismic events. As noted in the General Plan EIR, ground shaking in the Hayward area could cause significant damage, but with implementation of General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the California Building Code to minimize earthquake-related hazards. The project site is located on a liquefaction zone subject to moderate liquefaction (DOC 2018; ABAG 2021). However, according to the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineering Consultants in June 2021 (Appendix C), the project site is considered to have a low potential for liquefaction and there would not be a possibility for liquefaction-induced ground rupture to occur at the site during a major earthquake on a nearby fault. This impact would be less than significant.
a.4. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?  NO IMPACT
The project site is located in a generally flat area and not surrounded by substantial slopes, as shown in Figure 9 -3 of the 2040 General Plan Background Report (City of Hayward 2014c). There is no risk of landslide affecting the project site. No impact would occur. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
As stated in the General Plan EIR, areas in Hayward most susceptible to soil erosion include those where new development in hilly areas would require extensive grading (City of Hayward 2014b). The project site and surroundings are generally flat. In addition, construction of the project would be required to adhere to applicable General Plan policies and building codes including the California Building Code Section 1804 Excavation, Grading, and Fill, along with HMC Chapter 10, Article 8 (Grading and Clearing). Compliance with these requirements would ensure that substantial erosion would during construction would not occur. Following construction, the majority of the project site would be developed with structures and landscaping, and areas of exposed soils would be minimal.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the project (City of Hayward 2014c). As analyzed in the General Plan EIR, compliance with General Plan Policies, the California Building Code, and associated seismic provisions for this region of California would reduce impacts related to unstable soils to less than significant levels. Additionally, the project site is in a generally flat area where landslides are unlikely and not in an area with high or very high liquefaction potential (City of Hayward 2014b; GeoEngineering Consultants 2021). According to the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineering Consultants in June 2021 (Appendix C), the project site is considered to have a low potential for liquefaction there would not be a possibility for liquefaction-induced ground rupture or Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
46 lateral spread to occur at the site during a major earthquake on a nearby fault. This impact would be less than significant.
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?  SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The General Plan EIR analyzes the potential for expansive soils to create risks to life and property and finds this impact to be less than significant with incorporation of General Plan policies to reduce impacts. According to the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineering Consultants (Appendix C), the project site is on near surface soils that have high expansion potential when subject to fluctuations in moisture. The report recommends that the foundations and slabs underlying the proposed buildings should be designed for such a condition. In addition, GeoEngineering Consultants recommended that grading be performed during dry months and that flexible joints be used along the utility lines entering the building in order to accommodate for total and differential settlement.

The project would be required to comply with the Uniform Building Code, the California Building Code, and applicable General Plan Policies, including Policy HAZ-2.1 and Policy HAZ-2.2, that feature requirements to evaluate geologic, seismic, and soil-related conditions and risks for new construction on sites in geologic hazard zones, and to design structures and buildings pursuant to applicable standards and codes.

Adherence to the City’s standard condition of approval below, which requires implementation of the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant related to geologic hazards, would reduce impacts related to expansive soils. With implementation of the standard condition of approval outlined below, impacts related to expansive soils would be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies.

STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
The following control measures for geologic hazards shall be adhered to, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director or City Engineer. Per standard City project approval procedures, the City must review final project design plans for conformity with building code requirements prior to project construction. All earthwork, including site grading, wall foundation excavations, placement and compaction of engineered fill, and final surface drainage installation, would be performed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report, as applicable.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
 NO IMPACT
The City’s comprehensive, integrated wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal municipal sanitary sewer system serves the project site. Implementation of the project would not involve the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no impact would occur.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 47 f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
 NO IMPACT
According to the General Plan EIR, a search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology, University of California, identified five paleontological resources in the City of Hayward. The project site is underlain by Holocene alluvial deposits (Qha) (GeoEngineering Consultants 2021; Appendix C). The younger Quaternary deposits are composed of alluvial fan facies comprised of unconsolidated brown to tan gravely sand and silt, fluvial facies of brown sand and silty clay.

Holocene sedimentary deposits, particularly those younger than 5,000 years old, are generally too young to contain fossilized material. Therefore, the Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits mapped at the surface of the project area have been assigned a low paleontological sensitivity, in accordance with SVP (2010) guidelines. This means they are likely too young to contain fossilized material. Overall, no impact related to paleontological resources would occur as a result of the project. No impact would occur.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to geology and soils, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
48 This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 49 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purposes of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases? □ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes GHG emissions on pages 10-1 through 10-42 and concludes that impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project’s proposed construction activities, energy use, daily operational activities, and mobile sources (traffic) would generate GHG emissions. CalEEMod was used to calculate emissions resulting from project construction and long-term operation (see Appendix D for GHG model output).

Construction Emissions
Emissions generated by construction of the proposed project are estimated to be 103 MT of CO2e.

However, as the BAAQMD does not have a recommended threshold for construction-related GHG emissions, emissions associated with construction are not included in Table 4 and compared to BAAQMD significance thresholds.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
50 Operational Indirect and Stationary Direct Emissions Long-term emissions relate to area sources, energy use, solid waste, water use, and transportation.

Each of the operational sources of emissions is discussed further below.

Area Source Emissions
CalEEMod was used to calculate direct sources of air emissions associated with the proposed project. These include consumer product use and landscape maintenance equipment. Area emissions are estimated at less than 1 MT of CO2e per year.

Energy Use Emissions
Operation of the project would consume electricity. The generation of electricity through combustion of fossil fuels emits CO2, and to a smaller extent, N2O and CH4. The proposed project would generate approximately 19 MT of CO2e per year associated with overall energy use.

Solid Waste Emissions
Based on the estimate of GHG emissions from project-generated solid waste as it decomposes, solid waste associated with the proposed project would generate approximately 5 MT of CO2e per year.

Water Use Emissions
Based on the amount of electricity generated to supply and convey water for the project, the proposed project would generate an estimated 2 MT of CO2e per year.

Transportation Emissions
As calculated by CalEEMod, the proposed project would generate an estimated 265,410 annual VMT. Since CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions related to mobile sources, N2O emissions were calculated based on the project’s VMT using calculation methods provided by the CCAR General Reporting Protocol (CCAR 2009). The proposed project would emit an estimated 89 MT of CO2e per year from mobile sources.

Combined Stationary and Mobile Source Emissions
Table 4 combines the operational and mobile GHG emissions associated with the proposed project.

The annual emissions would total approximately 115 MT of CO2e per year. These emissions do not exceed the BAAQMD bright-line threshold of 660 MT of CO2e per year as adjusted for SB 32 targets.

Since GHG emissions would not exceed the adjusted BAAQMD threshold, the project would not generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions and would not conflict with SB 32. This impact would be less than significant.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 51 Table 4 Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e/year)
Area <1
Energy 19
Waste 5
Water 2
Mobile 89
Total 115
BAAQMD Bright-Line Threshold (adjusted for SB 32) 660
Exceeds Threshold? No
See Table 2.2 “Overall Operational” emissions. CalEEMod worksheets for GHG in Appendix D. b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The General Plan EIR includes a discussion of the City-adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) of 2009 that brings the City into compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 375 and statewide GHG reduction goals.

The CAP was adopted in response to state mandates and regional guidance on reducing GHG emissions (City of Hayward 2014b). As a part of the update process for the 2040 General Plan, the City re-evaluated the GHG reduction estimates assigned to individual actions in the 2009 CAP. This analysis resulted in the development of new and modified actions that were incorporated into the 2040 General Plan and its overall policy framework. This integrated approach allows the 2040 General Plan to be recognized as a “Plan for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” and as a “Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy” by BAAQMD (City of Hayward 2014b). Although the CAP was adopted in 2009, it established targets using the Executive Order S-3-05 emissions trajectory and aligns with SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan. The CAP included a 2005 emissions inventory that estimated the total GHG emissions in Hayward at approximately 1,183,279 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalence (CO2e) in 2005. Implementation of the CAP would result in a citywide emissions reduction target of 12.5 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020 and 82.5 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 (City of Hayward 2014a). As stated in the General Plan EIR, forecasted GHG emissions for the City of Hayward in 2050 without mitigation is 1,670,080 MT of CO2e. With implementation of the CAP, there is projected to be a reduction of 1,152,398 MT CO2e emissions for 2050, which results in an 82.5 percent reduction below the 2005 baseline and 87.6 percent below business as usual projections for 2050.

As concluded in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan contains a comprehensive strategy that achieves a communitywide GHG emission reduction target of 20 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020 and puts the City on course to achieve ongoing GHG emission reductions through the year 2050. Thus, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Estimated GHG emissions per service population (residents + employees) in 2020, 2040, and 2050 would be below the BAAQMD recommended threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e per service population per year. Thus, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
52 environment. Since the population growth from the proposed project would be within General Plan estimates, implementation of the General Plan, including development of the proposed project, would not result in significant GHG emissions impacts. No impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous environmental documents would occur.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 53 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? □ ■ □ □ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within 0.25 mile of an
existing or proposed school? □ ■ □ □ □
d. Be located on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment? □ ■ □ □ □
e. For a project located in an airport
land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in
the project area? □ □ ■ □ □
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an □ □ □ ■ □
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
54 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses hazardous materials impacts on pages 11-1 through 11-24 and finds that impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials use in the City would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Residential uses, such as those proposed by the project, typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials other than minor amounts needed for cleaning or landscaping maintenance.

During grading and construction activities, limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, may be transported to the site, used on site, and disposed over after use. However, the project would be required to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations that address the handling, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act. This would eliminate potential significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable Federal and State environmental and Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 55 workplace safety laws. Adherence to these regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
One school, the Cesar Chavez Middle School, is located within 0.25 mile of the project site (approximately 0.18 miles northeast of the site). As a residential project, the proposed project would not emit substantial quantities of hazardous materials or hazardous waste. As discussed above under criterion a and b, the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with construction activities would be required to adhere to numerous regulatory requirements which would prevent emissions of hazardous substances. As discussed below under criterion d, there is no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination on-site, and therefore release of contaminated soil or groundwater during construction is not anticipated. This impact would be less than significant.
d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by Silicon Valley Environmental Group, Inc. in November 2021 (Silicon Valley Environmental Group 2021; Appendix E). As part of the 2021 Phase I ESA, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) was contracted to provide a database search of public lists of sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous materials or sites for which a release or incident has occurred for the project site and surrounding area. Federal, state, and county lists were reviewed as part of the research effort. The project site was not listed on any of the environmental regulatory databases. Therefore, the project site is not included on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

The EDR records search identified 13 potential contamination or clean-up sites within a mile of the project site. Of these sites, all were found to be either closed cases (meaning cleanup activities have occurred in accordance with regulatory standards and no further cleanup action is required at this time) or significantly down-gradient from the project site. Therefore, the Phase I ESA determined that the sites do not pose a risk for the proposed project. Overall, the Phase I ESA concluded that the site contains no evidence of illegal or improper use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials and that no sites in the vicinity of the project site would pose as a significant environmental concern or liability (Silicon Valley Environmental Group, Inc, Appendix E). Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public environment and this impact would be less than significant. e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?  NO IMPACT
There are no private airstrips near the project site. The nearest airport, Hayward Executive Airport, is approximately 2.8 miles northwest of the project site. Since the project is not located within 2 Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
56 miles of a public airport or a private airstrip, it would not pose as a safety hazard or generate excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur. f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
As stated in the General Plan EIR, the City must maintain its status as a Certified Unified Program Agency and implement a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan to outline its responsibilities in emergencies and coordinate the response and recovery efforts of City departments, local energy providers, and federal, State, and local agencies. The project would not block access or permanently constrain evacuation routes adopted in an emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan.

With the required implementation of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, impacts would be less than significant.
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is in an urbanized area of Hayward, surrounded primarily by paved surfaces and structures. The project site is not intermixed with or adjacent to wildlands. Figure 5-3 of the 2040 General Plan Background Report indicates the project site is a low fire hazard risk (City of Hayward 2014c). No impact would occur.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 57 10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin? □ □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
(ii) Substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding onor off-site;
(iii) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
(iv) Impede or redirect flood
flows? □ ■ □ □ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due □ □ ■ □ □
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
58 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses hydrology and water quality impacts on pages 13-1 through 13-40.

The EIR found that potential impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The General Plan EIR concluded that with compliance with existing regulations, City of Hayward Standard Conditions of Approval, and General Plan policies, impacts related to water quality associated with General Plan implementation would be less than significant. The proposed project would modify the site conditions which could affect water quality during construction and operation. However, as explained in the following discussions, there are no project-specific impacts peculiar to the project and impacts related to the project would be less than significant.

Construction Impacts
During grading activities, the site’s soils would be exposed to wind and water erosion that could transport sediments into local stormwater drainages. Furthermore, accidental spills of fluids or fuels from construction vehicles and equipment, or miscellaneous construction materials and debris, could be mobilized and transported off-site in overland flow. These contaminant sources could degrade the water quality of receiving water bodies (i.e., San Francisco Bay), potentially resulting in a violation of water quality standards.

As part of Section 402 of the CWA, the U.S. EPA has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control both construction and operation (occupancy) stormwater discharges. The Federal CWA was first adopted in 1972 and is intended to Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 59 protect and preserve water supply and quality in the “waters of the nation.” In the Bay Area, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing permitting requirements. According to General Plan Policy NR-6.8 (NPDES Permit Compliance), the City must continue to comply with the NPDES program. The project would be subject to the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), NPDES Permit Order No. R2-2015-0049, and the provisions set forth in Section C.3 New Development and Redevelopment. However, because the project would disturb less than one acre of land, the project would not be required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ or 2009-0009-DWQ General Permit).

Nonetheless, the project would be subject to HMC Chapter 10, Article 8 (Grading and Clearing), which requires all construction projects in the City to conduct grading activities in a manner that will minimize the potential for erosion from the site. Furthermore, Article 8 states that if requested by the City Engineer, the project applicant would be required to prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that specifies control techniques that would prevent erosion during construction. Therefore, with compliance with City construction-related water quality and erosion control requirements, construction of the project would not violate any water quality standards, substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area such that substantial erosion or siltation would occur and would not degrade water quality. Impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
The project site is currently undeveloped and unpaved. The project would increase the total area of impervious surfaces on the project site by approximately 29,115 square feet. Increasing the total area of impervious surfaces could result in a greater potential to introduce pollutants to receiving waters. Urban runoff could carry a variety of pollutants, including oil and grease, metals, sediment, and pesticide residues from roadways, parking lots, rooftops, and landscaped areas and deposit them into adjacent waterways via the storm drain system.

Stormwater discharge during operation is regulated by the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, issued by the RWQCB, pursuant to NPDES regulations. Water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which includes the C.3 provisions set by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Provision C.3 of the MRP addresses postconstruction stormwater requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area. Because the project would replace in excess of 10,000 square feet of the impervious surface of the project site, it must comply with the C.3 provisions set by the RWQCB. Therefore, the project must meet certain criteria including 1) incorporate site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into the project design; 2) minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge; and 3) minimize increases in runoff flows as compared to pre-development conditions. A Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that details the site control, source control, and stormwater measures that would be implemented at the site must be submitted to the City. In addition, Low Impact Development (LID) requirements apply. The Alameda County Clean Water Program’s C.3 Technical Guidance document (2016) provides guidance on how to meet the C.3 requirements.

Pursuant to C.3 requirements, the project would be required to include design features that would reduce impacts associated with the increased impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the project site would be directed to and treated in the 1,118 square feet of bio-retention areas along Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
60 the northern, southern, and western boundaries of the site. The project would also include 4,700 square feet of permeable pavers in order to meet stormwater requirements to reduce pollutants and surface runoff. By adhering to the provisions of NPDES Section C.3, and the stormwater control plan, the project would not result in adverse effects on water quality and or in the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction or operation. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on water quality. With implementation of the measures contained in these plans, excessive stormwater runoff, erosion, and sedimentation would not occur and the potential for the project to violate water quality standards and substantially degrade water quality would be reduced. This impact would be less than significant. b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that General Plan policies would ensure that future development would not deplete groundwater supplies substantially. As stated in the 2040 General Plan Background Report (City of Hayward 2014c), the City of Hayward stopped using groundwater to supply water to the city in 1963, except in cases of emergency. The project would not rely on groundwater. Development under the project would not include installation of new groundwater wells or use of groundwater from existing wells. Although the project may increase impervious surfaces on the site, development of the project site was anticipated under the General and would not use water or prevent recharge at a rate beyond that anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, the project would have no impacts beyond those previously identified in the prior environmental documents.
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The closest water body to the project is the Ward Creek located approximately 0.9 miles southwest of the site and does not flow through the site. Project construction would not alter the course of Ward Creek or any other stream or river since no other surface water features are identified in the project vicinity. The project site connects to an existing stormwater drainage system located in the County of Alameda’s Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s Zone 3A. Stormwater runoff in the project area currently flows through existing City stormwater drains to the Hayward Canal and eventually to the San Francisco Bay (Alameda County Flood Control District 2022).

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 61 The project would increase the site’s impervious surface area, thereby increasing the potential for offsite runoff. This increased runoff could result in on- or offsite erosion or siltation. However, pursuant to the Alameda County Municipal Regional Stormwater Discharge Permit, the project would be required to implement Low Impact Development techniques to reduce the potential for on or offsite erosion or siltation.

Increased stormwater from the project site would enter the City’s existing stormwater conveyance system. While the project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site by increasing impervious surfaces, as noted in criteria a. and e. above, it would be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP which requires new developments disturbing more than 10,000 square feet 1) incorporate site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into the project design; 2) minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge; and 3) minimize increases in runoff flows as compared to pre-development conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure or otherwise substantially alter the course of the Ward Creek or other water features. Impacts would be less than significant. c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area (1 percent chance annually); the project site is located within Zone X, defined as an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2009). In addition, the project site is not located within proximity to any dam failure inundation area and would not expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss involving flooding as a result of dam failure.

Furthermore, compliance with Federal, State, and local policies such as FEMA National Flood Insurance Program; California Water Code; the HMC; Floodplain Management Ordinance; the City of Hayward Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and the 2040 General Plan policies would ensure impacts be reduced to a less than significant level.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is not located in a tsunami inundation area, nor is there a water body near the project site capable of seiche. The nearest large body of water to the project is the San Francisco Bay, which is approximately 4.2 miles west of the project site. Based on the topography of the project site and its surroundings, there would be no risk of mudflow on the site. There would be no impact.
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City of Hayward is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The San Francisco Bay RWQCB provides permits for projects that may affect surface waters and groundwater locally and is responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives. The Basin Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
62 Plan serves as the basis for the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s regulatory programs and incorporates an implementation plan for achieving water quality objectives (California Water Board 2017). The proposed project would not interfere with the objectives and goals in the Basin Plan. This impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to hydrology and water quality, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 63 11 Land Use and Planning
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR addresses land use and planning on pages 14-1 through 14-42. Impacts to land use and planning were determined to be less than significant in the document.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?  NO IMPACT
The project would be infill development on vacant land and would not result in new obstructions or divisions between established communities. The project would be limited to the project site and would not include linear or other features that could impede access between or within neighborhoods. Therefore, the project would have no impact. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
64 The project site is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the Hayward 2040 General Plan (City of Hayward 2014a). The City of Hayward’s 2040 General Plan Land Use and Community Character Element defines the MDR category as “Suburban and urban areas that contain a mix of housing types… Allowed uses include detached single-family homes, attached single-family homes, and multi-family homes. Development density within MDR is 8.7 to 17.4 dwelling unit per net acre.” Although the density of the proposed project (20.4 dwelling units per acre) would exceed 17.4 dwelling units per acre, it would be allowed with the request of a 30 percent State Density Bonus since the project would include two affordable housing units. The project would be consistent with the MDR designation.

The project site is zoned RS pursuant to the Hayward Zoning Map. The RS District is intended to accommodate only single-family residences and the community services appurtenant thereto (HMC Section 10-1.205). The proposed project would involve a zone change from RS to RM. The purpose of the RM district is to “promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life in areas where a compatible mingling of single-family and multiple-family dwellings is possible” (HMC Section 10-1.405).

As shown in Table 1 in the Project Description, the project would conflict with certain development standards set forth in the Hayward Development Code for the RM District. However, the proposed project would be subject to a 30 percent State Density Bonus since it would include two affordable housing units, which would allow for an increase in the number of units from 17 to 22 and would allow for a decrease in minimum lot area per dwelling unit from 2,500 square feet to 1,937 square feet. The applicant would request a density bonus waiver which would allow for a decrease in yard front setback from a minimum of 20 feet pursuant to HMC Section 10-1.430 to 11 feet and 4 inches to buildings, as well as a decrease in rear setback from a minimum of 20 feet to 15 feet and 10 inches. Assuming the request for rezoning is approved and the waivers are approved, the proposed project and use would be consistent with the RM zoning provisions of the HMC.

Pending approval of the requested zone change, the project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to land use and planning, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects, which as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 65 12 Mineral Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and
the residents of the state? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes mineral resources, along with geology and soils on page 9-1 to 9-18 and finds that impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?  NO IMPACT
The project site is not zoned or designated for mining uses and no active mining operations are in the project site or vicinity. The project site is not classified as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) and would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the residents of the state and the region, nor would it result in loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site (USGS 2021).The project site is an infill site and does not involve developing currently undeveloped land with the potential to contain valuable mineral resources. There would be no impact.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
66 Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to mineral resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 67 13 Noise
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? □ □ □ □ ■
b. Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? □ ■ □ □ □
c. For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes noise on pages 15-1 through 15-32. Impacts due to constructionrelated ground vibration, railroad generated noise, and noise generated from stationary sources are found to be less than significant. Impacts related to short-term and long-term constructiongenerated noise are found to be significant and unavoidable.

As discussed under Impact 15-1 of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan Goal HAZ-8 (minimize human exposure to excessive noise) and Policies HAZ-8.17 (Community Noise Control Ordinance), HAZ-8.20 (Construction Noise Study), and HAZ-8.21 (Construction and Maintenance Noise Limits) establish the overall goal and intentions of the City with regards to construction-related noise.

Policy HAZ-8.17 refers to a community noise control ordinance for the purposes of regulating community noise levels. The City has adopted Section 4-1.03.4 of the Municipal Code (Construction and Alteration of Structures; Landscaping Activities), which states that individual devices/pieces of construction equipment are not to exceed 83 dB at a distance of 25 feet from the source and 86 dB at any point of the property plane Monday through Saturday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM and Sundays Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
68 from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, “unless otherwise provided pursuant to a duly-issued permit or a condition of approval.” Thus, while the code establishes specific standards to reduce construction noise from typical construction activities, these standards may not apply to all development projects requiring discretionary approval.

Furthermore, the General Plan EIR analyzes vibration related impacts and the implementation of Policies HAZ-8.22 (Vibration Impact Assessment) and HAZ-8.23 (Transportation Vibration) would require a project-level noise and vibration study to determine vibration-related impacts on humans.

Policy HAZ-8.22 would require construction activities using heavy-duty construction equipment within 200 feet of an existing structure or sensitive receptor to conduct a vibration impact assessment. Policy HAZ-8.23 would require all new development located in proximity to major vibration sources (e.g., railroads, freeways, BART lines) to conduct a ground vibration and vibration noise evaluation consistent with City approved methodologies. Therefore, conducting project-level vibration studies would ensure individuals and structures are not exposed to excessive vibration levels.

As discussed under Impact 15-2 of the General Plan EIR, implementation of the policies included in the Hazards Element, such as Policy HAZ-8.2 (Noise Study and Mitigation) and Policy HAZ-8.5 (Residential Noise Standards), require new projects to evaluate noise exposure and provide mitigation measures, if applicable, to reduce noise exposure at sensitive land uses and meet noise standards for the specific project type. Therefore, conducting project-level noise studies to comply with adopted noise standards would ensure that individuals are not exposed to excessive noise levels.

Although adoption of General Plan policies would ensure that new development would comply with adopted noise standards and therefore would not expose new receptors to excessive noise levels, the General Plan would still result in increases in traffic-related noise (i.e., increases of 3 or more dB and up to 15 dB in some areas of the City). As a result, project-generated increases in noise would result in a substantial permanent increase in community noise levels that could adversely affect existing receptors.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?  SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Construction Impacts
Project construction activities on-site and traffic noise from construction vehicles would increase noise levels in the project vicinity. Nearby noise-sensitive land uses, including the multi-family residences adjacent to the project site would be exposed to temporary construction noise during Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 69 development of the project. Noise impacts are a function of the type of activity being undertaken and the distance to the receptor location. Table 5 estimates construction noise at a reference distance of 50 feet from the source equipment. Although there are single-family residences adjacent to the south project boundary, reference noise levels for construction equipment cannot be adapted with precision to much closer distances.

Table 5 Estimated Construction Noise
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Leq) 50 ft from Source* Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane Derrick 88
Crane Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 81
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 85
Paver 89
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 76
Rail Saw 90
Roller 74
Saw 76
Scarifier 83
Scraper 89
Shovel 82
Truck 88
Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2018, FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Table 9.9 As shown in Table 5, construction noise could reach as high as an estimated 90 dBA Leq at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors during construction. Such levels would exceed ambient noise and would be audible on adjacent properties, including residences immediately north and west of the project site. However, Section 4-1.03.4 of the HMC limits the hours of construction and maintenance activities to the less sensitive hours of the day (7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays); therefore, construction impacts would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences. The HMC also imposes noise limit requirements stating that no individual piece of equipment may produce a noise level exceeding 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from source, and that no activities may produce a noise level in excess Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
70 of 86 dBA outside project property lines. Additionally, construction noise would be typical of normal construction in urban areas and would not use techniques or equipment that generate unusually high levels of noise or vibration such as pile driving. Adherence to the City’s standard conditions of approval related to construction noise would further reduce construction noise at nearby sensitive receptors and compliance with this uniformly applicable development policy would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project would have no impacts beyond those identified in previous environmental documents.

Standard Condition of Approval
The following control measures for construction noise, grading and construction activities shall be adhered to, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director or City Engineer:
a) In conformance with Section 4-1.03-4 of the City’s Municipal Code, construction activities between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday or between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays or holidays, unless other construction hours are permitted by the City Engineer or Chief Building Official, shall not include any individual equipment that produces a noise level exceeding 83 dB measured at 25 feet, nor shall activities produce a noise level outside the project property lines in excess of 86 dB. During all other hours, noise shall not exceed the limits defined in Municipal Code Section 4-1.03.1 (70 dB daytime or 60 dB nighttime, measured at residential property lines).
b) Grading and construction equipment shall be properly muffled; c) Unnecessary idling of grading and construction equipment is prohibited; d) Stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as practical from occupied residential housing units; e) Applicant/developer shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. f) Letters shall be mailed to surrounding property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project boundary with this information.
g) The developer shall post the property with signs that shall indicate the names and phone number of individuals who may be contacted, including those of staff at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, when occupants of adjacent residences find that construction is creating excessive dust or odors, or is otherwise objectionable. Letters shall also be mailed to surrounding property owners and residents with this information prior to commencement of construction.

Operational Impacts
Operation of the project would generate noise typical of multi-family residential development and would be consistent with nearby residential and commercial land uses. Mechanical equipment on the project site and vehicle trips associated with the new building could increase noise level.

However, the project involves residential development on a site designated for residential uses and noise levels would be consistent with surrounding development. Noise associated with project operation would primarily result from new motor vehicle trips to and from the project site. As analyzed in Section 16, Transportation, the proposed project would not generate traffic volumes in excess of that assumed for the project site in the General Plan EIR, and therefore, traffic noise would be at or below levels assumed in the EIR for the General Plan buildout year of 2040. The Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 71 General Plan EIR found that changes in traffic patterns may create a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. However, General Plan Policies HAZ-8.2, HAZ-8.5, HAZ- 8.11, HAZ-8.12, HAZ-8.17, and HAZ-8.23 call for actions aimed at reducing impacts from traffic noise, such as enforcing maximum acceptable interior and exterior noise levels for multi-family residences. Therefore, the project would not have an impact beyond that analyzed previously. b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Construction of the project would intermittently generate vibration on and adjacent to the project site. The project would be a typical construction project as analyzed in the Hayward General Plan EIR. Heavy vibration-generating equipment can include bulldozers and loaded trucks. The distance to the nearest sensitive receptors from the project site, the multi-family residences located adjacent to the west, is estimated at 25 feet to be conservative. Although the multi-family residences are adjacent to the site boundary, construction equipment would not typically operate at the property lines, and reference vibration levels for construction equipment apply to a distance of 25 feet from the source and cannot be adapted with precision to much closer distances.

Table 6 identifies vibration velocity levels at a distance of 25 feet from the source.

Table 6 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment Estimated VdB at 25 feet PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) Large bulldozer 87 0.089
Loaded trucks 86 0.076
Jack hammer 79 0.035
Small bulldozer 58 0.003
Source: FTA 2018
Based on Table 6, noise-sensitive receptors would experience the strongest vibration of up to 87 VdB or 0.089 in/sec PPV with the use of large bulldozers, which would not exceed the AASHTO threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV for damage to nearby sensitive structures. Furthermore, a vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV would not exceed the Caltrans distinctly perceptible vibration threshold of 0.24 in/sec PPV (Caltrans 2020). In addition, construction activities generating loud noises and vibration would also be limited to 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday and 10:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M. on Sundays pursuant to HMC 4-1.03.4, which would prevent the exposure of sensitive receivers to vibration during evening and nighttime hours. Moreover, project construction would be typical of urban projects in Hayward as envisioned in the General Plan EIR analysis. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?  NO IMPACT
There are no private airstrips near the project site. The nearest airport, Hayward Executive Airport, is approximately 2.8 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is located within the Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
72 Hayward Executive Airport Influence Area. However, according to Figure 3-3 of the Hayward Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is not located within the existing noise level contours for the airport (Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission 2010). The project would not subject construction workers or residents at the site to excessive noise and impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
With standard conditions of approval incorporated, the project would not have peculiar or substantial noise impacts, nor would there be any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 73 14 Population and Housing
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial amounts of
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses population and housing on pages 16-1 through 16-7. The General Plan EIR accounts for a population of 265,962 people at full buildout of the Hayward Planning Area and finds that impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The project would involve the construction of 22 townhome units on an infill site, consistent with the goals of the General Plan regarding efficient urban growth. The project would directly generate population growth. Based on the City of Hayward’s average household size of 3.21 persons per household (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2021), the project would add an estimated 71 new residents to the City. The project would increase the population of Hayward from 158,089 to Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
74 158,160 people, an increase that falls within the residential buildout analyzed in the General Plan EIR of 208,047. Accordingly, it would not induce substantial population growth directly or indirectly because the project would be part of planned growth in the region and within the growth projection analyzed in the General Plan EIR. In addition, since the project would include only one part-time employee at the property manager’s office, and maintenance and similar support positions would be expected to be filled from people already in the city or region, it would not result in substantial employment growth. Population growth related to the project would be less than significant and would not be more than that analyzed in previous environmental documents. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is currently vacant. Therefore, construction and development of the site would not displace substantial numbers of people or residences. The project would not displace housing or people.

Conclusion
The project would not involve development in areas not analyzed previously in the General Plan EIR, nor would it result in impacts to population and housing not covered in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts concerning population and housing, nor would there be any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 75 15 Public Services
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
a. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
or the need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times
or other performance
objectives for any of the public
services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■ □
4 Parks? □ ■ □ □ □
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes public services on pages 17-1 through 17-42 and concludes that impacts regarding public services would be less than significant.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
76 Project-Specific Impacts
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The General Plan EIR evaluates fire and police protection demand impacts and finds them to be less than significant with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, including required enforcement of fire and building codes, and implementation of defensible space and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design concepts. The project involves infill residential development as envisioned in the General Plan, in an area currently served by police and fire protection services; it would result in no impacts beyond those previously identified in the prior environmental documents.
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
While new development, including the proposed project, would increase the demand for new school facilities, the General Plan EIR analyzes this issue and finds impacts to be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies. Hayward Unified School District (HUSD) provides public school services in Hayward. The school district has experienced a substantial decline in its student population, which is expected to continue. While the General Plan Area covers an area that is served by other public schools, the project site only occurs within the HUSD area. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees that would be used by the local school district to mitigate impact associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities. Pursuant to Section 65996(3)(h) of the California Government Code, payment of these fees “is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in government organization or reorganization.” The project would therefore have a less than significant impact that would not be greater than that analyzed in the previous environmental documents.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 77 a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Please refer to Section 15, Recreation.
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The proposed project does not include and would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities. Population growth facilitated by the proposed residential units included in the project would generate additional demand for library and other public services, but this growth would be consistent with and accounted for in the General Plan. Impacts of the project would not be greater than those analyzed previously.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to public services, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
78 This page left intentionally blank.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Recreation
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 79 16 Recreation
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
a. Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes recreation on pages 17-1 through 17-42, in the Public Services section, and identifies a less than significant impact to recreation.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project includes residential development that would increase population in the Harder Tennyson neighborhood in Hayward. The additional population would increase the use of existing parks and other recreational facilities. There are two existing parks and recreational facilities within the project vicinity: Tennyson Park, located approximately 0.1 miles south; Weekes Community Center Park, located approximately 0.5 miles west of the project site; Eden Youth and Family Center, located approximately 0.2 miles southwest; and Matt Jimenez Community Center, located approximately 0.2 miles southwest. Additionally, the project includes on-site amenities including private open space and shared outdoor open space in the form of a 1,952 square foot paseo.

Moreover, as described above under Section 14, Population and Housing, the estimated number of Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
80 new residents would be consistent with General Plan estimates. Pursuant to HMC Section 10-16.20, the project applicant would be required to pay a development related park impact fee that would be used to cover the cost of new facilities and maintenance of existing facilities. This in lieu fee would ensure adequate parks and recreational facilities would be maintained with the proposed increase in population. Therefore, the increased use resulting from the project would not lead to a substantial physical deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project would include development of a new 1,952 square foot paseo in between proposed buildings B and C that would be private space for use by future residents only. The impacts associated with provision of this recreational space for on-site residents are analyzed throughout this report as part of overall project construction and operation. As determined in this document, the provision of the park facility would not result in an adverse effect on the environment. This impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to recreation, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Transportation and Traffic
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 81 17 Transportation and Traffic
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system,
including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian
facilities? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ ■ □ □ □
c. Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm
equipment)? □ ■ □ □ □
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access? □ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR evaluates transportation impacts on pages 18-1 through 18-44. According to the EIR, impacts to traffic volumes as a result of General Plan implementation would result in an exceedance of the City standard for intersection performance and would potentially constitute a “considerable” contribution to the significant cumulative impact at City intersections. The General Plan EIR proposed several mitigation measures to improve the various intersections operating at a substandard level-of-service (LOS), although these intersections do not include those affected by the project. Impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadways are found to be less than significant. Impacts relating to increased pedestrian activity and facilities, bicycle use and facilities, transit ridership and service are found to be less than significant. Additionally, impacts relating to air traffic patterns, transportation network design feature hazards, and emergency access are found to be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
As stated in the General Plan EIR, new development would increase bicycle and pedestrian trips on the existing streets, trails, paths, and sidewalks, including during peak commute hours. General Plan policies and programs encourage and support alternative modes and the development of facilities to accommodate alternative modes of transportation. The project would involve infill development and would not directly impact transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The project would include new sidewalk curbs, pavement replacement, and sidewalk improvements. Bike lanes are present on Tennyson Road and Huntwood Avenue in the vicinity of the site. As the project is of the same type analyzed in the General Plan for the project site, and there are no site-specific issues with the performance and safety of transit, bicycle, or pedestrian infrastructure, the project would introduce no new or more severe impacts related to conflicts with public transit and active transportation modes or their safety than were analyzed previously.
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Pursuant to SB 743, the City of Hayward has adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary metric to analyze transportation impacts instead of the previously used level of service (LOS).

According to the City of Hayward Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, projects that involve the construction of fewer than 25 units of multi-family housing would satisfy the City’s VMT screening criteria and do not require a detailed transportation analysis. In addition, based on Figure 4 of the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, the project site is located in an area with more than 15 percent below average VMT per capita and approximately 0.5 miles west of the South Hayward BART station (City of Hayward 2020). Furthermore, the project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Program. The project would be in a location that allows for usage of alternative modes of transportation and would result in less than significant impacts to VMT.
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The only new roadway planned for the project would be within the project site boundaries in order to provide internal circulation for the site. The new roadway would not create new hazards due to a design feature and the project would not involve uses that generate use of incompatible vehicles such as farm equipment. The City’s Traffic Engineer would review project driveways and internal circulation to ensure design for safe operation. Chapter 10, Article 4 of the HMC includes specific site planning and project design standards intended to address such issues as street design with reference to public safety and compatible use. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Transportation and Traffic
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 83 d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The Hayward Precise Plan Lines for Streets (Chapter 10, Article 4 of the HMC) includes site-specific planning and project design standards intended to address such issues as emergency access. As stated in the General Plan EIR, projects under the General Plan buildout are required to comply with zoning requirements and the HMC. In addition, the Hayward Police Department and Hayward Fire Department would review individual development proposals to ensure that emergency access needs are met. The U-shaped drive aisle on site was designed to accommodate fire access and waste trucks and would not obstruct emergency access. Compliance with Section 10-4.01 of the HMC would ensure accessibility to the project site is maintained. The project would not impair implementation of an emergency plan or physically interfere with an emergency access, nor would it result in the blockage of access routes or evacuation routes adopted within an emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. Therefore, the project would have no impacts beyond those previously analyzed and identified in the prior environmental documents.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to transportation, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
84 This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 85 18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or □ □ □ □ ■
b. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Cod Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ □ □ □ ■
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
86 Code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?  SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The City of Hayward mailed a notification letter on February 24, 2022 to one local Native American tribe that has requested notification under AB 52: the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. Correspondence is included in Appendix F. Under AB 52, tribes have 30 days from receipt of the letter to respond and request consultation. The tribe did not respond during that window and request formal consultation under AB 52. Although no tribal cultural resources are expected to be present on-site, there is the possibility of encountering undisturbed subsurface tribal cultural resources. The proposed excavation of the project site could potentially result in adverse effects on unanticipated tribal cultural resources. However, impacts from the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources during construction would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s standard conditions of approval.

STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 87 Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to tribal cultural resources, nor are there potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
88 This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 89 19 Utilities and Service Systems
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years? □ □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments? □ □ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals? □ □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste? □ □ □ ■ □
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
90 Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts on utilities and service systems on pages 19-1 through 19-34.

This discussion addresses the issues of water supply and delivery, wastewater collection and treatment, and solid waste disposal, recycling, and composting. The General Plan EIR identifies impacts to all utilities and service systems as less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Water
The City of Hayward owns and operates its own water distribution system and purchases all of its water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). In the case of emergency or disruption of water delivery from the SFPUC, water supplies are available through the Alameda County Water District and East Bay Municipal Utility District. With new development in the city, the General Plan EIR finds that water demand will increase from 19,537 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2010 to 37,390 AFY year by 2035 (City of Hayward 2014c). According to the City of Hayward 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City is expected to have adequate water supplies during normal years to meet its projected demands through 2040. Although there remains uncertainty for water supply availability during single and multiple dry years, the City, SFPUC, and Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) have developed strategies and actions to address dry-year supply shortfalls (City of Hayward 2021b). In addition, the City has implemented its 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan in order to address water shortages by incorporating implementation actions to reduce the potential for and impacts of catastrophic service disruptions (City of Hayward 2021c). Furthermore, the General Plan also contains policies and programs to ensure water demand projections and development facilitated under the General Plan would be accommodated.

Additional population facilitated by new residential units constructed under the project are included in and consistent with the population growth forecasts of the General Plan. Therefore, water demand resulting from implementation of the proposed project was evaluated in the prior environmental review documents and it is not anticipated that SFPUC would need new or expanded Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 91 entitlements or facilities to serve the project. With implementation of General Plan policies, sufficient water supplies would be available for the project demand, and the project would not result in impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental review documents.

Wastewater
The project would connect to the City of Hayward Sanitary District sanitary sewer system. Sanitary sewage from the City’s system is treated at the Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF).

The treatment facility discharges into the San Francisco Bay under a permit with the RWQCB. Since the WPCF is considered a publicly‐owned treatment facility, operational discharge flows treated at the WPCF would be required to comply with applicable water discharge requirements issued by the RWQCB. Compliance with conditions or permit requirements established by the City as well as water discharge requirements outlined by the RWQCB would ensure that wastewater discharges coming from the project site are treated by the WPCF system would not exceed applicable RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements.

The proposed project would increase population density incrementally in the City of Hayward.

However, population growth facilitated by the proposed residential units would be consistent with General Plan population growth forecasts. The project would not generate growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan. The General Plan EIR found that there would be adequate capacity at the WPCF to serve development under the General Plan. Therefore, there is adequate capacity at the WPCF to service the project and no expansion of the WPCF would be required (City of Hayward 2014b).

The General Plan EIR states that General Plan buildout is not anticipated to require significant upgrades to water supply infrastructure. Additionally, the General Plan EIR states that implementation of General Plan would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities whose construction would cause significant environmental effects.

Projects under the General Plan would not result in an increase of capacity of the City’s wastewater treatment system, which is anticipated to have capacity to serve development under the 2040 General Plan in addition to its existing commitments. No impacts beyond those analyzed in the General Plan EIR would occur because of the project.

Stormwater
As discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would involve development and grading activities and the development of more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces.

Therefore, the project would comply with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Adherence to the C.3 requirements would minimize water quality impacts from new development to maintain regional compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit. Provision C.3 includes a LID provision (C.3.c) requires that low-impact development techniques be utilized to employ appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures to prevent increases in runoff flows from new development projects.

As stated in the General Plan, development projects must comply with the requirement to maintain stormwater flows at pre-construction levels, pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit. The General Plan EIR concludes that new development consistent with this policy would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities of expansion of existing facilities whose construction would cause significant environmental effects. As the project involves development of a site with residential uses consistent with the development envisioned for the site under the General Plan, and the project would be required to adhere to Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
92 Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, it would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental review documents.

Gas/Electricity/Telecommunications
Electricity and natural gas service to the City is provided by PG&E. As discussed in Section 6, Energy, population growth facilitated by the proposed project would be within with General Plan population growth forecasts. According to the General Plan EIR, the City’s energy supply is sufficient to meet the needs of projected growth until 2040 (City of Hayward 2014b). The project would also be required to comply with the California Energy Code pursuant to HMC Section 9-1.01 which includes policies that reduce energy use from buildings and equipment, as well as the City’s Reach Code which states that all new low-rise residential buildings (three stories and less) be all electric, and requires electric vehicle charging infrastructure beyond that required in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (City of Hayward 2021a). Therefore, the project would not result in impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental review documents. d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Solid waste from the project would be disposed of at the Altamont Landfill. In 2001, Altamont Landfill received County approval to increase capacity to allow the closure date to be extended to 2040. According to the General Plan EIR, the City’s solid waste capacity is sufficient to meet the needs of projected growth until 2040 (City of Hayward 2014b). The General Plan also finds that impacts would be less than significant, as projected population growth under the General Plan is not anticipated to generate significant additional solid waste demand, and the General Plan contains policies to reduce solid waste impacts. Furthermore, the HMC includes development standards relating to solid waste, recycling, and green waste materials storage. Projects under the General Plan buildout would comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The project would have no impacts beyond those analyzed previously.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to utilities and service systems, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 93 20 Wildfire
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire? □ □ ■ □ □
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment? □ □ ■ □ □
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslopes or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes? □ □ ■ □ □
The updated CEQA Appendix G guidelines published in December of 2018 require that environmental analysis include a discussion of the potential wildfire impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on the exposure of people and structures to as well as the exacerbation of wildfire risks.

Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts related to wildfire on pages 11-1 through 11-24. The General Plan EIR identifies impacts related to wildfire as less than significant.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
94 impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is not within or near State Responsibility Areas (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ). The nearest SRA or land classified as VHFHSZ is east of Garin Regional Park approximately 5 miles east of the project site (Cal Fire 2008). The project site is generally flat and surrounded by numerous firebreaks such as freeways and urban development.

Therefore, the risk of wildfire on the project site would be low. No impact would occur.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts with regard to wildfire risks, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 95 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? □ □ □ □ ■
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)? □ □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? □ □ □ □ ■
Project-Specific Impacts
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and as discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, with incorporation of the standard condition of approval related to nesting birds, the project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
96 species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, with incorporation of the standard condition of approval related to the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, the project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, including archaeological or paleontological resources. As such, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent environmental documents.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conformance with General Plan policies and standard conditions of approval specified in this document would ensure that potential impacts are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the context of impacts associated with other pending and planned development projects. As part of the General Plan EIR, cumulative impacts associated with buildout of infill projects were analyzed. The project involves residential development on a site designated for residential development under the General Plan and other existing and allowable land uses near the project are not significantly different than those studied in the cumulative analysis of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan is a document that establishes a land use scenario and goals, policies, and objectives for development and growth throughout the city, through the year 2040. Thus, the impact analyses in the General Plan EIR effectively constitute cumulative analyses of the approved land uses in the planning boundaries. The project would not result in significant impacts peculiar to the project site, as indicated in sections 1 through 20 above. Nearby development would be required to be consistent with the local planning documents or mitigation would be required to assess the impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project’s consistency with the General Plan and subsequent analysis above in sections 1 through 20 indicate that the project would not result in significant cumulative impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, geology and soils, noise, and traffic safety. As detailed in the preceding sections, the project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in substantial adverse impacts related to these issue areas. The project’s effects on regional air quality and transportation/traffic would be less than significant or were analyzed under prior environmental review. As discussed in Section 7, Geology and Soils, adherence to the City’s standard condition of approval related to geologic hazards would reduce impacts related to expansive soils. As discussed in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, on-site construction and operations would not expose residents or customers to known hazardous materials. The generation of noise and vibration from construction activity, as discussed in Section 12, Noise, would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with adherence to HMC Attachment VI
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 97 Section 4-1.03.4 and the City’s standard condition of approval for construction noise. Therefore, the project would not have substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.

Conclusion
The proposed project would be consistent with the development density established by the site’s General Plan land use designation and General Plan policies for which an EIR was certified.

Accordingly, based on the assessments presented in the environmental checklist, the project does not require additional environmental review as the impacts:

1. Are not peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located

2. Were analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, and specific plan, with which the project is consistent where applicable

3. Are not potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan and specific plan

4. Are not previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR The majority of impacts would be less than significant or were analyzed previously in the General Plan EIR. Additional impacts would be reduced or mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. Accordingly, implementation of the project complies with Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further environmental review is required.

Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
98 This page left intentionally blank.

Attachment VI
References
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 99 References
Bibliography
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. 2010. Hayward Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
http://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/documents/Draft_HWD_ALUCP_0915

10.pdf (accessed February 2022)
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 2022. Neighborhood Zones. https://acfloodcontrol.org/get-involved/get-involved-neighborhood-zones/ (accessed February 2022)
Association of Bay Area Governments. 2021. MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map. https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35 dfcd086fc8 (accessed February 2022)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. May 2017.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed February 2022) ____. 2017b. Spare the Air Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. San Francisco, CA. Adopted April 19, 2017.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed February 2022) California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed February 2022)
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed February 2022) ______. 2017. Williamson Map.
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%2 0Study/Attachment%20B%20References/California%20Department%20of%20Conservation %20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf (accessed February 2022) ______. 2018. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed February 2022) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind 5 (accessed March 2022).
_____. 2022b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). V5.2.14 http://bios.dfg.ca.gov (accessed March 2022).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed February 2022) Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
100
Cal Fire. 2008. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed February 2022)
California Water Boards San Francisco Bay. 2017. Chapter 3: Water Quality Objectives. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/planningtmdls/b asinplan/web/bp_ch3.html (accessed February 2022)
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/ (accessed February 2022) Department of Water Resources. 2022. Dam Breach Inundation Map. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 (accessed February 2022) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Map Panel 06001C0289G Effective August 3, 2009). https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor (accessed February 2022)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed February 2022) Hayward, City of. 2014a. Hayward 2040 General Plan. https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. (accessed February 2022) ______. 2014b. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Hayward 2040 General Plan. State Clearinghouse No. 2013082015. January 30, 2014. https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hayward_GPU_Public_Release_DraftEIR_1-30-14.pdf (accessed February 2022)
______. 2014c. Hayward 2040 General Plan Background Report. Public Review Draft. January 2014. https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/HayGPU_PRDBackground_Report_20140131.pdf (accessed February 2022)
______. 2020. City of Hayward Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/MTCTO11_Hayward-TIAGuidelines_Final.pdf (accessed February 2022)
______. 2021a. Reach Code Initiative. https://www.hayward-ca.gov/reach-code (accessed February 2022)
______. 2021b. City of Hayward 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward_2020%20UWMP_Public%20Release_2021%20July%202. pdf (accessed February 2022)
______. 2021c. City of Hayward 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%202020%20Water%20Shortage%20Contingency%20Pla n_Final.pdf (accessed February 2022)
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/ (accessed February 2022) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/ (accessed February 2022)
Attachment VI
References
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 101 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Critical Habitat Portal. http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov (accessed March 2022).
_____. 2022b. Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed March 2022).
_____. 2022c. “National Wetlands Inventory.” https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed March 2022).

List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Environmental Consistency Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 under contract to the City of Hayward. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include:

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal
Karly Kaufman, Project Manager
Nichole Yee, Associate Planner
Christian Knowlton, Biologist
Elaine Foster, Archaeologist
Debra Jane Seltzer, Production Specialist
Attachment VI
City of Hayward
27865 Manon Avenue Townhome Project
102
This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment VI
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 Townhome 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 Iwersen, 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 materials and soft colors that minimized impact to the surrounding 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 would 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 in 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 placement of bike storage.

Senior Planner Blanton responded that the project would have to comply 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 developed 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 to be for residents 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 rear having to be for visitors 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 rent would be estimated to be $3,500-$4,000 per month. Commissioner Roche commented that residents may have to share the units in order to be able to afford this rent, and 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 projects, and while she wants to see infrastructure that would allow people to not need vehicles, the City was not there yet and that the project would create a problem in the neighborhood, saturating it with more vehicles.

Commissioner Stevens understood the parcel will not be subdivided and Ms. Blanton confirmed that is correct and elaborated that it could not be per the 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 sunlight, inquired about the insulation that was being used in the project. Mr.

Iwersen responded that R19 fiberglass 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 minimal 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 whether it made sense to install a shade canopy over the sun-facing windows and also favored that the large mass areas have some type of decoration to break up the look visually. Mr. Goldstein commented that due to the upgraded code, it seemed that the project 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 unbundle parking. Ms.

Blanton agreed that unbundled parking could be considered as part of the project, noting that this had not yet been discussed with the applicant. She elaborated that with unbundled parking, instead of assigning specific spaces to specific units, renters could pay an additional fee if they needed additional parking. She pointed out that with the 19 spaces in the rear, rather than assigning these to units, it could be more demand based.

Commissioner Goldstein added that the theory behind unbundled parking was to reward people for not having more cars, and instead using their bicycles or walking. Project applicant Ms. Vecham stated that this was great advice which they could take 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 the city to have one covered space and one uncovered parking space and this was consistent with Code requirements. Ms. Vecham shared that they have rented similar units with just one-car garages 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 approved by Planning staff and the gate will have to conform to Code requirements. Mr. Iwersen clarified for Chair 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 ADU on the ground floor and per ADU laws, habitable space could not be converted into ADUs in the future; for multi-family structures such as the proposed project, only detached ADUs or conversion of nonhabitable space, such as up to a quarter of the garage spaces, would be permitted. Ms.

Blanton shared that ground floor bedroom and bathroom may be desired for multigenerational living.

Mr. Iwersen confirmed for Chair Lowe that the project meets the Building Code requirements which were to make 10 percent of the units accessible. Ms. Blanton stated that the City’s Housing Division reviewed the Affordable Housing Plan. Mr. Iwersen confirmed that unit 20 was a designated affordable unit which was also accessible.

Commissioner Roche commented that the project will become noncompliant 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 would also have charging stations. Mr. Iwersen stated this 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 that 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 the 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 agreed with Commissioner Stevens’ comment about the loss of local control.

Commissioner Goldstein concurred with his colleagues, appreciated the applicant for 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 Tract Map (Tract 8461) Application 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 Application (201800932) was Previously Approved in 2019 (APN 415-0170-019-00, 415-0170- 020-00, 415-0170-021-00, 415-0170-022-00, 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 Kowalski provided a synopsis of the staff 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 clarified the proposal would merge the eight existing 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 (HARD) staff had 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 condition on the development such as rquiring an access 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 grade difference between the subject property and the commercial properties along Foothill, and that any pathway created for public access, would have to be ADA accessible.

Commissioner Roche asked for confirmation 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 Roche understood the frustration expressed by some members of the surrounding neighborhood and the frustration that the site plan was already approved. Ms.

Roche wanted further details about the affordable housing in-lieu Fee. Housing Manager Morales explained developers could choose to either provide onsite or offsite affordable housing, present a proposal that exceeded minimal requirements, or pay the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee. Ms. Roche stated not having four affordable housing 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 routinely 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 be thought through thoroughly. After the COVID-19 pandemic, the original property was zoned and designated Commercial Office and mixed-use developments featuring ground-floor commercial uses and residential units on upper floors were viable and attractive uses at that time; he indicated that developers 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 Dragoni, a resident of unincorporated Ashland, brought attention 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 languishing without any infrastructure. He stressed the importance of developers needing to contribute to overall infrastructure upgrades and stated that the 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 previous iteration of the project, affordable housing units were included 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 neighborhood 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 residents 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 had moved away; that after buildings have been torn down and rebuilt, they are no longer accessible 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, residents have strongly expressed that there was not enough open space and park space, that a community center was lacking; and that 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 evolved into an area that only provides 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 neighborhood’s plea to preserve a community feeling, and provide necessary amenities such as more access to walking and open space.

Mr. Rick Hatcher, Vice President of HARD, appreciated the Commissioners’ 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 had 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 vote against the proposed development and side with ethics and community interests.

Chair Lowe closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m.

Commissioner Roche requested that staff address the concerns raised by the community and underscored that the goal in Hayward was to create 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 needed as projects come forward; every project that is near 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 that per environmental justice plans, these types of concerns should be addressed. Mr. Lochirco encouraged every neighborhood that had concerns about environmental justice issues 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 that 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 concerned that the surrounding neighborhood 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 this effort was being led by Assistant City Manager Ott. Mr. Lochirco 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 had already been approved by the City Council in 2019.

Commissioner Bonilla Jr. inquired if Ms. Ann’s comments about the affordable housing commitment changing from on-site affordable 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 they have since changed their mind, noting that there were no laws prohibiting this change in how they address affordable housing. Commissioner Bonilla Jr. was dismayed with the change, expressing that he favored the affordable on-site build and asked whether the original commitment could be reconsidered. Mr. Steven Kodama, with Kodama Diseño Architects, stated 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 rising 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 fees would go further rather than having 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 able to finance construction. Mr.

Vigilia believed there was no basis to not approve the Vesting Tentative 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 amenities and services. Commissioner Goldstein seconded the motion.

Chair Lowe concurred with the frustrations of the community members and the other Commissioners, noting that it hits hard that the community has emphasized that their comments have not been heard. She recommended that staff share 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 affordable housing, noting that it was continually raised by members of the public 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 market-rate housing. Mr. Kodama stated that the goal was to have the homes priced in the moderateincome 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 motion 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 West A Street (Assessor Parcel Nos. 429-0077-025-01 and 429-0077-026-00) Requiring Approval of Conditional Use Permit Modification No. 202203390. Daljit Singh, New Raja Enterprises LLC (Applicant/Owner). Planning Manager Lochirco provided a synopsis of the staff report and PowerPoint 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 express 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 Commissioner 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 correct. 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, 2022 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 receive approximately $78 million in funding under the California 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 housing for families and the other 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 for staff and the Commissioners 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
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: RPT 22-089
DATE: October 11, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director

SUBJECT
Hayward Residential Design Study Update (Previously Named Residential Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency Update)

Building upon the input received from that outreach, a clear vision statement and objectives for the project were developed. Additionally, the project team evaluated current State legislation, the City’s regulations, and best practices to develop a comprehensive background report. More information about these project efforts to date are summarized within this report.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Vision Statement and Project Objectives
Attachment III Outreach Summary Report
Attachment IV Background Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/6/2022
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 4 ends

DATE: October 11, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director SUBJECT: Hayward Residential Design Study Update (Previously Named Residential Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency Update)

SUMMARY
The Hayward Residential Design Study project kicked off in February 2022 with extensive community outreach to help inform the development of objective residential standards and zoning amendments. Building upon the input received from that outreach, a clear vision statement and objectives for the project were developed. Additionally, the project team evaluated current State legislation, the City’s regulations, and best practices to develop a comprehensive background report. More information about these project efforts to date are summarized within this report.

BACKGROUND
In 2019, the City of Hayward was awarded a SB 2 Planning Grant by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for various housing projects including the Hayward Residential Design Study (Previously named the Residential Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency Update). The grant funds allocated to this project cover the development of objective residential standards and zoning amendments to ensure General Plan and Zoning Ordinance consistency.

On February 1, 20221, the Council and Planning Commission held a joint work session to provide initial guidance and feedback on the Hayward Residential Design Study. The Council and Planning Commission provided significant feedback during this session, including the following general themes:
 Outreach should focus on educating and creating clear choices for current homeowners and tenants, future residents, community groups and design professionals. Efforts should be diverse (virtual/in-person), multilingual and meet the community where they are.

1 https://hayward.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=924540&GUID=B3BD5440-E416-4E7B-ACDFF7F38CCB15A1&Options=info|&Search=

Page 2 of 4 ends

 Objective residential standards should focus on massing, landscaping, and architectural design. However, standards should not be overly prescriptive and allow for a variety of architectural styles and forms.
 The project should address community parking concerns through evaluating current regulations and identifying strategies to reduce parking necessity (shuttles, bike infrastructure, car sharing programs, unbundled parking).

DISCUSSION
Vision Statement and Project Objectives. During the first phase of the project, a clear vision statement and project objectives were developed to provide clarity on the purpose of the project and serve as a guiding document moving forward. The goal for the Hayward Residential Design Study is to ensure new housing is developed in a clear and efficient manner, resulting in attractive, high-quality, accessible residential development that is befitting of the city’s diverse neighborhoods and instills community pride. The Vision Statement and Project Objectives document is included as Attachment II.

Community Outreach.
2 To date, outreach efforts for the Hayward Residential Design Study have included an online community survey, an online interactive mapping tool, in-person “walkshops” (walking workshops) and various in-person community events. These efforts were promoted through the City’s e-newsletter, social media platforms, Permit Center, libraries, and community-based organizations. The community survey and promotional materials were provided in Spanish, Mandarin, and English.

The community survey, available to the public from June through August, garnered 238 unique responses. The survey focused on identifying design preferences for different residential uses and which design features were the most important to the community. The interactive mapping tool, also available throughout the summer, allowed community members to provide location-specific comments related to the massing of buildings, design, landscaping, and parking. A total of 35 comments were received.

In June, staff hosted five walkshops in five different Hayward neighborhoods with a total of 49 participants. Translational services for Spanish speakers were provided at all the walkshops.

The walkshops were an opportunity for community members to comment on the residential development within their neighborhoods, identifying design features they liked and areas for improvement.

Additionally, staff conducted outreach at eight community events and meetings including the Hayward Community Family Fair, Juneteenth celebration, Downtown Summer Street Fair, four Curbie (the curbside library) events, and the Old Highland Homeowners Association (OHHA) board meeting. At the Hayward Community Family Fair, Juneteenth celebration and Curbie events, staff utilized a modified, interactive version of the community survey which allowed participants to identify their design preferences for different residential uses by placing sticky dots next to photos of preferred development. Approximately 350 community members

2 https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/departments/planning-division/residential-design-study

Page 3 of 4 ends

participated in the modified survey across all the events. Staff also presented and led a discussion at the OHHA July board meeting at the request of the OHHA Board. Staff has offered and will continue to offer to provide similar presentations to any interested neighborhood group or community organization.

Through these efforts, staff has gathered both quantitative and qualitative data that will be used to inform the development of objective residential standards and zoning amendments.Some of the key findings from the outreach thus far are:
 Incorporating accessible design standards;
 Preserving the natural environment and undeveloped areas in Hayward Hills;  Encouraging communal public green spaces;
 Managing off-street parking concerns;
 Requiring high-quality landscaping;
 Allowing variety in architectural styles;
 Incorporating patios and balconies;
 Taking into consideration existing neighborhood characteristics; and  Prioritizing high density housing developments near downtown or BART stations.

More information about the outreach efforts and feedback from the community can be found in Attachment III.

Background Report. The project team evaluated relevant State legislation, the City’s existing residential standards and best practices from other jurisdictions to help inform the development of new objective residential standards.

As defined by State law, “objective standards are those that involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” In other words, an objective standard must be written in such a way that anyone reading them would have the same understanding as to what the standard requires. Recent State housing legislation relies on a project’s compliance with objective standards to streamline the approval of housing projects and subsequently housing production. Therefore, the Hayward Residential Design Study will need to focus on updating the City’s residential standards to make them “objective” by including measurable and enforceable parameters.

The City currently has objective residential standards within its General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Off-Street Parking Regulations, Downtown Specific Plan and Mission Boulevard Form Based Code. The Hayward Residential Design Study will focus heavily on specific residential zoning district(RS, RM, RH, RNP)that have very limited objective standards and less on areas (Downtown, Mission Boulevard) that have more detailed objective standards. The existing Neighborhood Plans, Design Guidelines and Hillside Design and Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are not currently objective but provide good design principles that will serve as the basis for the development of objective standards.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Best practices from other comparable jurisdictions will also serve as a starting point for the development of new residential objective standards. Adopted standards from nearby cities have focused primarily on site design, building form and frontages. More background on best practices, relevant state legislation and the City’s existing standards is available in Attachment IV.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This item supports the Strategic Priority of Preserve, Protect and Produce Housing for All.

Specifically, this item relates to the implementation of the following project:

Project 4, Part 4d: Implement housing incentives and production work plan in accordance to state housing limits; Develop an Overlay Zoning District to allow RS zoned properties (single family residential) to develop into a variety of housing types at densities permitted under the applicable General Plan designation

NEXT STEPS
Later this year, staff will present an update and seek input from the Council and Planning Commission related to the parking analysis and inconsistencies between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Early next year, staff will present options for objective residential standards and seek input from the community, key stakeholders, the Council and the Planning Commission.

Prepared by: Elizabeth Blanton, AICP, Senior Planner
Taylor Richard, Assistant Planner
Recommended by: Jennifer Ott, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Approved by:
_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager
V sio &
Objecti es
Vision
Objectives
Connect with us!
Connect with us!
COMPLETE OUR COMMUNITY SURVEY:

WWW.SURVEYMONKEY.COM/R/

HAYWARDRESIDENTIALDESIGNSTUDY
VISIT OUR PROJECT WEBSITE:

HTTPS://TINYURL.COM/HAYWARDRDS
VEY:

Connect with us!
COMPLETE OUR COMMUNITY SURVEY:

WWW.SURVEYMONKEY.COM/R/

HAYWARDRESIDENTIALDESIGNSTUDY
Create a simple and
predictable review
process for residential
development that meets
the City’s goals for
residential development
and creates greater
certainty for the
development community.

Streamlining
Implement best practices
which promote the
balanced, and diverse
housing options for
persons of all income
levels and housing
needs.

Adopt and enforce
citywide residential
design standards
that reflect the needs
and desires of the
community while
adhering to recent
changes in State
housing law.

Ensure new residential
development is of high
quality by developing
and adopting residential
development design
standards that are
financially feasible,
flexible, practical, and
predictable.

Promote Housing Legal Compliance Quality Design
Successful implementation of the Hayward Residential Design Study will ensure new housing is developed in a clear and efficient manner, resulting in attractive, high-quality, accessible residential development that is befitting of the city’s diverse neighborhoods and instills community pride.

ATTACHMENT I I
Outreach & Engagement
Summary Report
Hayward Residential Design Study
September 2022
PREPARED BY DKS ASSOCIATES FOR:

THE CITY OF HAYWARD
Attachment III
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 2 Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 5 WALKSHOP OVERVIEW AND RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 6 WALKSHOP #1: DOWNTOWN ....................................................................................... 6 Major Themes ................................................................................................................................................. 7 WALKSHOP #2: CANNERY/BURBANK ............................................................................. 9 Major Themes ................................................................................................................................................. 9 WALKSHOP #3: WHITMAN/MOCINE ............................................................................ 1 1 Major Themes ................................................................................................................................................12 WALKSHOP #4: HAYWARD HILLS ............................................................................... 1 3 Major Themes ................................................................................................................................................13 WALKSHOP #5: SOUTH HAYWARD .............................................................................. 1 5 Major Themes ................................................................................................................................................16 SOCIAL PINPOINT MAP OUTREACH ..................................................................................................................... 17 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK RECEIVED ................................................................. 1 8 COMMENTS BASED ON LOCATION .............................................................................. 1 9 OVERALL COMMENTS RECEIVED ................................................................................ 2 4 Design Considerations.....................................................................................................................................24 Size/Massing of Building..................................................................................................................................25 Parking/Transportation....................................................................................................................................25 Landscaping/Fencing.......................................................................................................................................26 Other Comments ............................................................................................................................................26 COMMUNITY SURVEY OVERVIEW AND RESULTS ................................................................................................ 26 SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................. . 2 7 Detached Housing Preference...........................................................................................................................27 Duplex And Triplex Housing Preference .............................................................................................................27 Townhome Preference.....................................................................................................................................28 Multifamily Home Preference............................................................................................................................28 Small Mixed-Use Building Preference.................................................................................................................29 Large Mixed-Use Building Preference.................................................................................................................29 Importance Of Housing Design Features............................................................................................................30 Additional Comments, Ideas and Suggestions Received.......................................................................................30 HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 3 COMMUNITY OUTREACH EVENTS ....................................................................................................................... 32 HAYWARD COMMUNITY FAMILY FAIR ........................................................................... 3 2 Detached Housing Preferences .........................................................................................................................33 Duplex And Triplex Housing Preferences............................................................................................................33 Townhome Preference.....................................................................................................................................33 Multifamily Home Preference............................................................................................................................34 Small Mixed-Use Building Preference.................................................................................................................34 Large Mixed-Use Building Preference.................................................................................................................34 JUNETEENTH CELEBRATION ...................................................................................... 3 4 Detached Housing Preferences .........................................................................................................................35 Duplex And Triplex Housing Preferences............................................................................................................35 Townhome Preference.....................................................................................................................................35 Multifamily Home Preference............................................................................................................................36 Small Mixed-Use Building Preference.................................................................................................................36 Large Mixed-Use Building Preference.................................................................................................................36 CURBIE COMMUNITY EVENTS .................................................................................... 3 7 Detached Housing Preferences .........................................................................................................................37 Duplex and Triplex Housing Preferences ............................................................................................................37 Townhome Preference.....................................................................................................................................38 Multifamily Home Preference............................................................................................................................38 Small Mixed-Use Building Preference.................................................................................................................38 Large Mixed-Use Building Preference.................................................................................................................39 OHHA COMMUNITY MEETING ..................................................................................... 3 9 DOWNTOWN SUMMER STREET FAIR ............................................................................ 3 9 APPENDIX ...........................................................................................................XL APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................ XLI SOCIAL PINPOINT RESPONSES ................................................................................. XLI APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................... XLII SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................ XLII APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................... XLIII COLLATERAL OUTREACH MATERIALS ........................................................................ XLIII Project Logo ................................................................................................................................................ xliv Project Website Landing Page ........................................................................................................................ xliv Bilingual Informational Cards .......................................................................................................................... xlv Bilingual Pull-Up Banner ................................................................................................................................ xlvi Stickers......................................................................................................................................................xlviii Trilingual FAQ .............................................................................................................................................. xlix Trilingual Walkshop Flyers ............................................................................................................................. xlix HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 4 TRILINGUAL SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................ l Interactive Mapping Tool ...................................................................................................................................li APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................LIII COMMUNITY OUTREACH EFFORTS .............................................................................LIII VIRTUAL ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................................... LIV Listserv Emails ...............................................................................................................................................liv Social Media Posts ...........................................................................................................................................lv List of Figures
FIGURE 1: COMMENT TYPES ................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 2: COMMENTS BASED ON LOCATION ............................................................... 18 FIGURE 3: COMMENTS RECEIVED BY TOPIC ................................................................ 24 FIGURE 4: IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING DESIGNS ........................................................... 30 FIGURE 5: PROJECT LOGO .................................................................................. XLIV FIGURE 6: PROJECT WEBSITE LANDING PAGE ............................................................XLV FIGURE 7: BILINGUAL INFORMATIONAL CARDS ........................................................ XLVI FIGURE 8: WALKSHOP PULL - UP BANNER ................................................................ XLVII FIGURE 9: STICKERS ...................................................................................... XLVIII FIGURE 10: MANDARIN FAQ EXAMPLE .................................................................... XLIX FIGURE 11: SPANISH FLYER EXAMPLE ......................................................................... L FIGURE 12: TRILINGUAL SURVEY ............................................................................. L I FIGURE 13: INTERACTIVE MAPPING TOOL .................................................................. LII FIGURE 14: "THE STACK" NEWSLETTER .................................................................... LIV FIGURE 15: " THE STACK" EXTRA EDITION NEWSLETTER ............................................... LIV FIGURE 16: TWITTER POST EXAMPLE ........................................................................ L V FIGURE 17: FACEBOOK POST EXAMPLE .................................................................... LVI FIGURE 18: INSTAGRAM POST EXAMPLE .................................................................. LVII HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hayward Residential Design Study is an update to the City’s zoning regulations to support the development of quality housing. The study aims to make requirements for residential design predictable, easy to understand, and resolve inconsistencies between various planning documents to eliminate ambiguity that may pose a barrier to residential development. The Study will focus on establishing objective development and design standards that can be applied to single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use developments.

This report summarizes the initial outreach efforts between April and August 2022, for the Hayward Residential Design Study. The report includes all work product delivered and summaries of all comments received from the public. The purpose of the outreach efforts was to obtain public feedback and input on preferred elements of residential design.

Outreach tools developed to obtain initial input for this study included organizing five walking workshops (“walkshops”) in distinct neighborhoods around Hayward, developing a trilingual community survey, and hosting a virtual interactive mapping tool. Outreach to encourage public participation with these tools and promote visibility on the study was conducted via in-person outreach events and virtual engagement efforts.

Virtual engagement efforts to invite the public to attend walkshops and utilize the outreach tools were done via email listservs and social media posts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor.

Through all the outreach efforts and results obtained from the outreach tools, common key takeaways regarding residential design preferences included:
• Incorporating accessible design standards;
• Preserving the natural environment and undeveloped areas in Hayward Hills; • Encouraging communal public green spaces;
• Managing off-street parking concerns;
• Requiring high-quality landscaping;
• Allowing variety in architectural styles;
• Incorporating patios and balconies;
• Taking into consideration existing neighborhood characteristics; and • Prioritizing high density housing developments near downtown or BART stations.

Furthermore, when comparing the survey results to the feedback received at community events, there was a consensus on the preferred housing styles. Detailed feedback and results received from each of the outreach efforts are further discussed and provided throughout this document.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 6

WALKSHOP OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
The project team conducted five walking workshops (“walkshops”) in five Hayward neighborhoods over the course of two days: Saturday, June 25, and Monday, June 27, 2022. The neighborhoods which were toured as part of this effort included:

1. Downtown Hayward

2. Cannery/Burbank

3. Whitman/Mocine

4. Hayward Hills

5. South Hayward
Registration for these events was made available on Eventbrite beginning on Tuesday, June 14, 2022.

Participants also had to option to email City staff directly to confirm their attendance if they preferred not to use the Eventbrite platform. Although no Spanish translation was requested at any of the five workshops, Spanish translation services were available at each walkshop tour for attendees who preferred to participate in Spanish.

Walkshop #1: Downtown
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 7 The Downtown tour was the first of the five planned Walkshop events. Held on Saturday, June 25, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., this event had a total of 34 registrations on Eventbrite. A total of 13 total participants attended on the day. This Walkshop event had six members of project staff in attendance, with representatives from the City of Hayward, Mintier Harnish, WRT Design, and DKS Associates. These project team members were not included in the total number of participants.

The Downtown tour attendees included Hayward residents and regional residential developers that were interested in the potential impacts of the new standards on their community and work.

Major Themes
Some of the primary themes discussed in the Downtown tour were landscaping and the aesthetics of new buildings both in terms of their scale, design, and the impact to existing neighborhood character. The feedback received on these topics and others from participants during the Downtown tour is provided below.

General Feedback
• There was concern about new developments not providing sufficient parking, resulting in residents parking in surrounding neighborhoods.
• New multi-family development should include access to parks and green space. • Universal design and renewable energy should be included in new developments. • Transit-oriented developments such as Lincoln Landing in the Downtown area are preferred.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 8 • Homeowners and renters should have the ability to rent out their assigned parking spaces or parking on property to others to help address parking issues.

Landscaping
• New developments should incorporate adequate landscaping. Landscaping improves the relationship between the residential structures and public right-of-way. Well designed and maintained landscaping also softens residential structures with smaller setbacks. • Mature trees are important to neighborhood aesthetics. Additionally, they create shade and reduce urban heat-island effect.
• Private interior courtyards create a feeling of privacy that is preferred.

Aesthetics
• Porches and balconies allow denser developments to have outdoor spaces. New developments should include these along street frontages and interior courtyards. • Narrow front or street-side setbacks were disliked by some and give residential buildings an industrial appearance.
• Preference for a mixture of architectural styles as they create visual interest and enhance the character of the neighborhood.
• Existing neighborhood characteristics are important to consider when designing new development. A good example was the “hold out home” on Atherton Street as it blends in very well to the surrounding development.
• Contemporary designs were preferred over more modern styles. • Variations in wall placement (i.e., setbacks and stepbacks) help to transition between lower scale development(s) next to or adjacent to properties.
• Downtown Hayward is a reasonable place to have increased residential densities and non-residential intensities.
• Chain link or opaque tall fencing, as well as security bars and gates, diminish neighborhood aesthetics.
• Window quantity and scale are important at preventing buildings from looking too “industrial.” HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 9 Walkshop #2: Cannery/Burbank
The Cannery/Burbank tour was the second of the five planned Walkshop events. Held on Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 1:00 p.m., this event had a total of 16 registrations on Eventbrite. Seven participants attended on the day. The Walkshop had six members of project staff in attendance, with representatives from the City of Hayward, Mintier Harnish, WRT Design, and DKS Associates. These project team members were not included in the total number of participants. Most attendees at the Cannery/Burbank tour lived in the neighborhood.

Major Themes
The primary themes discussed during the Cannery/Burbank tour were about best practices for creating a cohesive relationship between residential developments and the street. Additional discussion points included aesthetics in existing neighborhoods and how to best make building additions compatible with the surrounding development. The feedback received on these topics and other feedback received during the Cannery/Burbank tour is provided below.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 10 Aesthetics
• There was a preference for uniform, consistent fencing standards that established a maximum height and allowed materials.
• Eclectic architectural styles were preferred as long as they were well maintained. Maintenance of residential properties should not be forced or overregulated – but incentivized. • Residential developments should include a mix of colors to create more interesting neighborhoods. • Since architectural style and design change over time, it is important that standards are not too strict about regulating design and aesthetics.
• A diverse mix of tree species should be included in new developments.

Relationship to Street
• Landscaping standards, particularly organic buffers to the street, help to improve walkability and comfort for pedestrians.
• Greenbelts and protected bicycle lanes were suggested as a potential traffic calming measures. • Porches and balconies look inviting from the street and should be encouraged in new development. • Landscaping can make a larger home or one with a smaller setback feel more inviting from the street.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 11 • Landscaping is nice if well maintained. However, landscaping that is overgrown and spilling into the streets looks unkempt and is a safety hazard.

Building Additions
• Very boxy additions raised concern. Design aspects, such as stepbacks, can improve the look of a second story additions.
• Window placement in two story developments is important since it has the potential to impact privacy to neighboring properties.
• Mixed-use developments should include space for markets, retail, groceries, etc.

Walkshop #3: Whitman/Mocine
The Whitman/Mocine tour was the third of the five planned Walkshop events. Held on Saturday, June 25, 2022, at 3:30 p.m., this event had a total of six registrations on Eventbrite, and one participant attended on the day. The participant in attendance did not live in the Whitman/Mocine neighborhood, but regularly walked through the neighborhood. Additionally, the participant noted they did not own a vehicle and rely on public transportation and walking as their primary travel modes. This Walkshop event had four members of project staff in attendance, with representatives from the City of Hayward, Mintier Harnish, and DKS Associates. These project team members were not included in the total number of participants.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 12 Major Themes
Some of the primary themes discussed in the Whitman/Mocine route were centered around the aesthetics of the neighborhood. This included a desire for having a mix of architectural styles, a variety of fences and the importance of creating a relationship between residential developments and the existing street/neighborhood. The feedback received during the Whitman/Mocine tour is provided below.

Aesthetics
• A variety of fence types should be allowed but chain link fences should be avoided. Wooden fences and fences with nature/greenery on them should be encouraged because they make neighborhoods more inviting and greener.
• There was a preference for variety of architectural designs and styles over uniform styles. • Traditional front setback depths (i.e., 20 feet) were preferred over shorter setbacks. Shorter setbacks cause the rear portions of vehicles to hang out into the street. • The look of bark, mulch, and gravel as front yard landscaping is not desired, unless sufficient plants are included.
• New second story additions should relate to surrounding development. • Frontages and stepbacks are important for new additions to make taller homes compatible with less dense existing neighborhoods.
• Patios and balconies should be included in new developments because they create a sense of community.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 13 • There is not enough street lighting in many of these neighborhoods, making them feel less safe. • Accessory structures (e.g., ADUs, sheds, etc.) should match the existing home design and be architecturally compatible.

Walkshop #4: Hayward Hills
The Hayward Hills tour was the fourth of the five planned Walkshop events. Held on Monday, June 27, 2022, at 4:00 p.m., this event had a total of 17 registrations on Eventbrite, and 13 total participants attended on the day. The Walkshop had six members of project staff in attendance, with representatives from the City of Hayward, Mintier Harnish, WRT Design, and DKS Associates. These project team members were not included in the total number of participants. Participants who attended this event were primarily residents who lived along the route itself or lived in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Major Themes
Some of the primary themes discussed in the Hayward Hills route were centered around the aesthetics of the neighborhood such as the importance of good setbacks and building height to make new homes compatible with the existing neighborhood. Additional discussion points included establishing parking standards and proper street parking signage, as well as incorporating and preserving natural landscapes such as existing trees. The feedback received during the Hayward Hills tour is provided below.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 14 Aesthetics
• Eclectic design styles and a variety of architectural styles are preferred. “Cookie-cutter” homes and flat facades should not be allowed.
• There should be larger setbacks for larger homes, and smaller setbacks for small, single-story homes.
• Front setbacks that incorporated a lot of landscaping were desired. • “Living walls” for fences and screening should be encouraged. Fences that are transparent make individuals feel more comfortable walking past these types of fences. • Accessory structures (i.e., garages, sheds, ADUs, and new additions) should match the existing home design and be architecturally compatible.
• Undergrounding of utilities and other infrastructure should be encouraged to make neighborhood more appealing.

Relationship to Existing Neighborhoods
• Properties exceeding two stories should be terraced with stepbacks to blend into neighborhoods with two story structures.
• Patios, porches, and balconies are great because they create a sense of community from the street. • Home designs should be eclectic and not too modern. Modern designs seem to clash with existing hillsides homes.
• There should be different standards both in design and scale for different neighborhoods, based on existing conditions.
• There should be a collective maintenance fee for open spaces in new developments.

Parking
• Larger setbacks should be encouraged to accommodate additional parking. Driveways should be away from the street when possible.
• Driveways should be longer to accommodate additional parking and to avoid overcrowding on street. • Additional parking and way finding signs are needed due to the lack of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. • Parking standards should be based on floor area rather than form or bedroom count.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 15 General
• The existing Neighborhood Plan should be used as the starting point for the development of the new residential design standards.
• Some participants expressed concern about the impacts of natural disasters such as flooding and fires in the region.
• There should be a maximum tree height to preserve views. • There was consensus to preserve trees by creating incentives and/or increasing the number of replacement trees necessary for development.
• Unique development should be encouraged for the variety of parcel sizes. • There should be consideration of the impact of development standards on the ability to develop affordable housing and market rate housing.

Walkshop #5: South Hayward
The South Hayward route was the last of the five planned Walkshop events. Held on Monday, June 27, 2022 at 6:30 p.m., this event had a total of 34 registrations on Eventbrite, and 15 total participants attended on the day. Participants in attendance primary lived in the neighborhood and along the route either in newer, more dense developments or in older single-family homes. This Walkshop event had six members of project staff in attendance, with representatives from the City of Hayward, Mintier Harnish, WRT Design, and DKS Associates. These project team members were not included in the total number of participants.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 16 Major Themes
Some of the primary themes that arose for the South Hayward route included the design and location of parking and the relationship of development with the street. Another major theme surrounded the design of high-density mixed-use developments to ensure they serve the rest of the community by incorporating public open space or commercial units on the ground floor.

Parking
• The high-density areas do not have their parking filled up, while lower density areas don’t have enough parking. Suggestion to increase the number of parking spaces for new residential development.
• Dixon Street should be analyzed to determine if it has the capacity to accommodate vehicle traffic and parking for new high-density developments and use of BART. • There was support for setback standards for parking gates in gated communities to avoid cars queuing on the road.
• Parking garages in the back of homes develop a good street frontage on main/principal streets. • There was support for integrating a transparency/visibility requirement for podium walls/car basement entrances.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 17 High Density Development
• Higher-density development (both commercial and residential) should be encouraged near BART stations.
• New developments should be required to incorporate a large, public open spaces. These would include both passive and active open spaces with specific types of amenities • In mixed-use developments, there should be both vertical and horizontal mixed-use types. • Commercial units on ground floor and seamless integration of residential and non-residential uses are desired.
• Inward facing communities, with a well-designed public front and street frontage were strongly supported by participants.
• All entrances/frontages should be accessible and senior friendly. • Offset setbacks for different buildings should be encouraged to ensure all building are not on the same line or roof line with breaks or variations after 20 feet. • Loading and unloading for commercial spaces in mixed-used developments are preferred off the street.

Aesthetics
• Metal fences should be painted to blend into the environment. • New residential developments should include variation in design and architectural styles. • Four-foot, transparent fences are preferred over taller opaque fence styles. • There were mixed opinions regarding the setback/stepback requirements for second story homes. • There was an interest in incorporating standards that encourages variations in wall plane.

SOCIAL PINPOINT MAP OUTREACH
To ensure comments were received for areas all over the City of Hayward, not just along the designated Walkshop routes, the project team created a Social Pinpoint map, an interactive mapping tool. This interactive mapping tool (https://dks.mysocialpinpoint.com/hayward#/) allowed participants to provide location-specific comments and include images for the project team to reference. Additionally, users were able to like or dislike the comments received. Users of the interactive mapping tool were offered five different types of comments that they could leave on the map including: Size/Massing of Building, Design Considerations, Landscaping/Fencing, Parking/Transportation, or Other Comment (See Figure 1 below).

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 18 FIGURE 1: COMMENT TYPES
The interactive mapping tool was available for comment between June 2022 through the end of August 2022. The following sections provide an overview of the public feedback received from Social Pinpoint and elaborate on the comments received based on the neighborhood areas, as well as overall.

Overview Of Public Feedback Received
Overall, the Social Pinpoint Map received a total of 35 comments. Comments were received from various neighborhoods around Hayward. Most comments received from the public were concentrated around or near the Hayward Hills and Downtown Hayward. However, comments were also received around or near Cannery/Burbank, North Hayward, South Hayward, West Hayward, and the Jackson Triangle (see Figure 2 below). The following subsections further elaborate on the comments received based on the neighborhood areas, as well as overall.

FIGURE 2: COMMENTS BASED ON LOCATION
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 19 Comments Based on Location
Hayward Hills Comments
The Hayward Hills area received the most
comments with a total of 14 comments.

Two comments were received on
Size/Massing of Buildings, five comments
on Design Considerations, one on
Landscaping/Fencing, one on Parking and
Transportation and five general comments.

One of the comments received on Size/Massing of
Buildings was regarding building more high-density housing at or near CSU East Bay for students and staff due to housing needs. Furthermore, they elaborated that housing on campus would create a strong sense of community. Two users liked this comment. The other comment received on Size/Massing of Buildings expressed dislike on the housing developments on Arundel Drive near Stonebrae Elementary School.

Furthermore, they expressed the need to stop developments in the hillside/green spaces. Three users liked this comment, while one user disliked it.

One of the comments received on Design Consideration included the need for undergrounded utilities in the Highland Boulevard area due to heavy vegetation and fire risk in dry years. Two users liked this comment, while one disliked it. Another comment received included a need for complete pedestrian connectivity along Campus Drive and specified that there are no sidewalks along Campus Drive between 2nd Street and Highland Boulevard.

Four users liked this comment. A third comment received expressed that the homes on Parkside Drive are inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. One user liked this comment. A fourth comment received expressed that the townhomes on Ashland Court and Tribune Ave., have a poor layout and street trees are small. No likes or dislikes were received on this comment. The fifth comment received expressed that the Hayward Commons subdivision on Hayward Boulevard, is a great example of a well-designed subdivision as the design and architecture are complimentary. One user disliked this comment. The Landscaping/Fencing comment received asked about the status of La Vista Park and its completion date. No likes or dislikes were received for this comment.

The comment on Parking/Transportation expressed concern on safety as many people drive up the hill to enjoy the view. Furthermore, they suggested that parking signs be implemented between sunset and sunrise for residents along Tennyson Road between Mountain View Drive and Vista Grande Drive. No likes or dislikes were received for this comment.

The five general comments received were all the same comment that suggested building single-family below market rate homes, shopping centers, attractions, and reliable public transportation in the hills east of Palomares Road and south of Fairview Avenue on Dry Creek Pioneer Regional Park. All five comments received a minimum of one dislike.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 20 Overall, based on the comments received on the Hayward Hills area, there appeared to be a preference towards high-density developments near Cal State East Bay, undergrounded utilities, pedestrian connectivity (sidewalk infill), proper parking signage, and new developments matching with existing neighborhood characteristics. Furthermore, there was a strong dislike towards new developments in undeveloped areas of the hills.

Downtown Hayward Comments
The Downtown area received five comments. One
comment on Size/Massing of Buildings, two
comments on Design Considerations, and one on
Landscaping/Fencing. One general comment was
left on the former City Center site behind the
Safeway shopping center on Foothill Boulevard.
corridor asking about future development plans for
the parcel.

The comment received on Size/Massing of Buildings
was regarding building more high-density housing,
as the respondent expressed no vacancies and high
rents in the area. One person liked the comment, while another one disliked the comment.

The two comments received on Design Considerations included having garages in the rear and the building frontage facing the street, as well as adding greenery and landscaping to the parking lot located on the corner of Main Street and C Street. One person liked the comment about adding landscaping to the parking lot.

The comment received on Landscaping/Fencing expressed dislike towards gated communities as they felt they gave an uninviting feel. Four people liked this comment, while two others disliked it.

Overall, based on the comments received in the Downtown area, there are mixed feelings on affordable, high-density housing. Furthermore, there is a dislike towards gated communities and a preference towards adding greenery and landscaping to the parking lot on the corner of Main Street and C Street.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 21 Cannery/Burbank Comments
The Cannery/Burbank area received four
comments. One comment on Size/Massing of
Buildings, two comments on Parking and
Transportation, and one on Design
Considerations. The comment received on
Size/Massing of Buildings was regarding building
more high-density housing, as the respondent
expressed no vacancies and high rents in the
area. Two people liked the comment, while
another one disliked the comment.

The two comments received on
Parking/Transportation were about balancing onsite development parking based on number of units to avoid off-street parking, as well as
incorporating protected bike lanes from Hayward BART to Industrial Boulevard, to encourage public transit and biking instead of driving. Four people liked the comment about the balancing on-site parking and offstreet parking, while two people disliked it. Three people liked the comment about protected bike lanes, while three people disliked the comment.

The comment received on Design Considerations expressed concerned about accessibility accommodations causing separation among mobility impaired folks instead of being inclusive. One person liked this comment.

Overall, based on the comments received in the Cannery/Burbank area, there appeared to be a preference towards more affordable, high-density development, balancing on-site and off-street parking, as well as incorporating protected bike lanes.

North Hayward Comments
The North Hayward area received three comments. Two
comments were on Size/Massing of Buildings and one on
Design Considerations.

The two comments received on Size/Massing of Buildings
were about Southland Mall and Chabot College. For
Southland Mall, the user expressed that this area is an opportunity for a mixed-use community with housing, retail and services as the mall is currently underutilized with a “sea of parking”. For Chabot College, the user expressed a need for mid/high density housing for the college students, as it seems like the college is underutilized and there is a need for housing. Two users liked the Chabot College comment, while one user liked the comment on Southland Mall.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 22 The Design Considerations comment expressed that the old Sears/Burlington building could be demolished and replaced with two to four-unit buildings. One user liked this comment.

Overall, based on the comments received in the North Hayward area, there appeared to be a liking towards mid-high-density developments for housing and mixed-used communities.

South Hayward Comments
The South Hayward area received six comments.

One comment on Size/Massing of Buildings, two
comments on Parking/Transportation, one on
Landscaping/Fencing, and two general comments.

The comment received on Size/Massing of Buildings
expressed a need for higher density housing near
South Hayward BART and transit to accommodate
current and future residents. Two users liked this
comment.

One of the comments received on
Parking/Transportation expressed the need to take
noise into consideration when building residences
near busy intersections. One user liked this comment. The other comment received expressed concern about increased traffic due to high density housing along the Mission Boulevard corridor and suggested developing a shuttle route to the nearest BART station among the different housing developments to avoid long waits for AC transit buses. Two users disliked this comment.

The Landscaping/Fencing comment received asked about the possibility of infill green spaces in empty lots on Dixon Street or along BART or down Mission Boulevard No likes or dislikes were left on this comment.

One of the general comments received asked about what was happening with the Huntwood area, while the other general comment expressed that Dixon Street has accumulated trash by the South Hayward BART station parking lots and along the side of the street. No likes or dislikes were left on either comment.

Overall, based on the comments received in the South Hayward area, there appeared to be a preference towards more high-density housing developments and taking noise into consideration when developing high density residences. Furthermore, there is interest in more green spaces for the community along Dixon Street, South Hayward BART and Mission Boulevard.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 23 West Hayward Comments
The West Hayward area received one comment on
Design Consideration near Mount Eden High School.

The comment received on Design Consideration
expressed a need for 100 percent electric and efficient homes. Furthermore, the user included the design of
solar rooftop orientation, materials, colors, wall
thickness, insulation, easy access to water, electrical conduits, fire, short cut prevention design, low VOC,
recycled materials, and gray water recycling systems.

This comment was the most popular on the interactive
mapping tool, with six users liking the comment. Overall, there appeared to be a liking toward an electric and efficient home design.

Jackson Triangle Comments
The Jackson Triangle area received one comment on
Parking/Transportation and one Other Comment.

The comment received on Parking/Transportation
expressed a need for more protected bike lanes on the
Mission Boulevard corridor (State Route 238), all the
way through Hayward. Additionally, they expressed that
this would encourage fewer vehicle miles and embark
on road diets. Three users liked the comment, and one
user disliked it.

The Other Comment received asked about a walking
tour in the Jackson Triangle and expressed concern
over lots being overbuilt in this area due to the large lots and old homes.

Overall, there appeared to be a liking towards more protected bike lanes closer to the Mission Boulevard area. Additionally, there was some dislike and concern over high-density and massing in the Jackson Triangle area.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 24 Overall Comments Received
Altogether, 28.6 percent of comments were on Design Consideration, 20 percent were on Size/Massing of Building, 17.1 percent were on Parking/Transportation, 25.7 percent were Other Comments, and 8.6 percent were about Landscaping/Fencing (see Figure 3 below).

FIGURE 3: COMMENTS RECEIVED BY TOPIC
The following subsections further summarizes the comments by type received and identified any trends based on neighborhood and/or location.

Design Considerations
A total of 10 comments were received for Design Considerations. Overall, some of the main ideas/comments received included:
• Support for 100 percent electric and energy efficient homes. • Solar rooftop designs (orientation, material, color). • Preference for garages tucked in the back of buildings. • Preference for front doors facing streets.
• Requirements for accessible design in homes to be inclusive to mobility impaired folks. • Homes in some neighborhoods (such as in the Hayward Hills) have no design quality and are inconsistent with neighborhood characteristics.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 25 • Poor layout of townhomes in some neighborhoods (such as in the Hayward Hills). • Support for building designs and architecture that complement each other. • Increasing pedestrian safety and complete pedestrian connectivity in areas with no sidewalks such as in the Hayward Hills along Campus Drive between 2nd Street and Highland Boulevard. • Support to underground utilities.
• Desire to add landscape and greenery to parking lots. • Support for infill development to replace old buildings with high density developments, such as the Sears/Burlington building near Southland Mall.

Size/Massing of Building
A total of seven comments were received for Size/Massing of Building. Overall, some of the main ideas/comments received included:
• Stop development in the hillside/green space areas.
• Support for mid and high-density developments near BART, colleges, and transit. • Support for more housing (high density/affordable) to accommodate current and future residents of Hayward.
• Encourage and incorporate mixed-used communities such as at Southland Mall.

Parking/Transportation
A total of six comments were received for Parking/Transportation. Overall, some of the main ideas/comments received include:
• Balance on-site development parking and unit numbers to avoid off-street parking. • Incorporating and extending more protected bike lanes (e.g., extending protecting bike lane on 238 all the way through Hayward and from Hayward BART to Industrial Boulevard) to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage road diets.
• Reduce noise and find ways to dampen sound with materials and landscaping. • Develop shuttle route to BART stations, to and from developments during commute periods. • Signage to control parking in new developments.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 26 Landscaping/Fencing
A total of three comments were received for Landscaping/Fencing:
• Oppose gated communities.
• Support for more public parks and open space.
• Support for green infill space projects in empty lots with higher density and transit developments.

Other Comments
A total of nine comments were received for Other Comments:
• Suggestion to build single-family, below-market rate homes, shopping centers, attractions, and reliable public transit in undeveloped areas in the Hayward Hills. • Concerns on “overbuilding” on older homes and lots, specifically in the Jackson Triangle area. • Concern over increase in debris at South Hayward BART parking lots and Dixon Street.

COMMUNITY SURVEY OVERVIEW AND

RESULTS
To obtain initial public feedback on residential design preferences, a 20-question survey was developed by the project team and made available in English, Spanish and Mandarin. The community survey was available for submission between June 2022 through the end of August 2022.The 20-question survey gave respondents examples of different types of housing (such as single-family homes, duplexes/triplexes, townhomes, multifamily, etc.) and asked which of the images displayed they liked best and why. The survey also included six questions on the respondents’ demographics such as age, median household income, how long they have lived in Hayward, etc. A question asking respondents if they wanted to provide further comments or suggestions was also incorporated. The trilingual survey link was included in all the outreach materials and available during outreach events.

Overall, a total of 240 surveys were submitted. Of the surveys submitted, 33 percent of survey respondents identified as White or Caucasian, 24 percent identified as Asian or Asian American, 21 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino, 14 percent identified as Black or African American, 4 percent identified as Other (or mixed race), one percent as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander and less than one percent identified as American Indian or Alaska Native. Of these respondents, 29 percent of respondents stated that their annual household income was over $150,000, 22 percent stated they earned between $100,000 and $150,000, 19 percent stated they earned between$75,000 and $99,999, 14 percent stated they earned between $50,000 and $74,000, and 15 percent stated they earned below $50,000.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 27 The review of the responses yielded several themes, which are summarized below.

Survey Results
Detached Housing Preference
When respondents were asked to identify the examples of detached housing that they liked best, 51 percent of survey respondents identified a preference for image 2 (highlighted below). Following this question on their preference, respondents were asked what features they liked about the home.

Of the respondents who preferred image 2, 78 respondents liked the overall building design, six liked the building shape and size, and 18 liked the front yard and entryway. Furthermore, respondents had the opportunity to provide “other” reasons why they liked this example. Some of those reasons included the architecture, setbacks, fencing, and the unique design.

Duplex And Triplex Housing Preference
When respondents were asked to identify the examples of duplex and triplex housing that they liked best, 50 percent of survey respondents identified a preference for the image 2 (highlighted below). Following this question on their preference, respondents were asked what features they liked about the home. 21% Liked This Option
Image 1 Image 2
51% Liked This Option
Image 3
28% Liked this Option
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
37% Liked This Option 50% Liked This Option 13% Liked This Option HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 28 Of the respondents who preferred image 2, 65 respondents liked the overall building design, 14 liked the building shape and size, and 19 liked the front yard and entryway. Furthermore, respondents had the opportunity to provide “other” reasons why they liked this example. Some of those reasons included the balance in architecture, character, single-family feel, landscaping such as trees, and density. Additionally, three respondents stated that they did not like any of the options provided.

Townhome Preference
When respondents were asked to identify the example of townhomes they liked best, 41 percent of survey respondents have identified a preference for image 2 (highlighted below). Following this question on their preference, respondents were asked what features they liked about the home.

Of the respondents who preferred image 2, 75 respondents liked the overall building design, one respondent liked the building shape and size, and 6 respondents liked the front yard and entryway.

Furthermore, respondents had the opportunity to provide “other” reasons why they liked this example. Some of those reasons included the shared community living spaces, green space, ambiance, density, option for accessible units, efficient use of space, colors, community feel, height, and use of public and private space.

Multifamily Home Preference
When respondents were asked to identify the example of multifamily homes they liked best, 69 percent of survey respondents identified a preference for image 1 (highlighted below). Following this question on their preference, respondents were asked what features they liked about the home.

Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
26% Liked This Option 41% Liked This Option 33% Liked This Option Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
69% Liked This Option 7% Liked This Option 24% Liked This Option HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 29 Of the respondents who preferred image 1, 122 respondents liked the overall building design, 17 respondents liked the building shape and size, and one respondent liked the front yard and entryway.

Furthermore, respondents had the opportunity to provide “other” reasons why they liked this example. Some of those reasons included the building-street relationship, mid-size, massing, architecture, façade, windows facing main street, patio/balcony, and less industrial like. Eight respondents stated that they did not like any of the options provided. However, for some respondents they chose image 1 as it was the “least industrial like.”
Small Mixed-Use Building Preference
When respondents were asked to identify the example of the small mixed-use building, they liked best, 80 percent of survey respondents identified a preference for image 3 (highlighted below). Following this question on their preference, respondents were asked what features they liked about the home.

Of the respondents who preferred image 3, 149 respondents liked the overall building design, 18 respondents liked the building shape and size, and two respondents liked the front yard and entryway.

Furthermore, respondents had the opportunity to provide “other” reasons why they liked this example. Some of those reasons included the attractive and modern architecture, windows, façade, height, and density.

Large Mixed-Use Building Preference
When respondents were asked to identify the example of the large mixed-use building they liked best, 52 percent of survey respondents identified a preference for image 3 (highlighted below). Following this question on their preference, respondents were asked what features they liked about the home.

Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
13% Liked This Option 8% Liked This Option 80% Liked This Option 52% Liked This Option
Image 2 Image 3
28% Liked This Option
Image 1
19% Liked This Option
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 30 Of the respondents who preferred image 3, 97 respondents liked the overall building design, and eight respondents liked the building shape and size. Furthermore, respondents had the opportunity to provide “other” reasons why they liked this example. Some of those reasons included the outdoor patio spaces, modern architecture, and density. Two respondents stated that they did not like any of the options provided, however, they chose image 3 as it was the best of the three provided.

Importance Of Housing Design Features
When respondents were asked to rank the housing design features that were most important to them to least important, the “Size and Shape of Building” and the “Overall Building Design” were identified as the most important. The “Ground Floor Design” was identified as the least important for respondents (Figure 4 below). However, there was not a significant difference between categories, indicating that all were of relatively significant importance to community members.

FIGURE 4: IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING DESIGNS
Additional Comments, Ideas and Suggestions Received
At the end of the survey, respondents were asked if there were any additional comments, ideas, or suggestions that they would like to share. This question received a total of 111 responses. Overall, some common themes in the comments, ideas and suggestions included:

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 31 Design
• Create visually appealing housing designs.
• Allow taller buildings.
• Avoid “cookie cutter” developments (i.e., developments with repetitive colors, designs, and no differentiation).
• Maintain privacy.
• Do not compromise style for density.
• Allow variety and mixture in architecture styles and design. • Accessible homes.

Mixed Use Developments
• Increase retail spaces.
• Increase mixed-use developments.
• Increase the variety of housing types, such as multifamily and mixed-use housing, in the downtown area.

High Density Developments
• Limit number of vehicles in ratio to number of bedrooms. • Increase housing in the downtown area and near BART stations. • Create communal, green spaces for community.

Affordable Housing
• Affordable housing for recent college students, current residents, working families, and low-income families,
• Unsustainable and unaffordable home purchase prices are displacing community members.

Parking
• Decrease huge parking lots.
• Implementing high density developments will increase traffic congestion.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 32 • Prioritize parking for commercial areas.
• Increase parking in development to prevent off-street parking. • Reduce need for cars and parking.
• Traffic congestion is bad and increase in residential construction will increase congestion.

Climate Change
• Build eco-friendly construction.
• Incorporate solar and battery storage in design.
• More trees in new developments.
• Build walkable and pedestrian friendly communities.
• Integrate green street and green stormwater infrastructure.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH EVENTS
Community outreach events attended by the City of Hayward staff included:
• Hayward Community Family Fair
• Juneteenth Celebration
• Curbie Events at Mt. Eden Park, La Familia, and Birchfield Park • Old Highland Homeowners Association (OHHA) Community Meeting • Downtown Summer Street Fair
The following subsections summarize the events and feedback heard.

Hayward Community Family Fair
On June 17, 2022, the project team attended the Hayward Community Family Fair at Tennyson Park in South Hayward that had approximately 200 attendees. Most of the
attendees of this event were families with kids whose main concerns were around affordable housing, modern designs, and open spaces in new developments. Attendees
expressed that the development of affordable housing is important, and standards should not discourage affordable housing development. Attendees also expressed a dislike HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 33 for boxy and modern styles of buildings. Furthermore, attendees shared the need for usable shared and private open spaces (such as yards), in new residential developments. Through this event, interactive boards were displayed with some of the survey questions to collect feedback on design preferences from the public.

The number of votes and preferred design for each housing type collected at the Hayward Community Family Fair are shown below.

Overall, compared to the survey results, the preferences for detached and duplex housing types were different. However, there was a consensus between the townhome styles, multifamily homes, small-mixed and large-mixed homes when compared to the survey results.

Detached Housing Preferences
Duplex And Triplex Housing Preferences
Townhome Preference
42 Votes
Image 1 Image 2
47 Votes
Image 3
94 Votes
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
39 Votes 42 Votes 66 Votes
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
35 Votes 61 Votes 41 Votes
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 34 Multifamily Home Preference
Small Mixed-Use Building Preference
Large Mixed-Use Building Preference
Juneteenth Celebration
On June 18, 2022, the project team attended the Juneteenth Celebration at Heritage Plaza in Downtown Hayward. There was a mix of Hayward community members and community members from outside the City of Hayward. Many of the questions that the community had were around density, affordable housing, grocery stores, and recent new developments in the Downtown area and along the Mission Boulevard corridor.

Attendees expressed that the development of affordable housing is important, and standards should not Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
78 Votes 24V Votes 52 Votes
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
20 Votes 13 Votes 79 Votes
63 Votes
Image 2 Image 3
21 Votes
Image 1
48 Votes
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 35 discourage affordable housing development. Additionally, attendees expressed concern over parking and traffic. Overall, there was also general support for density in Downtown. Through this event, interactive boards were displayed with some of the survey questions to collect feedback on design preferences from the public. The number of votes and preferred design for each housing type collected at the Juneteenth Celebration are shown below.

Overall, compared to the survey results, only the preference for a duplex and triplex housing type was different. However, there was a consensus between the detached housing, townhome styles, multifamily homes, small-mixed and large-mixed homes when compared to the survey results.

Detached Housing Preferences
Duplex And Triplex Housing Preferences
Townhome Preference
17 Votes
Image 1 Image 2
45 Votes
Image 3
33 Votes
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
45 Votes 18 Votes 16 Votes
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
22 Votes 52 Votes 16 Votes
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 36 Multifamily Home Preference
Small Mixed-Use Building Preference
Large Mixed-Use Building Preference
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
60 Votes 8 Votes 32 Votes
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
9 Votes 4 Votes 60 Votes
44 Votes
Image 3 Image 2
23 Votes
Image 1
22 Votes
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 37 Curbie Community Events
Curbie is a mobile library that visits different
neighborhoods within Hayward to provide a wide
range of library services. On June 23rd, the team
attended a Curbie event at Mt. Eden Park and
reached five community members. On July 12th, the
team attended the Curbie event at La Familia
Counseling Service and reached approximately 25
community members. On July 13th, the team
attended the Curbie event at Birchfield Park and
reach approximately 20 community members. At
each event, interactive boards were displayed with
some of the survey questions to collect feedback on design preferences from the public. The number of votes and preferred design for each housing type collected at the Curbie events are shown below.

Overall, compared to the survey results, only the preference for detached housing, duplex and triplex housing types and townhomes were different. However, there was a consensus between the multifamily homes, small-mixed and large-mixed homes when compared to the survey results.

Detached Housing Preferences
Duplex and Triplex Housing Preferences
8 Votes
Image 1 Image 2
8 Votes
Image 3
22 Votes
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
15 Votes 8 Votes 13 Votes
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 38 Townhome Preference
Multifamily Home Preference
Small Mixed-Use Building Preference

Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
8 Votes 12 Votes 17 Votes
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
16 Votes 3 Votes 15 Votes
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3
4 Votes 5 Votes 21 Votes
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 39 Large Mixed-Use Building Preference
OHHA Community Meeting
On July 25th, the project team virtually attended an Old Highland Homeowners Association (OHHA) Board Meeting, where they presented and led a discussion with approximately five attendees (excluding staff).

Attendees at this meeting expressed concern over parking, circulation, grading and drainage in the area.

Additionally, they emphasized the importance of the size, scale, massing, location, and preservation of trees in new residential developments. Furthermore, attendees stated that specific frontage standards (such as height and appearance) for hillside developments are crucial f. They voiced that residential structures should present as two-story homes from all frontages.

Downtown Summer Street Fair
On August 18th, the project team attended the Downtown Summer Street Fair in Downtown Hayward. At this event, the team engaged with approximately 30 attendees where they discussed the project and distributed online survey cards.
18 Votes
Image 2 Image 3
4 Votes
Image 1
17 Votes
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 xl

APPENDIX
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 xli Appendix A
Social Pinpoint Responses
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 xlii Appendix B
Survey Results
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 xliii

APPENDIX C

COLLATERAL OUTREACH MATERIALS
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 xliv Collateral Outreach Materials
Project Logo
A project logo (Figure 5) was developed by DKS to help the community easily identify the project during the outreach efforts.

FIGURE 5: PROJECT LOGO
This logo was used throughout all outreach efforts including all collateral outreach materials, the project website landing page, and outreach emails.

Project Website Landing Page
A project specific website landing page was developed and maintained by the City staff to consolidate all project related information, materials, and event information in one place for outreach efforts and for the public to utilize. The website landing page (https://www.haywardca.gov/your-government/departments/planning-division/residential-design-study) includes the following information:
• Project overview.
• Ways to get involved.
• Online survey link.
• Social Pinpoint.
• Walkshop information.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 xlv • Frequently asked questions.
• Contact information for comments, questions, and to sign-up for project updates. • Meeting Documents associated with the project.

The project website link was promoted in all outreach efforts. Figure 6 shows a portion of the homepage of the website that the City of Hayward developed and maintains.

FIGURE 6: PROJECT WEBSITE LANDING PAGE
Bilingual Informational Cards
Bilingual informational cards were developed to inform and encourage community members to complete the community survey and visit the project website for more information. The bilingual informational cards included the project logo, links to the survey and project website, as well as QR codes for these sites (see Figure 7).

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 xlvi FIGURE 7: BILINGUAL INFORMATIONAL CARDS
These informational cards were distributed during the five walkshop events, at the City of Hayward’s Permit Center, and at several community events.

Bilingual Pull-Up Banner
A bilingual pull-up banner was developed to inform and encourage community members to attend the Walkshops and visit the project website for more information. The bilingual pull-up banner included the project logo, information on the five walkshops, and a link and QR code for the project website (see Figure 8). The pull-up banner was displayed at the City of Hayward’s Downtown Library Branch and community outreach events leading up to the walkshops.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 xlvii FIGURE 8: WALKSHOP PULL-UP BANNER
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 xlviii Stickers
A collection of project stickers were distributed during outreach events. A total of six different designs were created (Figure 9).

FIGURE 9: STICKERS
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 xlix Trilingual FAQ
A trilingual Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document was created to further inform the community on the Hayward Residential Design Study project. Information included the purpose of the project and ways to get involved. It also included information on the walkshops and a link to the interactive mapping tool where the community could share their feedback. Figure 10 shows the FAQ in Mandarin. The FAQ documents are available on the City of Hayward’s project landing webpage.

FIGURE 10: MANDARIN FAQ EXAMPLE
Trilingual Walkshop Flyers
To inform the community of the walkshop events, trilingual walkshop flyers were created. The flyers were created in English, Spanish and Mandarin. The flyer included project background information, the purpose of the project, detailed information on the walkshops, links to register for the Walkshop events, and a link and QR code for the trilingual community survey (see Figure 11). The trilingual flyers were distributed during community outreach events attended by City of Hayward staff and were available on the City of Hayward’s project landing webpage.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 l FIGURE 11: SPANISH FLYER EXAMPLE

TRILINGUAL SURVEY
To obtain initial public feedback on residential design preferences, a 20-question trilingual survey (Figure 12) was developed by the project team. The trilingual survey link was included in all the outreach materials such as the website landing page, informational cards, pull-up banner, FAQ’s, walkshop flyers, and the interactive mapping tool. Printed surveys were also available for community members attending the walkshops. Results from the survey are further discussed in the Survey Responses Received section of this report.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 li FIGURE 12: TRILINGUAL SURVEY
Interactive Mapping Tool
An interactive mapping tool was developed to provide the public with an opportunity to give locationspecific feedback, comments, or ideas for the project (Figure 13). The link to this interactive mapping tool was shared on the project website landing page, FAQ’s, during community outreach events, and outreach emails. The interactive mapping tool also included the walkshop routes, walkshop information, registration links to the walkshop events, and a link to the project survey. Results from the interactive mapping tool are further discussed in the Social Pinpoint Map Outreach section of this report.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 lii FIGURE 13: INTERACTIVE MAPPING TOOL
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 liii Appendix D
Community Outreach Efforts
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 liv Community Outreach Efforts
Virtual Engagement
Virtual engagement efforts for the Hayward Residential Design Study included emails to their listservs for “The Stack,” the Housing Element, and Planning Commission and social media posts on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Nextdoor.

Listserv Emails
“The Stack”
“The Stack” is the City’s official newsletter that notifies members of community events, city news and other important updates happening in within Hayward. On June 14, 2022, an email was sent to “The Stack” listserv to inform and invite readers to participate in the Hayward Residential Design Study (see Figure 14).

FIGURE 14: "THE STACK" NEWSLETTER FIGURE 15: "THE STACK" EXTRA EDITION NEWSLETTER A total of 63,216 members of “The Stack” were reached from this email. The email had an open rate of 34.5 percent (21,787 members) and 374 clicks. On June 23, 2022, an additional email was sent to members of “The Stack” to remind them and invite them to participate in the Hayward Residential Design Study (see Figure 15). This additional email reached a total of 63,050 members. It had an open rate of 34 percent (28,491 members) and 1,133 clicks.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 lv Housing Element and Planning Commission Listserv
On June 21, 2022, an email was sent to the Housing Element listserv and the Planning Commission listserv informing them of the Hayward Residential Design Study and inviting them to the Walkshop events. The email to Housing Element listserv was viewed by 172 members and had an open rate of

43.3 percent. The Planning Commission listserv reached all seven Commissioners.

Social Media Posts
Social media posts for the neighborhood Walkshops and community surveys were made and posted to the City of Hayward’s social media accounts in English and Spanish.

Twitter
Through the month of June, a total of 14 tweets were posted to invite people to attend the neighborhood Walkshops. Altogether, these 14 tweets generated a total of 2,723 impressions, 58 users engaging with the posts, and six users clicking on the links.

Throughout the months of June and July, an additional 16 tweets were posted to invite people to complete the community survey. See Figure 16 for an example tweet that was posted.

FIGURE 16: TWITTER POST EXAMPLE
HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 lvi Facebook
Through the month of June, a total of eight posts invited people to attend the neighborhood Walkshops. Altogether, these eight Facebook posts generated a total of 4,236 impressions, 279 users engaging with the posts, and 44 users clicking on the links.

Throughout the months of June and July, a total of nine posts were posted to invite people to complete the community survey. See Figure 17 for an example of the Facebook post.

FIGURE 17: FACEBOOK POST EXAMPLE

Instagram
Through the month of June, a total of six posts were posted to invite people to attend the neighborhood Walkshops. Altogether, these six Instagram posts generated a total of 3,169 impressions and 52 users engaging with the post.

Throughout the months of June and July, a total of six posts invited people to complete the community survey. See Figure 18 for an example of an Instagram post.

HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STUDY • OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT • 9/14/22 lvii FIGURE 18: INSTAGRAM POST EXAMPLE
Nextdoor
Through the month of June, a total of eight posts invited people to attend the neighborhood walkshops. Altogether, these eight Nextdoor posts generated a total of 1,765 impressions and two users click on the links.

Throughout the months of June and July, a total of 2 posts were posted on the City of Hayward’s Nextdoor account to invite people to complete the community survey.

Hayward Residential Design
Study Background Report
September 2022
PREPARED BY WRT FOR:

THE CITY OF HAYWARD
Attachment IV
September 16, 2022 | 1
Hayward Residential Design Study
Background Report
The Hayward Residential Design Study is an update to the City’s zoning regulations to support the development of quality housing. The study aims to make requirements for residential design predictable, easy to understand, and resolve inconsistencies between various planning documents to eliminate ambiguity that may pose a barrier to residential development. The Study will focus on establishing objective development and design standards that can be applied to both single-family, multi-family and mixed-use developments. As defined by State law, “objective standards are those that involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Purpose of The Report
This report provides a summary of the existing regulatory context that will inform updates to the citywide residential standards. The report has three components:

A. A summary of State housing laws with a focus on recent changes intended to streamline housing approvals, especially for multifamily housing.

B. A summary of the City of Hayward’s existing zoning standards and design guidelines for residential development.

C. A summary of findings from comparable jurisdictions that have adopted Objective Development Standards.

A. Summary of State Legislation
Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act (1982) recognizes a shortage of housing as a critical problem across the state of California and promotes infill development by streamlining housing approvals. It limits the ability of local government to restrict new development if it meets objective criteria established in the City’s General Plan, zoning regulations or other planning documents, if it does not cause specific adverse impact on public health, and if it meets standards of CEQA and the California Coastal Act.

Applicability: The law applies to all residential development with more than two housing units in multifamily projects or mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds of square footage for residential use.

Restrictions on City discretion:
• Cities cannot deny or reduce the density of projects which conform to adopted objective design and development standards.

September 16, 2022 | 2
• Cities cannot impose conditions of approval on projects with affordable units which make provision of such units infeasible.

Density Bonus Law – Incentivizing Affordable and Senior Housing The Density Bonus Law provides developers with tools to encourage the development of affordable and senior housing. As amended in recent years, the law allows for up to a 50 percent increase in density, depending on the amount of affordable housing provided, and an 80 percent increase in density for projects which are completely affordable. The law also allows developers to make use of parking reductions, height increases, waivers from other development standards, and concessions/incentives that result in identifiable cost savings to make affordable and senior housing projects more financially feasible to develop. Additionally, recent amendments to AB 1763 (Density Bonus Law) allow projects that are 100 percent affordable and located within one-half mile of a major transit stop to have unlimited density bonus, a height increase of up to three additional stories, and no minimum parking requirements. These projects also receive up to four regulatory concessions.

Applicability: Cities and counties are required to grant a density bonus and other incentives or concessions to housing projects which meet specified affordability criteria. Developers need to submit the density bonus applications to local jurisdictions, and jurisdictions must notify the applicant of the level of density bonus and parking ratio the development is eligible to receive.

SB 35 - Streamlined Approval Process for Affordable Housing SB 35 requires a ministerial approval process for multifamily or mixed-use housing developments in localities that have not yet made sufficient progress toward meeting their regional housing need allocation (RHNA). This streamlined entitlement process must rely on objective design standards and does not allow public hearings or discretionary review. A jurisdiction subject to SB 35 must review applications for qualifying housing developments within a statutory time frame. Qualifying projects are also not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Applicability: Housing projects qualify for SB 35 if they satisfy following criteria:
• Located in a jurisdiction that has not made sufficient progress toward meeting RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation). Hayward is currently in this category. • On a site zoned or planned to allow residential uses. • Has two or more new housing units in multifamily projects or mixed-use projects with at least twothirds of the square footage designated as residential uses. • Include a minimum percentage of affordable units based on the jurisdiction’s progress towards their RHNA.
• Complies with all objective design standards.
• Pays prevailing construction wages (only for projects with 10 or more units). • Does not demolish buildings on local, state, or national historic building registers. • Does not demolish any housing units that have been occupied by tenants in the last 10 years.

September 16, 2022 | 3
SB 330 Housing Crisis Act - Limits Local Laws that Would Limit Housing SB 330 strengthens the Housing Accountability Act and the Permit Streamlining Act to address California’s housing crisis by removing barriers to residential development, protecting existing housing inventory, and expediting permit processing. It prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting new laws that would have the effect of reducing the legal capacity for new housing or delaying housing development via administrative or other regulatory barriers. Specifically, SB 330 prohibits local jurisdictions from adopting development standards that would reduce the intensity of the residential use that is currently allowed by the General Plan and zoning ordinance.SB 330 defines “housing development” to include residential projects, mixed-use projects with two-thirds of the square-footage dedicated to residential units and transitional and supportive housing projects.

SB 330 also allows a housing developer to submit a preliminary application and pay permit processing fee to freeze the applicable fees and development standards while the rest of the material necessary for a full application is assembled. After an application is deemed complete, and if the project is consistent with the objective standards, local agencies cannot disapprove an eligible housing development project or condition its approval at a lower density, with very limited exceptions. Under the Permit Streamlining Act, SB 330 shortens timeframes for housing development approval to 90 days, following certification of the environmental impact report. It is further shortened to 60 days for a lowincome projects seeking tax-credits or other public funding.

Applicability:
o SB 330 applies to all types of housing and to all cities, including charter cities.

SB 8
SB 8 extends key provisions of the SB 330 Housing Crisis Act, streamlining the process of housing production, until January 1, 2030. SB 8 added the statute of prohibiting an agency from conducting more than five hearings on an application for a housing development project; and clarifies language in SB 330 to expand the definition of “housing development project” to include a single dwelling unit (i.e. a single family home).

It prohibits downzoning of properties or reducing intensity of allowable development. It protects lowincome tenants against displacement by prohibiting the approval of any proposed housing development project on a site that will require demolition of existing dwelling units or occupied or vacant “Protected Units” unless the Project replaces those units. SB 8 also requires that existing occupants that had to leave their units be allowed to return at their prior rental rate if the demolition does not proceed and the property is returned to the rental market.

SB 9 California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (“HOME”) Act SB 9 is intended to enable housing development in single-family residential zones by allowing lot splits and two dwelling units per parcel, which may result in up to four units total. Each new lot must comprise at least 40 percent of the area of the original lot and may not be less than 1,200 square feet. SB 9 housing units are granted specific development standards including minimum four-foot rear and side setbacks. SB 9 requires ministerial approval, without discretionary review or hearings. However, the September 16, 2022 | 4
development may not result in a significant adverse impact to the physical environment or public health and safety.

Applicability:

SB 9 is applicable in single-family residential zoning districts and development is capped at four units.

ADUs are included in the total unit count. Within Hayward, this act applies to most RS (single-family residential) zoned parcels.

What are Objective Development and Design Standards?
Under State law, certain types of residential development in California, including projects subject to SB 35, SB 330, and SB 9, must be approved if the development meets objective development and design standards. These are defined in Government Code Sections 65913.4 and 66300(a)(7) as standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal.

September 16, 2022 | 5

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANNING DOCUMENTS
The City’s planning documents currently include a mix of objective and subjective standards. Each of these is summarized below as they relate to residential development standards.

Hayward 2040 General Plan
The Hayward 2040 General Plan advances the City’s goals for smart growth and sustainability while enhancing the qualities and characteristics of Hayward’s districts and neighborhoods with an attractive mix of uses and amenities. The General Plan land use diagram includes nineteen land use designations.

Each land use designation has a corresponding set of compatible zoning districts. The land use designations include density and intensity standards to regulate development within each designation.

Below are the land use designations that allow residential uses.

Figure 1: Hayward 2040 General Plan Land Use Diagram
September 16, 2022 | 6
Table 1: Hayward 2040 General Plan Land Use Designations that Allow Housing Land Use Category Allowed/ Supporting Residential Uses Density in dwelling units per acre (du/ac)
Residential Designations
Rural Estate Density Detached single-family homes, second units Density: 0.2 to 1.0 du/ac Suburban Density Detached single-family homes, second units Density: 1.0 to 4.3 du/ac Low Density Detached single-family homes, second units Density: 4.3 to 8.7 du/ac Limited Medium Density Detached & attached single-family homes, multi-family homes, second units
Density: 8.7 to 12.0 du/ac
Medium Density Detached & attached single-family homes, multi-family homes, second units
Density: 8.7 to 17.4 du/ac
High Density Attached single-family homes, multi-family homes
Density: 17.4 to 34.8 du/ac
Commercial Designations
Retail and Office Commercial Mixed use with multi-family homes on upper floor; live-work units
Max. Density: 17.4 du/ac
Min. Density not required
General Commercial Mixed use with multi-family homes on upper floor; live-work units
Max. Density: 17.4 du/ac
Min. Density not required
Mixed-Use Designations
Commercial/High Density
Residential
Attached single-family homes, mixed use with
multi-family homes on upper floor; multifamily homes, live-work units Max. Density: 34.8 du/ac
Min. Density not required
Sustainable Mixed Use
Detached & attached single-family homes,
mixed use with multi-family homes on upper
floors; multi-family homes, live-work units,
second units
Density: 4.3 to 100 du/ac
Land Use Category Allowed/ Supporting Residential Uses Density Central City Retail and Office
Commercial
Attached single-family homes, mixed use with
multi-family homes on upper floor, multifamily homes, live-work units; Max. Density range: 40 -110 du/ac.

Min. Density not required.

Central City High-density Residential
Attached single-family homes, mixed use with
multi-family homes on upper floor, multifamily homes, live-work units; Max. Density range: 40-110 du/ac.

Min. Density not required.

September 16, 2022 | 7
Neighborhood Plans
The City of Hayward has adopted plans for seventeen neighborhoods under the Neighborhood Planning Program launched in 1986. The neighborhood plans are a bridge between the General Plan and specific development in neighborhoods. They provide detailed guidance on the application of General Plan policies and goals to specific neighborhoods and districts in response to local issues which are not otherwise addressed in the General Plan. Historically, the neighborhood plans have served as an important vehicle for public participation in the planning process. While the General Plan has been periodically updated since the 80s, the Neighborhood Plans have not been updated since they were adopted.

Recommendations in the neighborhood plans include policies and strategies relating to land use, circulation, open space, public services, and design and neighborhood appearance. The plans include a preferred land use map that shows the desired land use and circulation pattern. Due to state legislation explained earlier, many of these policies are not enforceable due to their subjective nature. However, the neighborhood plans will serve as preliminary guidance for the development of objective residential development standards.

Zoning Ordinance
The General Plan land use diagram is largely implemented by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote public health, safety, general welfare and preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the city, by regulating the mix of land uses and development. The Zoning Ordinance includes development and design standards for all zoning districts that address:
• Lot requirements such as lot width, lot depth, lot coverage, and lot frontage, • Yard requirements such as front, rear and side setbacks, • Building height limits, and
• Other development and performance standards.

Hayward has several residential zoning districts including RS (Single Family Residential), RM (Medium Density Residential), RH (High Density Residential), RNP (Residential Natural Preservation), SMU (Sustainable Mixed-Use), RO (Residential Office), and MH (Mobile Home). Multifamily and mixed-use residential development is also permitted or conditionally permitted in certain commercial and agriculture zoning districts. The Hayward Residential Design Study will primarily focus on the following residential zoning districts for updates to the design standards:
• RS (Single-Family Residential) promotes the development of lower density residential units with large front and rear yards and smaller building heights. Per the adopted Zoning Ordinance, the only permitted residential type in this zoning district is detached single-family homes. Accessory dwelling units are allowed as a secondary use. However, as mentioned above, SB 9 now allows the development of up to four residential units (may be attached or detached) on each RS zoned lot.
• RNP (Residential Natural Preservation) allows for the development of area where topographic conditions, and compatibility with the preservation of major natural features are a major consideration in determining the suitability for construction. The only permitted residential type September 16, 2022 | 8
in this zoning district is detached single-family homes. Accessory dwelling units are allowed as a secondary use.
• RM (Medium Density Residential) promotes the development of medium density residential units with large front and rear yards, greater building heights and a larger variety of building forms. Permitted residential types in this zoning district are detached single-family homes, townhomes and condominiums, group homes and multi-family homes. Accessory dwelling units are allowed as secondary uses.
• RH (High Density Residential) promotes the development of high-density residential units with greater lot coverage and building heights, typically near commercial uses and transit. Permitted residential types in this zoning district are multi-family homes and small group homes. Accessory dwelling units are allowed as a secondary use.

Figure 2: Hayward Zoning Districts
September 16, 2022 | 9
Table 2: Summary of Key Development Standards by Zoning Districts Zone RS
Residential Single
Family
RNP
Residential Natural
Preservation
RM
Residential Medium
Density
RH
Residential High Density
Lot Requirements1
Min. Lot Size Interior: 5,000 sq. ft.

Corner: 5,914 sq. ft.
20,000 sq. ft. Interior: 5,000 sq. ft.

Corner: 5,914 sq. ft.

Townhouse lot: consistent
with building footprint
7,500 sq. ft.

Min. Lot Area per
dwelling unit
N/A N/A Minimum lot area per
dwelling unit shall be
based on the ratio of lot
frontage to lot depth,
ranging from 2,500 to
5,000 sq. ft. per unit
<60’ frontage + 1-story
bldg.: 2500 sq. ft.
60-120’ frontage + 2-story
bldg: 1500 sq. ft.
>120’ frontage + 3-story
bldg: 1,250
Townhouse lot: consistent
with building footprint
Min. Lot Frontage 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’
Min. Flag Lot
Frontage
One-Flag Lot: 22’
Two-Flag Lots: 28’
*Exceptions apply to
hillside lots
One-Flag Lot: 22’
Two-Flag Lots: 28’

N/A N/A
Min. Avg. Lot Width Interior Lot: 50’
Corner Lot: 60’
(excluding radius for
street return)
100’ Interior Lot: 60’
Corner Lot: 60’ (excluding
radius for street return)
60’
Min. Avg. Lot Depth 80’ 100’ 80’ 80’
Max. Lot Coverage 40% 30% 40% 65%
Yard Requirements1
Max. Rear Yard
Coverage
40% 40% when not in tree line N/A N/A
Min. Front Yard 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’
Min. Side Yard 5’ or 10% of the lot
width at front setback
line (whichever is
greater) up to a max. of
10’
30’ combined, with no
one side yard of less than
10’
5’ or 10% of the lot width at
front setback line
(whichever is greater) up to
a max. of 10’
5’ or 10% of the lot width at
front setback line
(whichever is greater) up to
a max. of 10’
Min. Side Street
Yard
10’ 10’ 10’ 10’
Min. Rear Yard 20’ 20’ or 30’ from tree line 20’ 20’
September 16, 2022 | 10
Zone RS RNP RM RH
Parking Spaces
Location Parking spaces shall
not be located within
required front yard or
side street yard setback
or within 5 feet of any
side or rear yard
property line
Parking spaces shall not
be located within required
front yard or side street
yard setback or within 5
feet of any side or rear
yard property line
Off-street parking areas not
located under buildings
shall be located behind the
primary building(s)
Parking spaces shall not be
located within required
front yard or side street
yard setback or within 5
feet of any side or rear yard
property line
Parking spaces shall be
setback 7 feet to a property
line or primary building if a
2-foot vehicular overhang is
used, or 7 feet 6 inches if a
2-foot 6-inch vehicular
overhang is used.

Parking spaces shall not be
located further than 200
feet from the dwelling unit
they are required to serve
Off-street parking areas not
located under buildings
shall be located behind the
primary building(s)
Parking spaces shall not be
located within required
front yard or side street
yard setback or within 5
feet of any side or rear yard
property line
Parking spaces shall be
setback 7 feet to a property
line or primary building if a
2-foot vehicular overhang is
used, or 7 feet 6 inches if a
2-foot 6-inch vehicular
overhang is used.

Parking spaces shall not be
located further than 200
feet from the dwelling unit
they are required to serve
Min. Parking
Dimensions
Enclosed Garage:
11’ wide x 19’ deep for
one space
11’ wide x 38’ deep for
two tandem spaces
20’ wide x 19’ deep for
two side-by-side spaces
Enclosed Garage:
11’ wide x 19’ deep for
one space
11’ wide x 38’ deep for
two tandem spaces
20’ wide x 19’ deep for
two side-by-side spaces
Standard car-parking
spaces:
9’ wide x 19’ deep
Standard car-parking
spaces:
9’ wide x 19’ deep
Min. Dimensions for
Garage Door
8’ for one-car garage
16’ for two-car garage
8’ for one-car garage
16’ for two-car garage
8’ for one-car garage
16’ for two-car garage
8’ for one-car garage
16’ for two-car garage
Unobstructed
vertical clearance
7 ‘ 7 ‘ 7 ‘ 7 ‘
Height Limit
Max. Bldg. Height 30’ 30’ 40’ 40’
Max. Accessory
Bldg. Ht. 14’ and 1 story
ADU: 16’
14’ and 1 story
ADU: 16’
14’ and 1 story
ADU: 16’
14’ and 1 story
ADU: 16’
Max. Ht. For Fences,
Hedges, Walls Front and Side Street
Yard: 4’
Side and Rear Yard: 6’
Front and Side Street
Yard: 4’
Side and Rear Yard: 6’
Front and Side Street Yard:
4’
Side and Rear Yard: 6’
Front and Side Street Yard:
4’
Side and Rear Yard: 6’
September 16, 2022 | 11
Zone RS RNP RM RH
Landscaping
Landscaping Min. 15-gallon size or
larger street tree
planted within required
front and side street
yard setbacks. (Species
to be approved by
Planning Director).

For lot width > 50’ or
side street yard >50’
one street tree to be
planted for every 50’ of
frontage.

For subdivisions, all
front and side street
yards shall be
landscaped; require
landscape and irrigation
plans to be approved by
Planning Director
Min. 15-gallon size or
larger street tree planted
within required front and
side street yard setbacks.
(Species to be approved
by Planning Director).

For lot width > 50’ or side
street yard >50’ one
street tree to be planted
for every 50’ of frontage.

For subdivisions, all front
and side yards shall be
landscaped; require
landscape and irrigation
plans to be approved by
Planning Director
All required yard areas and
other areas not utilized for
structures or paving shall
be landscaped unless
otherwise authorized.

Water conserving planting
shall be used.

Masonry walls, solid
building walls, trash
enclosures and fences
shall be landscaped with
continuous shrubs or vines.

All required yard areas and
other areas not utilized for
structures or paving shall
be landscaped unless
otherwise authorized.

Water conserving planting
shall be used.

Masonry walls, solid
building walls, trash
enclosures and fences
shall be landscaped with
continuous shrubs or vines.

Open Space Requirements
General
Requirementsin
square feet (sq. ft.)
N/A N/A For multi-family
developments of four or
more dwelling units:

Min. 350 sq. ft of usable
open space per dwelling
unit in a building with three
stories or less.

Min. 150 sq. ft. of usable
open space per dwelling
unit in a building with more
than three stories.

Min. 100 sq. ft. of the total
required open space per
dwelling unit shall be used
for group open space.

For multi-family
developments of four or
more dwelling units:

Min. 350 sq. ft of usable
open space per dwelling
unit in a building with three
stories or less.

Min. 150 sq. ft. of usable
open space per dwelling
unit in a building with more
than three stories.

Min. 100 sq. ft. of the total
required open space per
dwelling unit shall be used
for group open spac.

Group Open space N/A N/A Min. 400 sq. ft of exterior
group open space in a
rectangular shape with
min. dimension of 20’ on
any side.

Shall have a slope of 5% or
less.

Shall be centrally located.

Shall not include required
yard space.

Min. 400 sq. ft of exterior
group open space in a
rectangular shape with
min. dimension of 20’ on
any side.

Shall have a slope of 5% or
less.

Shall be centrally located.

Shall not include required
yard space.

Private Open Space N/A N/A Private ground level open
space shall not include
required front or side street
yard.

Ground-level open space
shall be screened from
Private ground level open
space shall not include
required front or side street
yard.

Ground-level open space
shall be screened from
September 16, 2022 | 12
public view by fencing or
landscaping.

Ground-level space shall be
min. 100 sq. ft. in area in a
rectangular shape with a
min. dimension of 10’ on
any side.

Above-ground space shall
be min. 60 sq. ft in area in
a rectangular shape with a
min. dimension of 6’ on any
side.

Above-ground space may
encroach 5’ into required
rear yard and shall not be
less than 10’ from rear
property line.

Private usable open space
meeting the above criteria
shall count as double
toward the open space
requirement.
public view by fencing or
landscaping.

Ground-level space shall be
min. 100 sq. ft. in area in a
rectangular shape with a
min. dimension of 10’ on
any side.

Above-ground space shall
be min. 60 sq. ft in area in
a rectangular shape with a
min. dimension of 6’ on any
side.

Above-ground space may
encroach 5’ into required
rear yard and shall not be
less than 10’ from rear
property line.

Private usable open space
meeting the above criteria
shall count as double
toward the open space
requirement.

1. The Zoning Ordinance also has a number of Combining Districts, which serve to augment the minimum lot size, minimum lot area, minimum average lot width and/or yard requirements of the underlying zoning district.

For all four of these districts, new residential developments are typically subject to a discretionary Site Plan Review process prior to issuance of a Building Permit. However, the Planning Director may waive Site Plan Review if the proposed improvements are minor in nature, will not materially alter the appearance or character of the property or area and is compatible with City policies, standards, and guidelines.

Off-Street Parking Regulations
The Hayward Municipal Code establishes on-site parking regulations for all use types with the intent of ensuring adequate amounts of parking. Determining the appropriate amount of parking is important in achieving a desired scale of development, ensuring an engaging street frontage, and reducing construction costs. Additionally planning for alternate transportation choices such as transit, shuttles, walking, biking, ride-shares and shared micro-mobility such as scooters, reduces dependence on personal vehicle ownership and reduces the need for dedicating prime real estate to parking use. All these factors are important considerations when encouraging residential infill development. The table below summarizes current off-street parking requirements for residential developments in Hayward.

September 16, 2022 | 13
Table 3: Summary of Parking Requirements
Uses Parking spaces Required
Single Family Dwellings 2 covered spaces per dwelling unit If a lot abuts a public or private street that has no
parking lane on either side of the street or is posted for no parking on both sides of the street.
2 covered spaces per dwelling unit plus 2 open spaces per dwelling unit, which shall not block access to the covered parking.

If a dwelling with a single car garage was built prior to March 24, 1959
1 covered space per dwelling unit
Multiple-Family Dwellings
Studio 1.0 covered and 0.50 open spaces per dwelling unit One-bedroom 1.0 covered and 0.70 open spaces per dwelling unit Two or more bedrooms 1.0 covered and 1.10 open spaces per dwelling unit Mission Boulevard Code
The Mission Boulevard Code, adopted from 2011 to 2014 and updated in 2020, was created to facilitate urban design, transit orientation, walkability, higher densities, and mixed uses, in future development along and near Mission Boulevard.

The Code applies to all land uses, subdivisions, and development within the Mission Boulevard Code Area, extending from Rose Street to Smalley Avenue and from Jackson Street to Arrowhead Way.

Standards in this Code supersede the Hayward Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code unless otherwise specified.

September 16, 2022 | 14
Figure 3: Mission Boulevard Code Area
The Mission Boulevard Code has three districts that allow residential development. These zones and some of their measurable design development standards are as stated below:
a. Mission Boulevard Corridor Neighborhood (MB-CN) Zone • Mixed-use neighborhood environment with moderate intensity, medium-scale residential uses • Density range: 17.5 to 35 du/ac. 55 du/ac may be allowed on certain sites with Major Site Plan Review.
• Development standards include 18’ minimum lot widths, 80 percent maximum lot coverage, a minimum of 15 percent of lot area shall be landscaped and a minimum of 150 sf of open space per unit.
b. Mission Boulevard Neighborhood Node (MB-NN) Zone
• Vibrant, urban neighborhood serving node supporting mixed-use infill development. • Density range: 17.5 to 35 du/ac. 65 du/ac may be allowed on certain sites with Major Site Plan Review.
• Development standards include 18’ minimum lot widths, 80 percent maximum lot coverage a minimum of 10 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped and a minimum of 100 sf of open space per unit.

September 16, 2022 | 15
c. Mission Boulevard-Corridor Center (MB-CC) Zone
• Transit-oriented mixed-use, urban center with high-intensity residential uses • Density range: 35 to 55 du/ac. 75 du/ac may be allowed on certain sites with Major Site Plan Review. Properties close to BART are modified to allow for an increase in residential density and height.
• Site Planning includes 18’ minimum lot widths, 90 percent maximum lot coverage minimum of 10 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped and a minimum of 100 sf of open space per unit.

Building Form Standards:

For all the zones, the building form standards are provided with measurable regulations highlighting:
• Allowable stories and heights,
• Building setbacks,
• Building depths, Accessory structure square footages and setbacks, and • Ground floor specifications.

Frontage Standards:

For all the zones, the frontage standards regulate:
• The design of primary and secondary frontages.
• Percentage of glazing with clear glass on first story facades for non- residential uses and residential common areas.
• Façade standards for frontage types such as: stoop, forecourt, dooryard, maker shopfront, shopfront, terrace, and gallery
In addition to the above Zones, the Mission Boulevard Code includes the following Overlay Zones:

1. TOD Overlays. Properties within close proximity to public transit centers, including BART, as identified on the Mission Boulevard Code, are modified to allow for an increase in residential density and adjusted height regulations.

2. Commercial Overlay #1. Properties designated with a Commercial Overlay Zone 1 designation shall not be developed with residential units on the ground floor. Uses associated with the residential use, such as leasing office, community space, amenities, etc., are allowed on the ground floor. This requirement may be adjusted through the Major Site Plan Review process.

3. Commercial Overlay #2. Properties designated with a Commercial Overlay Zone 2 designation shall not be developed with ground floor residential units along the primary street frontage unless permitted with a conditional use permit.

This code also includes supplemental standards for the development of each frontage type, civic space type, and related general standards within each zone. The supplemental standards apply to all proposed development within the code area and must be considered in combination with the standards for each zone.

The parking standards in this code are applied in conjunction with the Off-street Parking Regulations of the Hayward Municipal Code, with some key exceptions. The Mission Boulevard Code does not establish September 16, 2022 | 16
a minimum requirement for parking, instead, a parking maximum is established, which is generally lower than the minimum off-street parking regulations of the Hayward Municipal Code.

Since the Mission Boulevard Code was recently updated and already includes a number of detailed objective standards, the Residential Design Study will have a lighter focus on this area. Updates to existing standards or the incorporation of new standards will be necessary only if any discrepancies or deficiencies are identified.

Downtown Hayward Specific Plan and Development Code
The Downtown Hayward Specific Plan and Development Code, adopted in 2019, provides a strategy to achieve the community’s vision of a resilient, safe, attractive, and vibrant Downtown. The Plan guides initiatives and investments that capitalize on the City’s unique assets, such as the Downtown Hayward BART station; parks, creek and public gardens; compact street grid; historic buildings; and extensive public art.

The Downtown Development Code applies to new development and improvements/modifications to existing development in Downtown, an area that encompasses 320 acres, bounded loosely by Grand Street to the west, E Street to the south, 3rd Street to the east, and Hazel Avenue to the north.

The Specific Plan establishes five zones to provide a mix of uses and intensity of development that implement the vision and intent of the Downtown Specific Plan. These zones are:
a. Neighborhood Edge (NE Zone)
• Walkable urban neighborhood with small-to-medium-size buildings with lower-intensity housing developments.
• Allowable building forms are carriage buildings, detached houses, duplexes, a cottage court, and small multiplex buildings.
• Maximum building height of primary buildings up to 2 ½ stories (35 feet) • Minimum lot widths range from 35-75 feet; maximum lot widths range from 75-150 feet. • Minimum lot depths range from 80-100 feet.
• Maximum lot coverage is 60%.
b. Neighborhood General (NG Zone)
• Walkable urban neighborhood with small-to-medium-footprint, moderate-intensity, medium scale buildings.
• Allowable building forms are houses, rowhouses, small multiplexes, and courtyard buildings. • Maximum building height of primary buildings up to 3 ½ stories (45 feet) • Minimum lot widths range from 18-100 feet; maximum lot widths, where specified, range from 40-150 feet.
• Minimum lot depths, where specified, range from 80-100 feet; a maximum lot depth is only specified for courtyard building types at 150 feet.
• Maximum lot coverage is 70%.
c. Urban Neighborhood (UN Zone), Urban Neighborhood – Limited (UN–L) September 16, 2022 | 17
• Mix of residential and commercial uses. It is characterized by large house-scale and block-scale buildings with moderate-intensity of housing developments. • Allowable building forms are, large multiplex buildings, rowhouses, a courtyard building, a stacked flats building and a lined building.
• Maximum building height of primary building up to 5 stories (70 feet) • Minimum lot widths, where specified, range from 18-100 feet; maximum lot widths, where specified range from 50-320 feet.
• Minimum lot depths, where specified, range from 100-200 feet; maximum lot depths, where specified, range from 150-420 feet
• Maximum lot coverage is 75%.

The Urban Neighborhood – Limited (UN-L) zone is a sub-zone to UN Zone and provides the same building form, but it is restricted in allowed uses, by not permitting Live/Work and Senior Housing. d. Downtown Main Street (DT-MS Zone)
• The DT-MS zone is comprised of a mix of uses with ground-floor commercial and office and/or residential on upper stories, and is characterized by block-scale buildings with moderate to highintensity housing developments. • Allowable building forms include main street and lined buildings. • Maximum building height of primary building up to 7 stories (85 feet) • Maximum lot widths range from 200-400 feet.
• Minimum lot depths range from 100-400 feet.
• Maximum lot coverage is 95%.
e. Urban Center (UC Zone)
• The general use in UC zone is mix of uses with primarily office and/or residential, ground-floor commercial where required, and it is characterized by block-scale buildings with moderateintensity of housing developments. • Allowable building forms include courtyard buildings, stacked flats buildings, lined buildings and mid-rise buildings.
• Maximum building height of primary building up to 11 stories (124 feet) • Maximum lot widths range from 250-400 feet.
• Minimum lot depths, where specified, range from 100-150 feet; maximum lot depths are only specified for lined and mid-rise buildings at 400 feet. • Maximum lot coverage is 95%.

Each zone includes development standards focused on site planning, building form and frontage.

Building form standards:

For all the zones, the building form standards are provided with measurable regulations highlighting:
• Allowable stories and heights
• Ground floor and upper floor ceiling heights and ground floor finish levels • Building massing including widths and depths
• Building setbacks and step backs in certain cases
September 16, 2022 | 18
• Building footprints
• Architectural elements and façade articulation requirements, including oriels Frontage standards:

For all the zones, the frontage standards regulate:
• The design of primary and secondary frontages.
• Façade standards for frontage types such as: stoop, forecourt, dooryard, maker shopfront, shopfront, terrace, and gallery.

The parking standards in this Code reduce the required number of spaces to just one per residential unit as compared to the parking requirements of 1.5-2.1 spaces per unit, depending on bedroom count, in the Off-Street Parking Regulations of the Hayward Municipal Code.

The Downtown Hayward Development Code was also recently updated and includes detailed objective standards. Therefore, the Residential Design Study will have a lighter focus on this area. Updates to existing standards or writing new standards will be necessary only if any discrepancies or deficiencies are identified.

Figure 4: Downtown Hayward Specific Plan Area
September 16, 2022 | 19
City of Hayward Design Guidelines
The City of Hayward Design Guidelines, adopted in 1993, identify good design elements that are essential to enhancing the appearance and livability of Hayward. They are meant to be flexible to respond to the unique set of circumstances of each site and type of development and to balance different design elements.

Applicability: The Hayward Design Guidelines provide general design considerations that apply to all development in the city, with specific guidance for specific land uses and for specific places. The Hayward Design Guidelines serve as a supplement to the development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance for specific zoning districts. However, due to state legislation explained earlier, many of these guidelines are not enforceable due to their subjective nature.

General Guidelines: The general citywide guidelines address site planning, circulation, architectural design, and landscape design, which are common to all types of development.

Site planning guidelines address site design features including site grading, solar access, creek setbacks, landscaping, outdoor spaces, and transitions between uses. These are important considerations to ensure good living environments without undesirable environmental effects. They also provide guidance on street design for vehicular and pedestrian circulation, parking, loading access, etc. to ensure functional and cohesive streetscapes.

The architectural design considerations emphasize compatibility of new development with existing development, natural features, and or specific/area plans. They provide guidance on building form, façade design, materials and colors, entries and awnings, roofs, and signage. The Guidelines also include general considerations for landscape design, site furnishings, and lighting.

As noted previously, the general design guidelines are not currently “objective” under State law.

However, they do represent good design principles that could be a basis for the development of objective residential design standards.

Land Use Specific Guidelines: Within the design guidelines, there are specific guidelines for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, but this background report summarizes only those guidelines that are relevant to the Residential Design Study.

The residential design guidelines address different housing types, subdivision street patterns, access, view protection, parking, and open space. They also address architectural features such as bulk, rooflines, entries, fenestration, second story additions, street frontages, façade articulation, and privacy.

Many guidelines are good design principles without measurable parameters and therefore leave room for subjective interpretation. There are also some measurable criteria that could be adjusted to become objective development standards, including the following:
• In single-family detached homes, limit garages to less than 50 percent of structure frontage in order to maintain living spaces overlooking the street. • Limit percentage of the total site area paved for streets, parking drives, parking courts, or access roads to approximately 25 percent (not including parking located beneath dwelling units).

September 16, 2022 | 20
• Maintain privacy of individual units. Facing living room windows should generally be at least 35' apart to provide at least one view window. Avoid second-floor views into adjoining ground-level patios.
• Design decks carefully as they affect the light admitted to lower levels of building and neighbors' privacy. Avoid placing decks within 15 feet of a property line that abuts other residences.

Hillside Design and Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines The Hillside Design and Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines are intended to implement General Plan policies and strategies pertaining to hillside development; promote quality architectural, landscape, site and street design that will enhance the aesthetic character of the hillside setting; protect and preserve important environmental resources and significant natural features in the hills; and ensure that hillside development incorporates public safety measures relating to the fire defensibility and access.

Applicability: The guidelines are separated into two parts: Hillside Design Guidelines and Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. The guidelines apply to development in the Hayward Hills, generally east of Mission Boulevard and south of D Street. These guidelines supplement the City of Hayward Design Review Guidelines and other City standards and regulations. As with the Hayward Design Guidelines, due to state legislation explained earlier, some of these guidelines are not enforceable due to their subjective nature.

Guidelines: Part one of the guidelines address development features including street design, sidewalk and planter strips, driveways, ridgelines, cluster home development, setbacks from open space areas to maintain fire breaks, building design considerations on slopes of 15 percent or greater, grading, landscaping, and signage.

Part two of the guidelines include building construction standards for fire protection, a fuel management program, and identification of fuel management sites.

The Hillside Design and Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines provide good design principles combined with specific measurable standards especially focused on setbacks, buffers and building on slopes.

There is an opportunity to adjust certain other guidelines to become measurable standards that could be included in the objective standards developed through this project.

B. APPROACHING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND A SUMMARY OF CASE

STUDIES
The intent of creating objective development and design standards is to provide applicants and review authorities with clear requirements that are predictable and easy to interpret. The following are highlevel categories of building development that may be regulated by objective standards.

September 16, 2022 | 21
Subject Potential Intent of Standards
Site Design
Building Orientation and
Placement
• Create a coherent and active interface between private development and the public realm. • Ensure that building frontages are compatible with nearby buildings. • Optimize building orientation for thermal comfort, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation.

Access, Parking and
Loading
• Provide facilities for pedestrians, vehicles, cyclists, and transit users to safely and efficiently access and circulate both within a site and in the surrounding context. • Ensure that loading and service areas are integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience. • Ensure that parking is screened from the street so that its visual presence is limited.

Commercial/Office
Location
• Allowance or requirement for commercial uses on ground floor.

Open Space and
Common Areas
• Provide private and common shared open space with usable dimensions in a secure environment with well-located amenities.

Landscaping • Incorporate sustainable practices like the use of native planting, maximizing on-site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving, and creating comfortable microclimates and reduction of heat island effects through planting. • Dense landscaping and/or architectural treatments shall be provided to screen unattractive views and features such as storage areas, trash enclosures, freeway structures, transformers, generators, and other similar elements.

Lighting • Ensure that public areas of buildings are lit for wayfinding and safety while minimizing impacts of glare and light pollution.

Fencing • Ensure that fencing along street frontage serves the function of demarcating public and private realm without blocking visibility.
• Enable appropriately scaled fencing along private property boundaries.

Building Form
Building Massing and
Modulation
• Design buildings that are compatible with surrounding areas in terms of height, scale, and massing. Massing should create a human-scale environment. • Break up large building volumes with modulation in the form of upper floor projections and recesses, vertical recesses etc.

Building Setback and
Step backs
• Require setbacks to provide a hardscape and/or landscaped area to create a transition between public and private space.
• Provide side and rear setbacks and/or upper story step backs to create a compatible relationship with adjacent lower density residential development.

Roof Articulation • Articulate roof forms to create an interesting skyline using combination of different roof forms including but not limited to flat, gables, pitched roofs, and other design strategies such as variations in roof and parapet heights.

Frontage
Ground Floor • Provide percentage of glazing with clear glass on the first story facades for non- residential uses and common areas for residential.

Building Entryways • Create a clear sense of entry and connection to the street. • Provide privacy and separation using setback or height.

Façade Design • Create cohesive building facades with human-scaled details that incorporate textures, colors, and other details.
• Taller buildings to have clearly distinguishable ground, middle and top floor to help create a more human scale.
• Variation in horizontal and/or vertical projections such as shading and weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar to create interest.

Table 4: Summary of Categories typically addressed by Objective Standards September 16, 2022 | 22
Learning from Peer Cities
Many cities in the Bay Area are preparing objective development and design standards in response to state legislation. The table below summarizes approaches taken by a range of Bay Area jurisdictions where objective standards have been adopted. The table considers two features of objective standards in particular. First, what format has been used for the standards? Have they been incorporated as amended sections throughout the Zoning Ordinance or adopted as a standalone ordinance or chapter? Second, what types of development are the objective standards applied to? In all cases, the objective standards apply to multifamily residential and mixed-use development. The table also provides general notes on each of the case study. These notes indicate aspects of the objective standards that are distinctive and may represent an approach that could be taken by Hayward. • Express a vertical rhythm and pattern that reflects the size and scale of a housing unit and/or individual rooms and spaces.

Materials • Use high quality, durable, sustainable, and attractive materials that exhibit a sense of permanence and contribute to the aesthetic quality of the development and to the urban design fabric of the community.

Balconies, Patios, and
Porches
• Private open spaces should be designed with usable dimensions to provide areas of outdoor enjoyment in residential development.

September 16, 2022 | 23
City Format Applicability Notes Reference Links
City of
Alameda
Supplement
the zoning
ordinance
• Multi-family Residential
• Mixed-use Residential
• Has detailed architectural
element requirements in a
checklist format for
development.

City of Alameda - File #: 2020-
7700 (legistar.com)
City of
San
Leandro
Code
amendment.

Has included
specific
changes to
existing code
to include
objective
standards.
• Mixed-use Residential
• Multi-family Residential
• Excludes the B-TOD
District which has its own
Specific Plan and design
standards
• Objective standards apply to
the ground level treatments,
building design, and open
space that are private,
common, and publicly
accessible.
• Design standards and
explained using illustrations
and text.

City of El
Cerrito
Standalone • Multi-Family Residential,
• Mixed-Use Residential
San Pablo Avenue Form-based
code
https://www.elcerrito.org/DocumentCenter/Vie
w/17518/2_Form-Based-Code071822
Marin
County
Streamlining
review
process.

Supplement to
the zoning
code.
• Mixed-use Residential
• Multi-family Residential
• Form-based code,
• Very detailed approach with
extensive architectural design
inputs.
https://www.marincounty.org/d
epts/cd/divisions/planning/lon
g-range-planninginitiatives/objective-design-anddevelopment-standards City of
Gilroy
Supplement to
development
regulations.
• Mixed-use Residential
• Multi-family Residential
• Standards regulate site and
structure design only. Projects
must also comply with all
applicable building permit
requirements, zoning code
requirements, and
development standards such
as height, setbacks, floor area
ratio, etc.
• Has used illustrations to
explain regulatory design
elements and design
standards.
• Very detailed approach with
extensive architectural design
inputs.
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/90
5/Objective-Design-Standards
City of
Walnut
Creek
Addendum to
the Design
Review
Guidelines.

These are
mandatory for
projects
seeking
streamlining
pursuant to
state law.
• Single-Family Residential
requiring Design Review,
• Multi-Family Residential,
• Mixed-Use Residential
• One of the few cities to create
standards for single family
housing.
• Includes a simple checklist for
application and evaluation.
• If a project applicant seeks
exceptions or modifications to
the Objective Design
Standards, the project
becomes subject to the
discretionary Design Review
process.
https://www.walnutcreek.org/home/showpublished
document/26524/637613446
881170000
https://www.walnutcreek.org/home/showpublished
document/26522/637613446
840870000
Table 5: Selected Cities with Adopted Objective Standards September 16, 2022 | 24
Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area including Los Gatos, San Carlos, Palo Alto and Santa Cruz are in the process of adopting of their Objective Development and Design Standards.

Conclusion
State housing laws increasingly rely on project compliance with objective design standards to streamline approval of housing projects and boost housing production. Therefore, the Hayward Residential Design Study will focus on updating the city’s residential development standards to make them “objective” per State law by including measurable and enforceable parameters.

The Study will primarily focus on the below residential districts in the Zoning Ordinance:
• RS (Single-Family Residential)
• RNP (Residential Natural Preservation)
• RM (Medium Density Residential)
• RH (High Density Residential)
There may be minor updates to the Mission Boulevard Code and the Downtown Hayward Specific Plan and Code to bring them in alignment with updates to the other residential zoning districts and to comply with current State requirements. Many of the city’s planning documents summarized in this report have good design guidelines based on best practices for site planning and building design, which will be considered in the Residential Design study but will be written in an objective manner. Examples from peer cities indicate different approaches to Objective Development and Design Standards, which can range from targeted updates to the Zoning Ordinance, to a comprehensive update to residential design standards in a stand-alone document that works in conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance.

Based on the findings of the background review, analysis and community input received from the project’s outreach events, interactive web map and survey, and a series of walking workshops (“walkshops”), the project team will identify the design issues to be addressed in residential design standards of single family, multi-family, and mixed-use residential projects. This prioritization will inform the level of detail employed and the overall approach to the development of new objective standards that reflect community priorities, while making them easy for applicants to understand and staff to administer.

City Format Applicability Notes Reference Links
City of
San Jose
Supplement to
the City
documents
and
regulations.
• Mixed-use Residential
• Multi-family Residential
Not Applicable to:
• Single-family residences
• Rehabilitation,
modifications, or addition
to historic buildings or
adaptive reuse of historic
buildings; and
• Downtown San José,
including the Diridon
Station Area
• Design standards are
accompanied by design
guidelines and are graphic/
illustrations rich.
• The section on specific
development types provides
detailed examples of how to
apply Design Standards and
Guidelines as ‘roadmaps’ for
typical development
categories, including
townhomes, offices, and
warehouses.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Ho
me/ShowDocument?id=69148

Hayward City CouncilOctober 11, 2022

Hayward City Council
October 11, 2022